This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

comment 1

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Me first (DaveRight). I will try to keep deadly serious, but bare with me, its not easy. It would help if NLPers came out straight and admitted how unscientific and new age NLP is. They keep denying the very existence of scientific research, even after lots of it is provided, and even deny the books are about the structure of magic and full of fluffy flakey stuff. If they took the stand that NLP is unashamedly new age, spiritually non judgmental, and ethically neutral, then the latter cricicisms would have less effect and they wouldn't have to go bananas looking for excuses or deleting the lot. They have all the excuses they need in the literature, and those are preemptive on the whole. Science is negative and critical, and that is the basis of the criticism section. That should work for starters. Cheers DaveRight 03:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't think the arbitration is addressing the root cause of the dispute. After following and participating in the discussion attached to the NLP article (and apparently performing "newsnet style spamming", whatever that is) for many months it appears that the dispute is non-justiciable. The dispute is non-justiciable because the pro-NLP position is fundamentally predicated on a rejection of the institution and findings of science and this rejection is implicit and tacit. The tacitness of the rejection permits the pro-NLP to assume a disposition towards scientific evidence that is convenient at a particular moment. The consensus of scientific opinion is that NLP is ineffective, lacking in evidentiary support and theoretically unsubstantiated. It's as simple as that. The status of the scientists that have published critiques of NLP is unmatched by the few scientists that have expressed a favourable opinion of NLP. It is not the case that scientific and clinical opinion is divided on the matter of the efficacy and validity of NLP. Nor is it the case that the institution of science is still evaluating NLP and no conclusions are as yet available. The status of NLP vis-a-vis science has been established. Any arbitration regarding this is misguided. The heart of the contention is that the NLP promoters find the conclusions of science -- which are non-negotiable --regarding NLP to be unacceptable. Wikipedia policy specifies a pro-science bias. The NLP article should reflect this. The conflict on Wikipedia is not representative of any conflict amongst scientists. As far as most scientists are concerened NLP is a discredited fad. There is no recent primary research into NLP, all of the recent citations are either literature reviews or meta-analyses. NLP as an area of scientific interest is dead. The research stopped in the 90s because the preponderance of results were negative and advances in neurology, psycholinguistics, exprimental psychology and biological psychiatry provided a theoretical challenge to the principles, models and techniques of NLP. The anti-NLP camp (HeadleyDown, DaveRight et al) have attempted to do nothing more than present the entirely uncontroversial (amongst scientists and clinicians) results of scientific inquiry into NLP. Pretending that NLP is an alternative/experimental branch of mainstream psychology or that it is a nascent science will perpetuate the current conflict. The only way forward is for the NLP promoters to embrace the social constructivist/post-modernist orientation of NLP as specified by Bandler and Grinder in the early texts and revived in Grinder and Bostic-St Clair's "Whispering". NLP is entirely irreconcilable with science, it has its own peculiar method of enquiry, its own conception of empirical evidence and it not only ignores the fruits of science it denigrates them. NLP offers its own peculiar Weltanschauung just like Scientology and Magick offer theirs. NLP can only be understood (with all its peculiarities) if it is conceived of as a psychological quasi-religion (this is how numerous authorities have in fact characterised it). There is an instructive analogy to be found in the "Intelligent Design" (ID) controversy. The resolution of the ID dispute is to be found (and soon will be found) in a legal pronouncement that ID is not science, has nothing to do with science and that it is best understood as an aspect of theism. flavius 15:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

minimum of one year probation

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I request that arbcom consider as a minimum a one-year probation for HeadleyDown, JPLogan, DaveRight, AliceDeGrey, and BookMain on any article concerning NLP or any other topic considered to be in the "self-help" or "therapeutic" category. FuelWagon 18:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Locus of dispute

1) Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is the focus of this ongoing dispute between advocates of NLP and sceptics marked by point of view editing, edit warring and personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Bones of contention

1.1) Disputed language includes references to "new age" [1] and dianetics [].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comaze

2) Comaze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a focus of attention and criticism by HeadleyDown [2] and Camridge [3] [4]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Many comments have been made "against the man" rather than on the weight, verifiability and authority of various points of view in order to represent a NPOV on the article. For a long time every single post of mine was reverted regardless of content. When the arbitration process began, I started notifying HeadleyDown, Camridge and other editors (eg. DaveRight) via a private message each time I was personally attacked in the public discussion; before that time I would generally not respond to an attack. I invited (HeadleyDown, Camridge, ...) to resolve differences outside of the public talk page via email or private message. I also sent them notes with information about article ownership, NPOV and alterate dispute resolution options (eg. neutral third opinions); the offers were mostly ignored. For a long time every single post that I made regardless of content were reverted by this group headed up by HeadleyDown. Most requests to resolve the issues were ignored and often returned with arguments "against the man". Some replies included threats amounting to an intention to revert all any contribution that I made, and to remove any contribution that I have made in the past. I think that the uncivil atmosphere created by this group of editors is preventing neutral wikipedians uninterested in NLP to join the discussion and and weigh in on consensus. Even simple corrections of inaccuracies are difficult to correct in the current climate. I have recently agreed to a self-imposed one revert rule so I can only resolve issues through discussion and by engaging the support of other wikipedians. --Comaze 03:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Point of view editing by HeadleyDown

2) HeadleyDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in POV editing, characterizing NLP in the introduction to the article as 'a quasi-spiritual behavior-modification (or "performance psychology") technique whose crux is "modelling," or "NLP modelling"' [5]. He also added the following applications of NLP to the introduction "new age spirituality, occult development, and remote ESP influence", citing no source [6]. More: [7], [8], [9].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Inserting a POV generalization in the introduction can negate the effect of an otherwise constructive edit Fred Bauder 16:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Point of view editing by JPLogan

3) JPLogan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in POV editing, characterizing NLP in the introduction to the article as "a pseudoscientific self help development proposed for programming the mind." [10]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Inserting a POV generalization in the introduction can negate the effect of an otherwise constructive edit Fred Bauder 16:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal attacks and discourtesy by Camridge

4) Camridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in personal attacks and incivility [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal attacks and violations of civility by DaveRight

5) DaveRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has expressed a strong point of view regarding NLP [16] which violates Wikipedia:Civility, see also this comment. personal attack [17] [18]

Comment by Arbitrators:

While directed at NLP rather than another user, this crosses the line. Fred Bauder 16:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AHarmonious_editing_club&diff=32199990&oldid=31055549] a rather clear-cut personal attack. Fred Bauder 14:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

POV editing by DaveRight

6) DaveRight has engaged in point of view editing, characterizing NLP in the introduction as "pseudoscientific" [19]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

POV editing by AliceDeGrey

7) AliceDeGrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in point of view editing of the NLP article, removing a reference to a book and its author which is an example of applied NLP [20] and to the research work of Patrick Merlevede [21]. More: [22], [23]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

POV editing by FuelWagon

8) FuelWagon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits NLP from a strongly positive point of view citing sources from a NLP website [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] and [29] which he characterizes as "NPOV", see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming/Evidence#2_November.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Perhaps the bias was not intentional. What is wrong is you are putting the NLP viewpoint in the first paragraph rather than that of a third party. Fred Bauder 20:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That there are few or no sources regarding NLP other than advocates or derisive critics is significant in itself. What would a cognitive sciences or psychology textbook say? Fred Bauder 14:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

What the? I don't even care about NLP as a topic. I never heard of it until I started editing the article. I think I ran into it while I did nothing but vandal patrol for three days. I just edited the article to follow NPOV policy.

These diffs don't show POV pushing, they show me reporting the points of view from the sources who espoused them. The first diff 00:04, 2 November 2005 defines NLP using the words from two websites, purenlp.com and nlpu.com. The second diff (two minutes later)00:06, 2 November 2005 shows me attributing those definitions to the source (NLP Seminars Group). The third diff (one minute later) 00:07, 2 November 2005 shows me attributing another part of the definion to another source (Robert Dilts). The fourth diff (another two minutes later) 00:09, 2 November 2005, shows me adding further clarification, attributing definitions to Dilts. In fact, these first four diffs are back-to-back edits to the article by me, and when you look at all four diffs at once, the diff-marks look like this. This results in an introduction that starts out with the first paragraph saying:

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is defined by the NLP Seminars Group International as the study of the structure of subjective experience and what can be calculated from that.[30] Robert Dilts, a supporter of NLP, states that NLP provides tools and skills for the development of states of individual excellence, but it also establishes a system of empowering beliefs and presuppositions about what human beings are, what communication is and what the process of change is all about. Dilts states that at another level, NLP is about self-discovery, exploring identity and mission, that it also provides a framework for understanding and relating to the 'spiritual' part of human experience that reaches beyond us as individuals to our family, community and global systems. Dilts concludes that NLP is not only about competence and excellence, it is about wisdom and vision. [31]

How anyone can read that paragraph and say it violates NPOV policy is beyond me. It defines NLP by reporting the views of NLP advocates, attributing their words to them, and providing URL's to verify their words are reported accurately. In a disputed topic, the general format of most articles is to report the advocate view first and then report the views of the topic's critics. That's all I did here. Diff five 02:06, 2 November 2005 and six04:33, 2 November 2005 are nothing but reverting back to this version.

