Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 10 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list. Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to the objectives of Wikipedia may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Support:

1. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Carcharoth (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. T. Canens (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. AGK [•] 12:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Worm^TT(talk) 12:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Neutral point of view and undue weight

2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, poor sources, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle.

Support:

1. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Carcharoth (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. T. Canens (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. AGK [•] 12:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Worm^TT(talk) 12:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Fair criticism and personal attacks

3) Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Open discussion is encouraged in every area of the encyclopedia as it is only by discussion that cooperation is possible. However, certain types of discourse – in particular, personal attacks – are not only discouraged but forbidden because they create a toxic atmosphere and thwart the building of consensus. For this reason, editors are expected to comment on the edits, not on the editor. Editors with concerns about other editors should use the community's dispute resolution processes calmly and civilly to resolve their differences rather than repeatedly engaging in strident personalised criticism in multiple forums. Editors who are unable to resolve their differences should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them and, in extreme cases, may be directed to do so.

Support:

1. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Carcharoth (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. T. Canens (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. AGK [•] 12:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Worm^TT(talk) 12:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Edit warring

4) Edit warring is not an acceptable editing practice, whether the three-revert rule is broken or not. Editors are expected to engage in calm discussion and if necessary dispute resolution rather than making repeated reverts of disputed content.

Support:

1. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Carcharoth (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. T. Canens (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. AGK [•] 12:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Worm^TT(talk) 12:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Single-purpose accounts

5) Single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.

Support:

1. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Carcharoth (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. T. Canens (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. AGK [•] 12:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Worm^TT(talk) 12:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Locus of dispute

1) The focus of the dispute is broadly over the treatment of Landmark Worldwide, and more specifically whether or not Landmark is a new religious movement. The dispute has been characterized by accusations of collusion, arguments over consensus, and bad faith from vested contributors.

Support:

1. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. (As a possible copyedit, I suggest changing "more specifically" to "including," as the question of whether Landmark should be categorized as an NRM is only part of the overall dispute, and arguably not the most significant part.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Carcharoth (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. AGK [•] 12:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worm^TT(talk) 12:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. T. Canens (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Sourcing for Landmark Worldwide

2) As discussed by editors providing evidence in this arbitration case, rigorous academic sources for the topic are few and far between,[1] meaning claims more often rest on weaker sources or claims from the organization in question.

Support:

1. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   In response to Astynax's comments on talk, I would again reiterate my agreement with this statement. The scope of this case deals with something that is, compared to other fields, distinctly lacking in high-quality sources that deal primarily with Landmark (one of the reasons that claims of misusing a combination of sources, or using lower-quality sources, have been the subject of contention and evidence in this case.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. This actually helps explain the wider background to the case – similar to findings adopted in Scientology – so I am not sure why we would omit it. It's not vital, but it also isn't irrelevant. AGK [•] 12:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. I support this. The statement is factual and does help explain the background and how we've got into this situation. Worm^TT(talk) 12:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per AGK and Worm. T. Canens (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per AGK GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Striking based on comments on proposed talk, and comments from arbs below on relevance. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Missed voting on this. Carcharoth (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I don't see any benefit to supporting or opposing this finding. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Very mixed feelings so I wind up here. There may or may not be lots of sources on various different subjects, but we use the best sources we can. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

While there is support for this statement, I'm not sure where it takes us in the decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same as brad. NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the statement, but there are many organisations for which rigorous academic sources are few and far between. That doesn't make it impossible to write articles, but it does usually mean that it is best to keep the articles factual and not have them be a vehicle for opinions and arguments. This appears to be a case where all those involved need to be topic banned to allow others to come in and rewrite the articles properly. The problem is that other people coming in to rewrite the articles tends not to actually happen. Carcharoth (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Astynax and tendentious editing

3) Astynax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has tendentiously edited and ignored consensus when it did not suit them.[2]

Support:

1. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. I accept my colleagues' comments in opposing, but this party still contributed to the deterioration of relations in this dispute. That needs recorded. AGK [•] 12:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. I support this. I do agree with my colleagues below that there are insufficient diffs, but reading over Astynax's editting history I believe that he has acted in an underlying tendentious manner. Worm^TT(talk) 13:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Weakly. T. Canens (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per NYB and others below. I'd need more than the evidence presented so far to support such a finding. Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. There has certainly been problematic editing on this article, as reflected in some of the evidence. However, I do not see enough evidence to blame the problems on any one specific editor or group of editors in an arbitration finding. The remedies therefore will have to be more general, but hopefully will help improve collaboration. We cannot expect that both "sides" of this dispute will ever really agree on the article content, and the real remedy is for some newcomers to step in who are not tied to either position in the real-world controversy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. More or less per Newyorkbrad. I'm not comfortable supporting this finding with such sparse evidence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. If only due to experience with case I just drafted, in this particular case assigning blame here might be undue. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Still reviewing evidence on this. That diff was inappropriate, as Astynax has acknowledged on talk, but it's a year old, so by itself I'm not sure it's enough for a finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to see more than one diff for this finding. Will paw through the evidence a bit more. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nwlaw63 and Tgeairn's contributions

4) Nwlaw63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Tgeairn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) largely operate as single purpose accounts in the subject area of Landmark Worldwide and related new religious movement discussions.[3] [4][5]

Support:

1. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. See comments below. Carcharoth (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. This finding does need fleshed out. AGK [•] 12:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. I can't support that these two individuals are both "single purpose accounts". Tgeairn has over 40k edits, there's no way that could be described as single purpose. Nwlaw63 also has clear interests outside Landmark/NRM. That's not to say a finding shouldn't exist with regard to these two users - but that being SPAs is not the right route. Worm^TT(talk) 13:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. SPA isn't the right characterization. T. Canens (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. In addition to my comment below, see my general comment on (3). Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

While there has certainly been some problematic editing, I don't see how we can categorize either of these accounts as SPAs given the large number and wide range of edits by both editors on other topics. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both this and the previous finding seem a little light on the supporting evidence. Surely more than one or two diffs were involved in persuading the drafters to come to these conclusions? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A look at the contributions of Nwlaw and Tgeairn demonstrate that their edits in the past few years are clustered; looking at the past edits from previous years, the editors resume editing to comment on Landmark issues, as well as a period of minor edits to unrelated subjects (Nwlaw63 adds comments to AfDs, such as the pattern here; Tgeairn, meanwhile, does recent changes patrol in a similar, most sustained pattern. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could support a finding along those lines, but that requires much more than what has been presented here for voting. Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As drafted, this finding is deficient. The first diff (to an evidence section) does not adequately demonstrate the assertion made in the finding. The other diffs are merely to the most recent 1000 contributions of these accounts. This is a moving target - if you want to show the 1000 edits from a set date, you need to include the date in the diff coding (example 1; example 2 - for the 1000 edits prior to 26 November 2014). This is basic diff presentation. It worries me that the drafting arbitrators didn't realise this. Carcharoth (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth, you need to help them fix this then. Drive-by criticism is not helpful. AGK [•] 12:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the contribution links per Carcharoth's suggestion Worm^TT(talk) 14:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WTT. AGK, there are 1000 contributions to go through for each of those two links. What do you think is the best way to flesh out this finding? Carcharoth (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my vote - I don't think going down the SPA route is the best option. If I'm honest, I'm struggling to see that these two are SPAs and even if they were it's not something to sanction on its own. What we need is a pattern of misbehaviour, or diffs of significant misbehaviour or the like. The entire dispute is basically a long running content dispute. There's been IDHT, reverting to remove and place information which isn't particularly well sourced, but in general I don't think that there are major voices who need to be removed. Worm^TT(talk) 09:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Discretionary sanctions

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for any edit about, and for all pages relating to, Landmark Worldwide.

Support:

1. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Equal preference with 1.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. the topic itself does seem in need of additional controls. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Second choice to 1.1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Second choice. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Despite not (yet) supporting any findings on specific editors, it is still clear that the topic area would benefit from a closer eye being kept on it. If we can find some way to encourage previously uninvolved editors from participating in this topic area, that would be ideal, though I know some editors run a mile from any topic under discretionary sanctions, so this may need some thought. Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Second choice. I think that the topic could manage without discretionary sanction and therefore prefer 1.1, but if that does not pass I'd rather we had DS than not even acknowledging the wider issues. Worm^TT(talk) 12:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. First choice. T. Canens (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. Second choice. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I actually disagree that discretionary sanctions are required here. Proposing 1.1. AGK [•] 12:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Future discretionary sanctions

1.1) The committee cautions the parties involved that standard discretionary sanctions may be authorised by the committee in future – for any edit about, and for all pages relating to, Landmark Worldwide – and by motion after application at a later time.

Support:

1. Proposed. Discretionary sanctions are an overreaction to this case, so it would be better (for a variety of reasons) to pave the way for them than to bring them in prematurely AGK [•] 12:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. First choice Worm^TT(talk) 12:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. First choice. Carcharoth (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. (Renumbered to enable cross-referencing.) Equal preference with 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Second choice. T. Canens (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. First choice to 1 GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. First choice. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Second choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Parties reminded

2) Parties to the case are reminded to base their arguments in reliable, independent sources and to discuss changes rather than revert on sight.

Support:

1. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. This is definitely needed. Carcharoth (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. AGK [•] 12:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Worm^TT(talk) 12:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. At a minimum. T. Canens (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Astynax topic-banned

3) Astynax is prohibited from editing Landmark Worldwide or pages relating to it, broadly construed, for a period of six months.

Support:

1. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. AGK [•] 12:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per finding. Worm^TT(talk) 13:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per my vote on the finding. May revisit this if the finding changes. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per comments on the associated finding. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. I'm opposing this remedy, but I trust that all editors in this area will edit in accordance with the principles set forth in this decision from now on if they choose to remain involved in the area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. T. Canens (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

While I certainly respect my fellow arbs and have no reason to doubt the sincerity of their view that this remedy and the others below are what is best for the project, I do not feel as if a compelling case is presented in the findings of fact to enact any user-specific remedies. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nwlaw63 topic-banned

4) Nwlaw63 is prohibited from editing Landmark Worldwide or pages relating to it, broadly construed, for a period of six months.

Support:

1. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. (Only if a conduct finding of fact passes in relation to this user.) AGK [•] 12:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per my vote on the finding. May revisit this if the finding changes. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. In the absence of a finding that I can support. T. Canens (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per comments on the associated finding. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Same comment as on remedy 3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Tgeairn topic-banned

5) Tgeairn is prohibited from editing Landmark Worldwide or pages relating to it, broadly construed, for a period of six months.

Support:

1. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. (Only if a conduct finding of fact passes in relation to this user.) AGK [•] 12:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per my vote on the finding. May revisit this if the finding changes. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. In the absence of a finding that I can support. T. Canens (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per comments on the associated finding. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per T Canens. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Same comment as on remedy 3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Not sure on this one. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional eyes invited

6) The Arbitration Committee urges that editors having no prior editing history on Landmark Worldwide and no strong views on the underlying controversy review and edit this article, helping to ensure that our policies governing neutral point of view and reliable sources are followed.

Support:

1. Proposed. While several editors have edited Landmark Worldwide problematically, after looking at this case over several weeks, there does not appear to be a basis for blaming, or sanctioning, one specific editor for the problem. But despite this project's overall faith in the collaborative editing model in which people of strongly different worldviews come to a consensus on article content, sometimes two groups of editors with opposed views simply cannot agree on all of the article content. What this article desperately needs is some newcomers; perhaps asking for help from a relevant wikiproject might help. I realize that this is a fairly generic remedy and does not lance the boil of the dispute that brought the case to arbitration, but unless the arbitrators are going to rewrite the article ourselves, this coupled with the actuality or threat of discretionary sanctions are what we have to work with. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Worth a shot, I guess. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sure, certainly no harm done. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. T. Canens (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Not too much meaning, but can't hurt either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Doubt it will work, but certainly agree. Worm^TT(talk) 11:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. AGK [•] 01:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

While I do not disagree with the sentiment here, I don't think this sort of thing is actually a remedy that does anything. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Comments:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

General

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 22:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Wikipedia	10	0	0		·
2	Neutral point of view and undue weight	10	0	0		·
3	Fair criticism and personal attacks	10	0	0		·
4	Edit warring	10	0	0		·
5	Single-purpose accounts	10	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Locus of dispute	10	0	0		·
2	Sourcing for Landmark Worldwide	6	2	1		·
3	Astynax and tendentious editing	5	5	0		Cannot pass
4	Nwlaw63 and Tgeairn's contributions	2	8	0		Cannot pass
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Discretionary sanctions	5	1	0		1	[1]
1.1	Future discretionary sanctions	8	0	0		·	[2]
2	Parties reminded	10	0	0		·
3	Astynax topic-banned	4	5	1		Cannot pass
4	Nwlaw63 topic-banned	2	6	0		Cannot pass	[3]
5	Tgeairn topic-banned	2	6	0		Cannot pass	[3]
6	Additional eyes invited	7	0	1		·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
None proposed

Notes

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nothing else to be done here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. AGK [•] 01:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments

The voting stage in this case has certainly lasted too long, but we can't close it yet, as right now we are passing no remedies at all. Hopefully that will soon be remedied. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]