Fred Bauder states "FuelWagon edits NLP from a strongly positive point of view citing sources from a NLP website" But that's only half the introduction. The intruduction in every version ends by reporting critcial views of NLP from Heap, Sharpley, Lillenfield, Eisner, and others, who espouse the view that NLP is pseudoscientific. Without my edits, the introduction was purely crtical points of view. With my edits, the introduction reported pro-NLP points of view and critical NLP points of view, which actually results in a neutral introduction. Perhaps Fred feels it neccessary to continue his campaign to bury me in spite of the evidence, as he made clear here. FuelWagon 19:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bauder wrote: "Perhaps the bias was not intentional. What is wrong is you are putting the NLP viewpoint in the first paragraph rather than that of a third party." Where the heck does NPOV policy say you must use a third party to remain neutral? What I've found from NPOV policy states "Facts are not points of view in and of themselves. So an easy way to avoid making a statement that promotes a point of view is to find a reputable source for a fact and cite the source." [32] "When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view." [33] "the policy does not say that there even is such a thing as objectivity, a "view from nowhere" such that articles written from that point of view are consequently objectively true" [34]. Nothing in NPOV policy says use a third party to remain neutral, but rather report the different views of the different sources. In the case of NLP, there are proponents and critics and no one has shown any "third party" that didn't have an adamant point-of-view either for or against NLP. All my work on the Terri Schiavo article was nothing more than sorting out the different points of views of the main players (Terri's husband, Terri's parents, the courts, the court appointed guardians, and the various doctors). There were no opinions that could be regarded as neutral or "third party". In fact a rather large debate occurred when one editor suggested we use the court rulings as "third-party" and "objective" or "neutral", and the response from Ed Poor himself was that we should treat the court decisions as just another view. The editors who were pro-terri's-parents supported this idea heavily because the courts consistently ruled against the parents in every major decision. So, the result is to report the different points of views and report each view to the person who espoused them. That's what we did on Terri Schiavo, that's what I did on NLP. Meanwhile, I can show that SlimVirgin not only reported pro-animal-rights, pro-vegans, and pro-Israel views from main sources not considered "third party" sources, but she also deliberated deleted any and all views from various introductions that were critical of the topic [35] [36] [37]. So, I fail to see where policy says anything about "third party" sources, I fail to see such a policy work in situations such as NLP or Terri Schiavo, where every party has an opinion either for or against, and I see a direct contradiction to this being committed by SlimVirgin. FuelWagon 21:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"What would a cognitive sciences or psychology textbook say?" Fred, you're not enforcing NPOV here. You're enforcing your own flavor of what you think qualifies as neutral. The whole of NPOV policy can be summed up as saying "report the views of the sources". i.e. "Alice said Blah. Bob said Blech." In the case of NLP, that looks like "Dilts said this about NLP (URL). Heap, Sharpley, Lillenfield, Eisner said that about NLP (URL)." That is neutral reporting: not advocating one source is "neutral" or "right", but reporting what the different sources said. In fact, NPOV policy says to report the views of the different sources "without implying that any one of the opinions is correct". So, your "cognitive science textbook" would simply be another source, another point of view, for the NLP article, not the "right" view or the "correct" view. FuelWagon 19:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Incivility and personal attacks by Flavius vanillus

9) Flavius_vanillus (talk · contribs) has violated Wikipedia:Civility [38] [39], see User_talk:Flavius_vanillus#avoid_personal_remarks. See also [40] [41] [42]

Comment by Arbitrators:

A lot of newsnet type spamming too Fred Bauder 15:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your stuff is funny, yes, I enjoy watching Ann Coulter myself, but acting that way is beyond the bounds of Wikipedia. Usenet type spamming is discussing an issue rather than how to write the article. Fred Bauder 00:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

What precisely is "newsnet type spamming"? flavius 13:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In my defence I'll point out that my incivilities and personal attacks are witty :o) flavius 13:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The matter of incivility, discourtesy and personal attacks is a pretext for being obstructionist. With the exception of Aaron "Kookla" Kulkis the offending remarks by all parties are anodyne. flavius 13:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

In defense of flavius, I think this editor has made some valuable contributions to the article and discussion on both sides of the debate. The occasional personal remark or incivility was out of character. --Comaze 00:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced material by FuelWagon

10) FuelWagon in at least one instance removed sourced material [43] while justifying the removal in terms of lack of attribution when the opinion was attributed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is a bit subtle, but "it tends to be increasingly considered" followed by references is attribution, see [44] Fred Bauder 16:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sourcing by HeadleyDown

11) HeadleyDown insists on inserting information without providing a specific source for the information [45] [46]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Adequate sourcing requires reference to specific pages of a specific edition Fred Bauder 17:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These edits also raise the question of why the emphasis on Perls as a dianetics advocate. Fred Bauder 14:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

HeadleyDown repeated this offense today adding the "a promoter of dianetics" multiple times diffs. The same reversion also lost a correction of Edwards, Harry (1996) A Skeptic's Guide to the New Age, 429pp, ISBN 0-646-24502-3, see [47][[48]. The notability of author is also questionable but a separate issue. --Comaze 05:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: