Case Opened on 02:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 01:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 30 October 2015

Case amended by motion on 02:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Complaining witness

• FT2 ( talk · contribs)

Nominal defendants

• HeadleyDown ( talk | contribs)
• JPLogan ( talk | contribs)
• DaveRight ( talk | contribs), also apparently edited as D.Right ( talk | contribs)
• AliceDeGrey ( talk | contribs)
• Bookmain ( talk | contribs)
• Camridge ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Added 16:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Flavius_vanillus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Added 16:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Additional suspected accounts, sock-puppets or cronies (primarily NLP talk page):

• AMaulden ( talk | contribs)
• HansAntel ( talk | contribs)
• JaseC ( talk | contribs)

Brief summary of case

The neuro-linguistic programming ("NLP") article has been damaged by aggressive POV warrioring. The named accounts (including sockpuppets, meatpuppets and cronies) are all one-use accounts, created within the same short time period. Their appearance here is connected to vandalism, disruption and POV warfare by User:HeadleyDown, in combination with a message posted on the Yahoo skeptics-forum in September encouraging forum users to visit the Wikipedia NLP article. The users, acting in broad concert [evidenced], have been engaging in a common behavior of extreme POV warfare, vandalism, sock-puppeteering, and ongoing breach of policy on that article ever since. Despite RfC and mediation, a large number of explanations by various users of WP:NPOV and other policies, and a second attempt at mediation [1] purely focussing upon NPOV aspects of the matter, the behavior remains constant. Several explicit warnings were given of referral to Arbcom ( example), combined with courteous requests to comply with key WP policies despite personal attacks and lack of civility to other editors. These measures failing and the problems continuing unabated, bona fide wikipedians working on this article voted 7-0 that mediation is fruitless, and to approach ArbCom for a ban on editing on the subject of NLP and its associated articles by the above and by their associated cronies.

Please limit your statement to 500 words

The Neuro-linguistic programming article, which has for the most part been well run in a civil manner in the past, has been disrupted principally by users HeadleyDown, JPLogan, but also with POV degradation, personal attacks and/or remarks by others such as User:DaveRight, Bookmain and AliceDeGrey. There is now strong suspicion that most if not all of the named users may be sock puppets, due to similarities in their editing and histories. Having run the gamut of reasonable discussion, other contributors to the page in question voted to request arbitration.

None of the users named have made any any significant contribution to any topic other than this one topic and other NLP-related articles (with the exception of DaveRight on Neurofeedback and Speed reading). In some instances they have continued their POV approach on NLP to the detriment of other pages too. In essense, they have acted as POV warriors with a single viewpoint who have proven unable or uninterested in the wiki approach or policies, and have little interest in anything beyond their own view. (eg, see: Psychopablum created by JPLogan). Fundamentally they do not seem to show the slightest ability or care for collaborating in a wiki manner. Indeed their idea of collaboration is insults and ignoring or dismissal of issues, often with personal attacks and remarks. Since apparently joining Wikipedia at similar times (HeadleyDown Aug 2005, JPLogan and AliceDeGrey Sept 2005, DaveRight Oct 2005, etc), all have done virtually no other editing except POV degradation on the NLP article and/or negative talk page comments to its existing editors.

Accordingly it is the majority sense of those presenting this request that an appropriate ban from Wikipedia NLP editing is appropriate, and this is what is requested.

Examples of POV warring (DIFF examples of each given in the ArbCom vote on the article talk page)

• POV suppression
• 3RR breach reported Oct 26
• Repeated deletion of sourced material or cited fact about the subject by reputable authors, often followed by addition of more POV material.
• Personal attacks (including assumption of bad faith).
• Ignoring of requests to discuss edits
• Citation of fraudulent credentials of renown ascribed to an author to back up a slanted source (a web opinion presented as scientific "research")
• Falsely representing the opinion of professional bodies or ignoring their actual opinions as stated on their own website (which had been pointed out multiple times).
• Defamatory personal attacks, eg JPLogan's NLP talk page comment "I'm sure someone will find a citation for it... Wanna make some money out of NLP?" in response to removal of a highly critical and unsourced personally written opinion.

These and other examples can be found as DIFFs in the Arbitration vote.

Arbitration vote and DIFF citations at

Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming#Arbitration.

Other action before Arbitration vote

• Prior to the vote, a formal request was posted to the mediator's talk page for an opinion whether he felt the mediation process was able to resolve the issue. [2]
• I and others also warned HeadleyDown and others on multiple occasions that co-editors' patience was running out, and that he needed to respect NPOV policy, as numerous other editors had also stated. I told him explicitly on three occasions that his present type of conduct would be unacceptable on Wikipedia, and would ultimately lead to an Arbitration Committee referral to prevent him editing the article. His reply was initially to agree to renewed mediation, but almost immediately to revert to personal remarks and increased POV attack.

Article vote on ArbCom referral (Nov 3)

Users voting for ArbCom referral (with support for statement that mediation is unlikely to be fruitful):

1. FT2
2. Comaze
3. Lee1
4. FuelWagon
5. GregA (originally posted as User:203.217.56.137)
6. User:PatrickMerlevede
7. User:Justin Anderson (also posting as 211.27.105.9)

User indicating strong support but not voting due to short time of editing:

1. Faxx: "If the history of this discussion has demonstrated anything, it's the pointlessness of trying to engage Headleydown and his ridiculous sock-puppets in a constructive dialogue. lets just get to arbitration a.s.a.p .... FT2 has already moved for arbitration not long ago. There were votes although I did not participate due to not really participating in the editing. I've just been reading the endlesly recycling discussion. Nothing will get done this way. HeadleyDown obviously has nothing better to do with his time than pursue his crusade." [3] and [4]

Users voting against arbitration:

1. None, other than comments by the users concerned.

Mediator's comments:

1. Following the Arbcom vote, the mediator commented that he felt it was neither efficient nor necessary. [5]
2. Two days later the mediator added: "Note: to Headley et al, just because I am mediating here does not mean that I have the final say...." [6]

Example events since arbitration vote

Despite the semblence of continuing mediation,

• HeadleyDown deleted the Arbcom vote post, in "revenge" for his reply being moved (unchanged) to the marked comments section below. [7]
• HeadleyDown deleted two of Justin Anderson's comments from the Talk page. [8]
• 3RR broken on at least two further separate occasions preventing balancing material being added, or slanted writing being corrected. (example: 15:02 Nov 7 16:38 Nov 7 17:51 Nov 7 01:10 Nov 8)
• Multiple personal remarks and attacks
• The article has had further core factual material removed
• Related articles to NLP have also begun being degraded; when it was noted that some specialised material was being moved to side-articles, HeadleyDown's response was: "Hi FT2. Presently the NLP modelling page is full of hype and exagerated claims. I wonder why you didn't notice:) That will change soon enough. Regards HeadleyDown" [9]
• Talk page posts explaining and discussing edits, with the intent of promoting mutual collaboration, continue to be bluntly ignored. (eg: [10])
• The definitions of the subject, cited from its founders' websites and standard texts, was deleted complete with citations, by JPLogan. [11]
• An attempt to balance an apparent misrepresentation of an author was followed by ignoring the request to discuss on talk page, and deletion of the balancing quote and addition of more POV citations. This left the introduction with 3 selectively represented views showing a view that NLP was pseudoscience and a cult, and not one of the many research and other citations showing that the opposite view is strongly supported.
• POV warfare edits continue to the present time (eg in this edit series dated Nov 15 (12 days after the article vote and 2 days after the formal RFArb posting), DaveRight adds the word "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific" 3 times in different places and removes the {{dubious}} tag from a fourth. Following this edit, the article contains 25 mentions of the word "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific" alone, excuding section titles.

Other information

• One editor, User:TBP, was explicitly self-identified as a sock puppet on his talk page before becoming involved in this article Oct 17 DIFF. He played no part in the vote or its discussion, and only a minor role in the talk page debate, mostly between Oct 27-29.
• I have responded ( #FT2_responses_to_user_statements) to the statements of the named users below, with citations. In summary, the counter-allegations (like most of the allegations in the article) are spurious and unhampered by inconvenient notions like article history or DIFFs. Examples include user:HeadleyDown calling reversion of his highly slanted post back to the mediated version, "Lots of anti NPOV activity" and "Removal of a cited fact", and allegations of "crimes". As user:FuelWagon observes, much of the editing is attempts to hold back the flood of POV warfare, which is then named "promotion" and used to justify personal attacks and remarks.

We have acted with appropriate patience and reserve, but despite much patience, many flames, and much time, there is just no sign whatsoever of any intent to change, nor any significant indication they want to change enough to participate appropriately in Wikipedia NLP for the foreseeable future. We therefore ask that ArbCom accept this matter for Arbitration.

FT2 10:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Likely source of visiting users identified

Following GregA's statement, I have done some digging. See Yahoo skeptics forum index for a likely source of "meatpuppets" or cronies. Example post: message 8773 in which a main motivator of these posts describes NLP in terms identical to those we see in this article (c.f. AliceDeGrey's rewording of the intro commencing: "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a method for programming the mind" [12]). The emphasis on subjects in this post, such as engrams, L/R brain, Eye movements, Dianetics, were also each major points of dispute on Wikipedia, forced into this article with excessive prominence by the named users against consensus of other editors. A message dated Sep 5 encourages skeptic-forum users to visit the Wikipedia article.

Strong evidence for a cause/effect connection, rather than effect/cause or coincidence, comes from a post on the skeptics forum dated Sep. 19 17:59 [13] asking for advice how to argue the case NLP is a pseudoscience. The reply suggested "It would be easy to do an analysis of the characteristics listed in this chapter of pseudosciences and relate them to NLP," linking to Lilienfeld as a source. Such a list appeared on the Wikipedia article less than 36 hours later, added by JPLogan, citing Lilienfeld, on Sept 21 [14]

Timewise too, all the major single-purpose accounts cited were created within the same short time period that Wikipedia NLP was being discussed in an identical manner in this forum: HeadleyDown arrived here Aug 5, the Wikipedia article was "discovered" on this forum around 5 Sept 2005 message 8647, JPLogan's first edit under his own account was on Sept 17, AliceDeGrey Sept 21, DaveRight Oct 12, Bookmain Oct 13 (NB: possibly some posted as IPs before getting an account, or heard about it elsewhere).

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Hello mediators/arbitrators. This is interesting. I simply want to say that arbitration is an extremely long way off, and our helpful mediator VoiceOfAll seems to concur with that. Mediation seems to be working well. Each time the NLP promoters (I call them that because a lot of them have a vested interest) remove lots of cited fact, the mediator steps in and they calm down. When the more neutral (sorry, less proNLPers) compromise (usually a lot in favour of NLP) the proNLPers calm down some more. I have to admit it does get very tedious to have to restore censored facts all the time, and have to keep answering the same questions all the time (badgering), so things do get a little heated at times. It doesn't help that nearly all non-proNLPers have been labeled sockpuppets at some time. But things are moving forward now the mediator has helped out. Actually there are often major moves in the direction away from arbitration. I personally am fairly ok with the idea of arbitration, but it seems a bit silly to do so when mediation is starting to work so well with a level head and an good and increasing understanding of the subject. Anyway, its all up to you. Regards HeadleyDown 12:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply

(the following diffs were inserted by HeadleyDown into FT2's statement area. Moved by FuelWagon into HeadleyDown's own area. FuelWagon 22:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)) reply

Hello Arbitrators. For the sake of helping with examining behaviour, here is some evidence of one so-called unbiased editor from the FT2 camp. Actually he is one of the milder examples compared to others such as FT2 or Comaze:

[15] FuelWagon was removing occult/psychic development info that is common knowledge HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply

[16] Showing both a complete lack of knowledge, a lack of ability to research, and a desire to delete facts that are even presented within NLP books. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply

[17] Again a total disregard for the facts as they are verifiable in links and books. He deleted the fact because he don’t like the sound of New Age (it does not represent the subject as respectable), even though NLP is promoted using primarily the New Age category for promotion, NLP started at Esalen working with people from Esalen institute which was the hub of new age thinking in the 70s. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply

[18] Again, removal of cited facts with a disregard for re-phrasing etc. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply

[19] FuelWagon’s strong desire to remove the word “pseudoscience” even though it appears in all of the literature of lilienfeld, Eisner, and Salerno. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply

[20] removing a cited and verifiable link that is actually a fact. This is verified by psychotherapists such as Lilienfeld and others who are extremely critical of such bodies promoting pseudoscience. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply

[21] The attribution to these people only is FuelWagon inferring that only these people have these views. The majority of scientists who know the subject (psychologists eg) have these views. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply

[22] This was removed by FuelWagon also. NLP is promoted by NLP promoters under these categories. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply

[23] Lots of interest in wild and obscure claims (THE study of structure---) that do not clarify anything and that go against what the mediator suggested, plus a lot of hype. And deletion of fact. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply

[24] It is categorized with these other groups because of it’s pseudoscientific principles, its lack of support, and its ineffectiveness, together with its association with cults. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply

[25] Further removal of cited facts – not alteration or comromise, just blatant censorship. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply

[26] the same research-shy ignorance. HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply

[27] FuelWagon claimed that the prior was a clear violation of NLP and even a criticism. But it was a clear statement written by the mediator for the most part, plus it is far clearer and more concise than the hype version. FuelWagon also writes that the methods are empirically untested (erroneous and extremely biased in order to dismiss the scientific findings). HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply

[28] Again, whittling away the pseudoscience evidence, even though it is stated clearly in the literature HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply

As I said, this is me being mild. There are far worse cases to come. Regards HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Here are some of FT2’s crimes:

[29] FT2 Removing a cited fact that was a view of psychotherapists. Removing a concluding statement from the paragraph in favour of a small section of an argument in the middle of the paragraph of an academic paper. Again, selective editing without adding the conclusion of the paragraph, and removing more cited fact. Lots of anti NPOV activity. HeadleyDown 12:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply

[30] FT2 adding as much hype in one go as possible. HeadleyDown 12:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply

[31] again FT2 removing properly cited facts. HeadleyDown 12:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply

[32] FT2’s masterpiece of selective editing. The end of the paragraph actually states – But NLP has failed in controlled experiments and so it is relegated. This is FT2’s biggest trick. He likes to take the middle parts of arguments(the positive bits) and cut off the negative conclusion. No other researcher has ever quoted FT2’s section. All other people who quote Sharpley do so using -NLP failed, or is unsupported etc. From a research perspective it is intellectually fraudulent, clear selective editing, biased in the extreme, and grossly misleading. HeadleyDown 12:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply

[33] Here FT2 writes: “It is worth noting that NLP has been criticised for being both ineffective, and for being too effective (ie used for mind control and manipulation). This contradiction has not yet been resolved.” This is FT2’s view. It is also the view of some vandals who claimed the same thing prior to FT2’s appearance. I am willing to overlook that, but the fact is; FT2 is willing to write his own opinion on the article even though he claims to have had lots of experience on Wikipedia. The view is not the view of any other author. HeadleyDown 12:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply

There are many more similar breaches of cooperation, good research and policy that FT2 continues to commit and of course you can judge them as you wish. Regards HeadleyDown 12:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply

(The following text was added, again to FT2's statement area, after FT2's response/rebuttal of the above)

OK Arbitrators, I wrote the above but I regret it. It is all too shrill. Forget that I said the above. The whole arbitration episode is quite ridiculous. Arbitrators should not have to look around all the content stuff. The fact is, to my knowledge, nobody has done any recent sockpuppetry, there have been no particular offenses (including people calling me a stupid wanker) and the mediator is doing fine (a lot better than I expected). The situation is thus: NLP breeds a lot of followers, and they don't like the fact that science says NLP does not work. It makes them feel really down. They try to remove the fact using every NLP method they can. Wikipedia is a lot more reasonable than that. Facts get removed, and the fact-minded place them back in the article. Devotees keep removing them or demanding more facts and so more facts get placed on the article. They continue to remove the facts as they look more and more depressing to devotees, and they call the mediators, or the arbitrators. They hope that by some miracle they can remove the facts by removing the scientists. Do what you will and try to make the devotees a little less censorious. Otherwise, I am fairly content to restore scientific facts as they are presented by scientists. Best regards HeadleyDown 15:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply

(The following text was added, again to an out-of-place statement area, some time after other responses were posted below)

About solution and resolution

Hi again Arbitrators. Things are moving forward again, (in terms of solutions). We seem to be gathering agreement on arranging the article in order to suit all parties including that of the mediator. Its only a simple measure, but following on from general Wikipedia convention in cases of controversial and pseudoscientific articles, to place the main claims of NLP in the above section (and basically allow all the NLP trainers such as GregA, and stated NLP fans such as FT2 and Comaze to put whatever promotional stuff they like within NPOV reason within that section), and to have the findings of science testing (which are both negative and critical), and the claims to science (which are part of the criticisms) and the pseudoscience explanation, within the criticisms section. This is in order to make it easier to make the article more concise and remove redundancy (as has been recommended by the mediator and others), it should help reduce deletions-due-to-slight-misswordings, and will also make it less confusing for the reader (have 1 criticisms section instead of several).

There are some reservations by the science minded, but overall they seem to be resigned to giving NLP promotion a position of primacy (as long as the opening reflects the main body with a few paras of promotional description and a para or so of criticism balance).

The proNLPers seem to be stuck in accusation mode, but I guess they will come round soon enough. It is an option that gives them an opportunity to give NLP a full hearing using the inevitably promotional NLP terms, and without any early main body criticisms, while the science minded can get on with brevifying the criticism section, reducing redundancy, giving due concessions, and explaining the more pseudoscientific aspects of NLP. Regards HeadleyDown 10:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Statement by JPLogan JPLogan 02:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to check my behaviour. You will find that I am no sockpuppet, although accusations abound. I really feel that the proNLP editors have just shot themselves in the foot again. Certainly I have held back on posting the more damning evidence against NLP, and I have posted plenty of remarks and solutions to solve problems. I suggest that arbitrators keep a due sense of humour. Certainly I find the whole thing ridiculous. The NLP promoters have gone against NPOV so many times. Anyway, do your best with all the checking. Cheers JPLogan 02:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Statement by party user:FuelWagon re: NLP

I became involved in the NLP article in October. I hadn't heard of "Neuro Linguistic Programming" until I found the article, and I have no personal bias for or against the topic. But it is clear to me that the article is in clear violation of NPOV. There appear to be a number of editors with proclaimed biases against NLP who are editing the article in violation of NPOV. Someone with a longer history of the article can present more evidence, but here are a few diffs that show some blatant biases that directly affect the article.

06:58, 23 September 2005 HeadleyDown modifies the first sentence of the introduction to say "(NLP) is a quasi-spiritual behavior-modification technique", where the term "quasi-spiritual" is clearly POV, disputed, and biased. (Violation of WP:NPOV)

02:52, 25 October 2005 JPLogan modifies the first sentence of the entire NLP article to say "NLP is a pseudoscientific self help development", where the term "pseudoscientific" is clearly POV, disputed, and biased. (Violation of WP:NPOV)

03:24, 1 November 2005 DaveRight reverts with the edit summary "I think that deserves some punishment." (violation of WP:Point)

03:39, 3 November 2005 DaveRight does a blanket revert of a number of edits, reinserting a bunch of text including "Many such courses appear to depend more upon charismatic appeal, wish-fulfillment, quick fixes, and lack of critical faculty, than actual quantifiable results, and so are often considered pure pseudoscience." as well as "Similar to other amoral pseudoscientific psychocults such as Dianetics and EST" Both sentences present as fact what is actualy disputed opinions of NLP, namely calling NLP "wish fullfillment", "pseudoscience", "amoral", and "psychocult" (Violation of WP:NPOV)

17:13, 12 November 2005 HeadleyDown removes a critic of NLP's opinion from the criticism section ("Jan Damen describes NLP as occult"), rewords it to passive tense so the source (Jan Damen) is not mentioned and the opinion is presented more as fact, and then reinserts it into the pro-NLP section, making it look as if a pro-NLP source describes NLP as "occult". (Violation of WP:NPOV)

01:23, 16 November 2005 HeadleyDown again reports in the pro-NLP section of introduction that NLP is used for "occult" purposes, where "occult" is POV, biased, and disputed.

03:35, 16 November 2005 DaveRight reports in the pro-NLP section of introduction that NLP is "fringe", where the term "fringe" is POV, biased, and disputed.

01:55, 17 November 2005 HeadleyDown inserts statement that NLP is used for "fringe therapy", "psychic activities", "covert seduction", and the "occult".

02:33, 17 November 2005 HeadleyDown inserts statement that NLP is "Similar to other amoral pseudoscientific psychocults such as Dianetics and EST"

(update) Headley wrote "So why did you not rewrite it?" Here are some diffs that I've dug up showing about a dozen attempts by me to correct NPOV violations committed by another editor by rewriting them to follow policy. I believe most of these attempts by me were reverted by other editors on the page.

[34] [35] edit summary: "Jan Damen describes NLP as occult" [36] [37] edit summary "Reporting the various points of view as being stated by their sources, rather than stateing them as fact." [38] Edit summary: "I'm rewriting the intro so that all POV statements are reported as someone's point of view, rather than reported as a "fact" followed by (name).)" [39] edit summary: "Attribute pro-NLP information to advocates and supporters." [40] edit summary "reporting the pro-NLP point of view from pro-NLP sources. including URL's so folks can verify.)" [41] edit summary "report the NLP point of view in NLP words," [42] edit summary "intro describes the pro-NLP point of view from pro-NLP sources. URL's to verify." [43] edit summary "attributing to Dilts" [44] edit summary "another source" [45] edit summary "source" [46] edit summary "introduce NLP using the words of NLP supporters. provide URL's so other's can verify accuracy."

(update) HeadleyDown provided a number of diffs that he claims are POV violatios on my part. I've included them below with my own interpretation on what each diff shows.

These diffs were posted by HeadleyDown 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC) the format of each diff is

[diff] explanation by HeadleyDown.

my explanation in indented format

[47] FuelWagon was removing occult/psychic development info that is common knowledge

"quick fix or lay therapy, NLP trance seduction, and psychic or occult practices." completely unsourced, unverifiable.

[48] Again a total disregard for the facts as they are verifiable in links and books. He deleted the fact because he don’t like the sound of New Age (it does not represent the subject as respectable), even though NLP is promoted using primarily the New Age category for promotion, NLP started at Esalen working with people from Esalen institute which was the hub of new age thinking in the 70s.

The disputed content is "The foundation for Bandler and Grinder's NLP is based in" followed by "spirituality" or "New Age". The block quote provided in the article immediately below this assertion never uses the phrase "New Age", but mentions that NLP is based on spirituality. I change the content to match what the sourced quote supports.

[49] Again, removal of cited facts with a disregard for re-phrasing etc.

I've provided a dozen diffs that show a dozen attempts by me to rephrase POV statements into NPOV statements. They have all been reverted. This diff shows a POV statement that I deleted. I am not required to "re-phrase" every NPOV violation made by HeadleyDown et al. I've tried and they revert it. Deleting a POV statement is not violation of policy. And a dozen attempts by me to "re-phrase" their pov statements should be sufficient to show good-faith efforts by me to try and work with these editors.

[50] FuelWagon’s strong desire to remove the word “pseudoscience” even though it appears in all of the literature of lilienfeld, Eisner, and Salerno.

"pseudoscience" is POV, and in this diff, the word is unsourced, reported as fact, violating NPOV.

[51] removing a cited and verifiable link that is actually a fact. This is verified by psychotherapists such as Lilienfeld and others who are extremely critical of such bodies promoting pseudoscience.

The content says NLP has also been identified by the [[British Psychological Society]] as quintessential [[charlatan]]ry (Parker 1999). {{dubious}}. It was marked with a "dubious" tag and given how inflamatory a statement it is, I deleted it saying that it required some means to verify it. My edit summary ends with "please provide a URL for verification."

[52] The attribution to these people only is FuelWagon inferring that only these people have these views. The majority of scientists who know the subject (psychologists eg) have these views.

This is an example of me "re-phrasing" POV statements into NPOV statements. I report the views as being stated by the sources who hold them. HeadleyDown then says that these sources are not the only people who have these views. The only problem is that HeadleyDown never provided any verifiable sources to support his claim, except to say that it is "common knowledge".

[53] This was removed by FuelWagon also. NLP is promoted by NLP promoters under these categories.

Edit summary says "This is criticism and belongs in the criticism section of intro, with plenty of sources to support use of such biased words". And HeadleyDown found a website selling witchcraft training tapes that said it used NLP techniques. That is like saying since abortion bomber Eric Rudolph is christian, then the introduction to the Christianity article should say that christianity is promoted by people who bomb abortion clinics. As far as I know, the poeple who developed NLP do not associate themselves or NLP with occult practices.

[54] Lots of interest in wild and obscure claims (THE study of structure---) that do not clarify anything and that go against what the mediator suggested, plus a lot of hype. And deletion of fact.

Edit summary "reporting the pro-NLP point of view from pro-NLP sources. including URL's so folks can verify.". I report how the NLP Seminars Group International defines NLP and provide a URL. This is not a violation of policy. HeadleyDown wants to define NLP using the words of critics of NLP only. I inserted other points of view.

[55] It is categorized with these other groups because of it’s pseudoscientific principles, its lack of support, and its ineffectiveness, together with its association with cults.

Edit summary: "Dianetics and Landmark Forum is off topic.". ANd it's impossible to tell if the Council Against Health Fraud mentions Dianetics and Landmark, or if "Loma" mentions them, or if HeadleyDown inserted them on his own. Unsourced and unclear assertion.

[56] Further removal of cited facts – not alteration or comromise, just blatant censorship.

POV wording "NLP is an amoral, pseudoscientific psychocult (Smith)" needs to be rewritten to "Smith states that NLP is an amoral, pseudoscientific psychocult". I've done this a dozen times. it keeps getting reverted, so I deleted this one.

[57] FuelWagon claimed that the prior was a clear violation of NLP and even a criticism. But it was a clear statement written by the mediator for the most part, plus it is far clearer and more concise than the hype version. FuelWagon also writes that the methods are empirically untested (erroneous and extremely biased in order to dismiss the scientific findings).

Edit summary says it all "report the NLP point of view in NLP words, not simply criticize NLP." HeadleyDown refuses to allow pro-NLP sources to have their point of view reported in the article, and insists on reporting only the views that are critical of NLP.

[58] Again, whittling away the pseudoscience evidence, even though it is stated clearly in the literature

HeadleyDown needs to rewrite "NLP is pseudoscience (Smith)" to "Smith states that NLP is pseudoscience". I've done it a dozen times and got reverted.

(update) Nothing has changed. I requested a page lock a couple days ago after another edit war broke out and the article was thrashing over the same stuff. The talk page shows no sign by the anti-NLP folks of emphasizing Neutral Point Of View, rather they continue to talk about what is basically a "Scientific Point Of View". This wouldn't be impossible to work with except that their version of "science" often appears to boil down to "original research". Claims are made to condemn NLP, but it doesn't match the quote provided to support the claim. Seemingly innocent quotes from NLP sources get paraphrased into wildly biased words by anti-NLP editors. A quote from one NLP source talking about how NLP is "spiritual" was paraphrased by an anti-NLP editor as "new age". Another quote was paraphrased as being claims of "supernatural" powers, but the quote provided didn't use the word "supernatural". What I originally thought was simply highly scientific editors who are simply passionate about science is looking more like a simple case of biased editors who are prejudiced against NLP and use the label of "science" as an excuse for their POV editing. i.e. a scientist is neutral, is focused on facts, and goes wherever the evidence takes them. Some of these editors are totally biased, are focused only on finding 'facts' that condemn NLP, and are willing to do original research to get there, and then claim that "science" backs them up. The only thing keeping the POV warriors at bay is a continued page lock, and that can't last forever. At the very least, there are a number of editors who need a years probation on any psychological, therapeutic, self-help sort of topic before I'd recommend the page be unlocked. Can another member of arbcom take a look at the above diffs and accept this case so it can get processed? Thanks. FuelWagon 14:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Allow me to chip in DaveRight 03:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I am not DRight:) I am Dave. OK. No idea who DRight is, but he has a cool name:) OK. For what its worth, you may want to look at the Scientology and Dianetics article page. Similar things seem to have gone on there. NLP is one of those pseudoscience subjects that recruits lots of believers who love to hear about "human potential, metaprograms, the difference that makes the difference, the science and technology of excellence" and so on. In fact, they have had all those things on the article at some point. It is interesting though, how often they advocate and even physically remove cited scientific fact. FT2 for example, keeps wanting to remove fact. He also posts his own opinion within the article even when there is absolutely no author who holds the same opinion. He posts strategically altered paragraphs (with the negative ending removed) in order to promote NLP. The fact is, NLP is a pseudoscience, according to scientists, psychologists, linguists, and anthropologists. In fact it is in the same category as Dianetics and EST and sometimes phrenology. The NLP promotional team are dead set on removing facts as they have physically done for months, and they have even tried to recruit vandals from newsgroups. Things do get a bit lively on the discussion page, though the only direct insults have been to poor old Headley. NLP promoter's call him things such as "dullard" and "wanker". No such activity has been seen from neutral editors towards proNLPers, dispite the ridiculous level of fact deletion. There is a general slur campaign against anyone who does not promote NLP. To my knowledge, no negative comment or insults or vandalism has been conducted from neutral editors to the NLPpromoter's pages. Anyway, go ahead and check my ip and tell the NLPpromoters to stop removing scientific facts. ATB Dave DaveRight 03:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Statement by party Voice of All

While I don't believe that arbitration is the best option for now, I would say that the placement of ((test3)) and ((test4)) signs, accuations of extreme POV, and use of alternate names is likely occuring on both sides here. An IP check on all of the users would be well appretiated, as duplicates can be banned, leaving only the true users. This will removed inflated edit wars and vote tallies/consensus.

I would note however, that I had already recommended that people edit one section at a time. The blanket reverts were mainly of edits to multiple sections. One the other hand, too much anti-NLP criticism has been going into the article recently, under the idea that it is a fact or he did actually say this; article's can not have every single fact about the topic, they must be streamlined, and some sort of balance between truth and representation of all POVs must be reached. Voice of All ^{T| @| Esperanza} 00:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Statement by party AliceDeGrey

My turn! Well, I wish to respond to FT2's point first. Wikipedia is about cooperation. If you cannot cooperate with factual information then you are going to be disruptive. The proNLPers are disruptive. The more neutral editors here cooperate extremely well, and share information through discussion sections and email. We do not delete scientific facts or advocate for its deletion as is happening on the discussion page now. In response to FuelWagon, all of the points he makes involve cited facts (views turned into facts according to NPOV policy). FuelWagon is still advocating for them to be deleted. I personally have spent time researching in my institution with help from others concerning explaining NLP through science. I see the NLP promoters wishing to delete that hard work. I can only see this demand for arbitration as fanatical desperation. I will continue to cooperate with people willing to reduce confusing hype and clearly present the facts. AliceDeGrey 08:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Statement: Bookmain 08:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I have been working in quite close co-operation with other editors such as Alice and others. We have access to a lot of good info on this subject and there has already been a lot deleted by the NLPpromoters. There is also a good deal of cooperation from other members, such as Flavius Vanillus, and HansAntel (who actually sent us some good foreign language information also). It is blatantly clear that FT2 and FuelWagon, GregA, Comaze and others, have a very strong agenda to promote NLP. If you spend all the time reading "NLP is the solution to all problems" is does not help. But they seem to be unable to even face the facts that NLP is considered pseudoscince and is completely scientifically unsupported. The pressure directed by them in order to bannish such scientific facts is enormous. Even yesterday, Comaze was doing wholesale deletion of facts from the article, even tho mediation had rested with the facts being present in the body and opening. Just take try to take their fervent censorship with a sense of humour. Its not easy. Bookmain 08:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Statement by GregA

Hello. I'm not sure if once the arbitration is "accepted" you need to hear from us? I assume you'll let us know what you need.

There has been much argument on the NLP pages and removal and reversion. The "NLP is pseudoscience" group consistently call themselves neutral and rarely choose to discuss an issue - most questions become personal responses or "you just have to accept the facts", rather than specific responses. [59]. If we repeat the question, the response is threats to "provide more damning evidence" (which I've asked them to give us...as we should have all evidence! They don't follow through). For example, responses to a change include "..will lead to more damning detail being presented in order to show exactly how warped and desperate your biased edits are. People here are actually trying to be kind. I have some extremely crushing reviews..." (line 656 [60]), or "Well I will present his damning words on the article. I think that is what you are asking for." [61] [62].

In fact all 4 diffs above also show a similarity in threat style of those 4 different usernames/possible sock puppets. I believe from the style of responses that there are several puppets, though there could certainly be 2 or 3 users with several more sock puppets, sharing similar negative NLP opinions and styles brought in from the yahoo skeptics newsgroup message 8647 message 8653. I also see that whether they are puppets may not matter - that WP:SOCK says "for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.".

Please note that I am the one accused above of trying to "recruit" on a newsgroup. See [63] for details including my response. If I have broken some rule my apologies.

In general I have no problem with what Headley et al says he'll do - they often seem very reasonable. His actions are quite different and he can not be judged on his words, only his follow through (Isometimes think he enjoys saying the right thing while doing something different, it certainly provokes a certain kind of response!). Thanks for taking this on, I really hope we can get to representing NLP fairly, warts and all, as soon as possible. GregA 14:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Statement by HansAntel

Hello, I am not sockpuppeting. I give science evidence and the antimediater group (FT2 and all the people he votes and deletes with) will just argue to delete my facts. Why? Because the facts are not promotion of NLP. They are science facts and views to facts that can be cited. The antimediation group want to write lots of complaint. Ignore it. They write nothing but complaint from start to now - I look at the archived information. Give research and evidence, they will delete or change it in total meaning. Check me out. I am moving around a lot but I use the same workstation most postings. Arbitrators please take antimediators (FT2 group) like unserious pestilence. They irritate but you can brush them off your neck. Sincerely Hans HansAntel 02:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply

FT2 responses to user statements

1. Voice of All's statement that an initial IP check on all editors concerned would be helpful - agreed. The principle editors of the article and talk page recently are as follows: the eight editors named, the 7 voters named, Voice of All, Flavius vanillus, 203.100.233.178, 203.186.238.*, 211.30.47-48.*, 80.44.*, 81.151.*. However this does not change my feeling that mediation is likely proven fruitless, because the nature of the problem is not textual compromise within the article, but non-wikipedian users and sock-puppets engaging in vandalism, fraudulent credentials cited to bolster extreme view, fraudulent representation of professional bodies despite multiple correction, deterrance of editors, constant personal attacks, remarks and defamation, heavy duty slanting, and utter lack of civility or respect for editors or information.
    
   
2. I do not agree with Voice of All that "[t]he blanket reverts were of edits to multiple sections". For most, this seems irrelevant. Quick examples (a few out of many): [64] HeadleyDown replaces one paragraph in intro that presents 2 sides of a view, with 2 extreme views on same side (interesting observation: HeadleyDown uses nonsense word "psychopablum" but JPLogan creates an article defining that word and referencing NLP); [65] JPLogan deletes the entire section of core definitions within the field by its founders complete with full citations on the mind-boggling basis that they are "uncited" and that citing them is "POV"; [66] HeadleyDown removes a key qualifier regarding the British Psychological Society leaving impression that Parkers view represents them accurately; [67] HeadleyDown rewords an already unbalanced paragraph which had been compromised, with even more generalized wording that removes the "X said Y" qualifier; [68] and again more selective POV insertion by DaveRight; [69] Bookmain removes citation from British Dyslexia Association paragraph which uses NLP, replacing it by a subtlely misrepresented citation from Children In Therapy to state "NLP is quackery" (in fact it is attachment therapy and not NLP which is the target of that page, NLP is a technique claimed by attachment therapy protagonists to support it); [70] Bookmain deletes a paragraph that states NLP rests on an observational rather than theoretical basis; [71] ... which is re-deleted by AliceDeGrey when corrected; [72] Bookmain edits the one paragraph on NLP in policing, 1/ replacing a factual "wide range" with "some", 2/ deletes the FBI's actual comment in support of NLP's efficacy, 3/ deletes a police statement that it is field proven, 4/ adds a spurious "claims to be", and 5/ adds a selective quotation after all this that NLP "has been tested by criminologists and has been found not to work in crime situations". [Voice of All has since modified his wording to include the word "mainly" which still seems debatable]
    
   
3. Re JPLogan's assertion that he is not a sock-puppet: This case is about sock-puppets or cronies. WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets refers to this when it discusses the creation of:
   "new accounts specifically to influence a particular vote or discussion. This is especially common in deletion discussions. These newly created accounts... may be friends of a Wikipedian, or may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion. These accounts are not actually sockpuppets, but they are... treated similarly. Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Wikipedia community... The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."
    
   
4. Response to Bookmain: Bookmain says, "It is blatantly clear that FT2 and... others have a very strong agenda to promote NLP... But they seem to be unable to even face the facts that NLP is considered pseudoscience and is completely scientifically unsupported." (Note the straw man).
    
   Untrue and not borne out by facts. For example, when I created the article " Principles of NLP" (proper discussion was too long for the main article), I did this neutrally on the classic Wikipedia basis: description, specific principles, sources, criticisms and rebuttals. It does not advocate a side. It describes and characterizes, and includes both viewpoints fully representing each. Please see that article where I wrote specifically under criticisms:
   • "The subject is open ended, that is, it does not specify how the information it obtains should be used, or what can be done with it. So NLP becomes very prone to quackery, incorporation of pseudoscience, and manipulative uses."
   • And again I wrote: "Stronger criticism is usually levelled at NLP as a whole, for the pseudoscientific hype, exaggerated claims and commercialization often associated with it by its practitioners, and this is discussed under the main NLP article."
   No other editor had worked on it article history and yet the mediator, reviewing it a week after drafting, made only one tiny phraseology improvement to the article upon review, leaving the entirety of the article otherwise unchanged [73].
   
   As well as straw men, Bookmain has a prior history on the article of inventing other fraudulent "facts" and misrepresentative assertations out of the blue to bolster his argument. Example: he characterizes a minor hypnotist, Dylan Morgan, as "a world renowned clinical hypnotherapist" and of a critical opinion piece by the man as "research" and "the final word": "Dr Morgan's scientific followup and final word assessment is entirely relevant. It is also the view of a world renowned clinical hypnotherapist." Bookmain DIFF (for the basis of my characterization of Morgan as minor, and the representation as fraudulent, see /Research#Morgan)
    
   
5. Re AliceDeGrey: Wikipedia is about neutral, rounded and balanced encyclopaedic summaries of subjects. Co-operation is a means, not an end. It ceases to be a means to Wikipedia's goals, when it is used to enforce an unbalanced and slanted view of one approach to a subject. WP:NPOV has been summarized for editors by FuelWagon, and also by myself more than once. If Alice is stating that I habitually delete "scientific fact" (or do so without discussing or indicating that a citation exists if needed) she needs to provide some examples. It's very noticeable that the presented case and rebuttals contain numerous visible citations. By contrast as a double standard, a list of 84 citations with links ( /Research#Recognition_by_other_bodies), of NLP used by credible organizations, has been provided, but AliceDeGrey has not yet moved even a finger to discuss or acknowledge it, nor to adjust the article to represent it fairly.
    
   AliceDeGrey is somewhat disingenuous when she states "We do not delete scientific facts or advocate for its deletion" (implicit acknowledgement of a group of editors). See her own edits, [74], [75] removing details of how NLP is used by cults making it seem NLP is a cult, [76] removal of critical 1st half of quote, [77] preface the intro definition with the sentence "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a method proposed for programming the mind", [78] adds "and remote ESP influence" to a list of NLP uses, [79] adds "and dubious (Morgan 1993)" knowing that Morgan was an opinion writer yet referencing him as if he were a scientist [80], rvt/reinstates this adding untruthfully that this opinion of Morgan's is "A more recent scientific assessment" [81], then when corrected rvt/reinstates again this time adding a further misleading characterization as a "published follow up scientific assessment (Morgan 1993)" [82], removes a statement by one of America's foremost professors of linguistics that two of NLPs disputed presuppostions are in fact "major findings of cognitive science" [83], removes the observation on the contradictory nature of criticisms leveled at NLP [84], reinstates the "NLP is a method of programming the mind" deleted earlier [85], removes the skeptics dictionary reference deliberately leaving Carroll (2003) looking like a research academic [86], .....
    
   
6. Re DaveRight: [reply in progress, tidy up later today] I find it strange there are both a "D.Right" and a "DaveRight". But we'll see what we see. As far as Dave's accusations go, they are inaccurate. He has posted the identical allegation, equally untrue, on the Talk page of the article, and my reply and citations stand good here too: Nov 3/after line 1794.
    
   I also cite other evidence of neutrality including my exclusion of a "support" vote under wikipedia policy same link/line 1725, my talk page posts [87] and [88] the cited section removed as discussed here and (see "response to Bookmain") the neutral inclusion of the various strong criticisms into the initial Principles of NLP article when I wrote it. On numerous occasions I explain edits on the talk page for discussion, and added balancing negative criticisms on NLP on several occasions where they seemed justified. For example here I try to represent both sides and ask others to edit if incorrect, [28 October 2005] I ask Headley to discuss so the edit can be agreed (ignored). On many other occasions [89] and [90] and [91] and [92] and [93] and [94] for examples of article edits that were explained, or citations offered, on the talk page. Edits were explained on the talk page: [95] [96] "Any criticisms please bring here... as I am unaware of anything controversial or disputed written in that section" [97] and [98] and a request to name "...one non-trivial example of a statement I added, that you feel is not supported factually and inaccurate." [99] and "if you wish to revert please first mention here exactly which statements you feel are inaccurate. Rather than mass-reverting the entire definition. This is in compliance with wiki standards that say a dispute over wording should be hammered out on the talk page rather than repeatedly reverted" [100]
    
   By way of contrast, the tone of DaveRight's contributions is somewhat... unwikipedian: Can anyone think of a good new religious name for NLP? How about The Church of New Rolling Wizdicks?DaveRight 06:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)" [101]
    
   
7. Re HansAntel: I am prepared to believe Hans is not a literal sock puppet, nor is he a disruptive editor as such. Hence why I have listed him separately from the other 5 named users. But that's all. He edits with a common agenda to the other named users, he arrived here roughly with the other named users, he almost certainly found this site in connection with the current POV-warfare style editing on NLP (ie advocacy) rather than from a general wish to neutrally write for an encyclopedia. As an editor, he uses at times perjorative wording assumptions and straw men similarly to the other named users, Hans also makes vague accusations and personal remarks as they do, and falls under WP:SOCK as a "single use account" and likely meatpuppet. WP policy states such users may be considered sockpuppets for this purpose. By way of example, his statement above contains no actual substantive matters, just a set of poorly defined personal remarks, an unsubstantiated and grossly inaccurate statement that I "want to write lots of complaint... nothing but complaint from start to now" and that I delete facts (see previous for rebuttals), and some statements of his personal view. I would tend to agree if he states that he has not vandalized the article in any way, or has a potential to contribute to the article: his non-neutrality, purpose on wikipedia, single use account, and common agenda with a group of aggressive POV warriors, is the concern for me.
    
   
8. Re HeadleyDown additions: HeadleyDown later adds a section, most of which concerns other editors. But it references "the FT2 camp" which I object to, and at the end it states, "Here are some of FT2’s crimes", listing 5 diffs. Most of these are misrepresented:
   1. Allegation: There is an "FT2 camp".
      Rebuttal: I was already a previous editor on this subject. Despite this, my contributions show none whatsoever on NLP or its talk page or related articles between 5 Aug (when HeadleyDown arrived) and 27 Oct (when it became obvious there was a sockpuppet or crony issue severely slanting the article), whilst I tried to let existing editors reach agreement. By 27 Oct it had already undergone RfC and RfM, all the other major editors were already engaged, and my focus was to try and clarify the NPOV issues, and rework visibly problematic edits, as someone unaligned. It is false to name me as having a "camp" or similar. I have tried to work with both sides. One of many examples of this
   2. Allegation: Removing cited facts and selective editing. "Lots of anti NPOV activity." DIFF
      Rebuttal: This was in fact a rvt of Headley's edits, back to the mediated version. Headley had edited the mediated version to include multiple additional criticisms (again), adding the words: "significant criticism" (twice), "promotion" (twice), "dubious" (once), "pseduoscientific" (once) on top of many existing references of these words, plus deletion of a research citation stating that research was limited and had probably not yet been undertaken properly. My edit narrative read: "rvt Headley to VoiceOfAll: WP is about a balanced neutral encyclopaedic view - not every "fact" has a place, especially not when it's merely further unbalancing an already unbalanced article".
   3. Allegation: removing properly cited facts. DIFF
      Rebuttal: This is half of a 2-edit diff. The full diff is here. It's the same identical reversion as the above, reverted again because Headley kept trying to push the above noted POV into the article without discussion. It differs slightly since it incorporated reinstatement of mediator edits that HeadleyDown had deleted from the article too. My edit narrative for these two edits read: "[try that again], rvt to 3.09 version, including VoiceofAll's edit on "New Age" "
   4. Allegation: Adding as much hype in one go as possible. DIFF
      Rebuttal: Following the one sided nature of the article, I listed for discussion some 84 citations from credible organisations that state NLP is used or found to be of value to them, at Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/Research#Recognition_by_other_bodies. Every last item on that list was sourced, and every last one had a web link provided for verification. All but a handful were current (2004-2005). This was appropriate in view of headley and others' repeated comments that they did not know of any people taking, or using, NLP seriously. Neither Headley nor his colleagues have ever denied this list is accurate. Headley & Co. having failed to represent NLP's usage properly, I added a summary of this material myself, complete with citations for every entry, listing the facts and letting them speak for themselves. I find it hard to see how this characterizes as "hype". My edit narrative read: "Just a few... I think its time some balance was brought to this article, the evidence has been on the other page for some time now as to applications."
   5. Allegation: FT2’s "masterpiece of selective editing... FT2's biggest trick". Alleges that the argument is selectively cited, taking the middle and ignoring the negative conclusion.. States that "The end of the paragraph actually states – But NLP has failed in controlled experiments and so it is relegated". Characterizes the edit as "intellectually fraudulent, clear selective editing, biased in the extreme, and grossly misleading" from a research perspective. DIFF
      Rebuttal: This was part of a HeadleyDown breach of 3RR reversion, and arose after I had reverted it twice already. Edit narratives:
      • 16:06 "Rvt - misrepresentative of research sources, see talk page *again* headley. When I say "if you have an issue discuss 1st", thats because it's WP policy Headley"
      • 17:22 "See talk page, selective citation is not okay see WP:NPOV"
      • 18:04 "Headley..... that's still weasel ("other reasons") and pov suppression. If you don't know the scientific research or usage, then ask on the talk page as suggested, rather than just reverting."
      The edit itself can be seen in the DIFF, and its neutrality judged. Addressing Headley's points:
      • Re the allegation of selectivity, I note that if a researcher states in one and the same paper, that:
        "Research data do not support the rather extreme claims that the proponents of NLP have made"
        and ALSO states:
        "This does not necessarily reduce NLP to worthlessness... Rather, it puts NLP in the same category as psychoanalysis, that is, with principles not easily demonstrated in laboratory settings but nevertheless, strongly supported by clinicians in the field",
        then I think to choose just the negative one, when one is already selectively inserting only the more negative citations already, is highly inappropriate. So I added the balancing quote in order that the author would not be misrepresented. It is clear that he wrote both sentences, and it is hard to see his very specific wording not being intended as it reads.
      • Regarding the end of the sentence, in fact Headley seems to be deliberately misquoting that paragraph here. It does NOT say "But NLP has failed in controlled experiments and so it is relegated". DaveRight actually posted the end of that sentence on the NLP pages for us, and says that it reads very differently: "But, if it has been tested and fails then it is relegated."
      • Headley represented the BPS (again) as viewing NLP as "Charlatanery". My response to this has been given many times, and actual BPS citations where they support and recommend NLP, or at the least do not treat it at all like "quackery", are cited and linked at /Research#British_Psychological_Society. HeadleyDown has never acknowledged these. Rather than delete a viewpoint, I added a note in parentheses, that this view was no longer supported by the BPS.
      Apparently the standard for citation inclusion varies tremendously depending whether it is a view that represents NLP in the extremely critical light or not. That might be Headley's view. But it is not appropriate behavior on Wikipedia.
   6. Allegation: I stated that NLP is criticised both for being ineffectual and being too effective. "This contradiction has not yet been resolved". HeadleyDown states first that this is a personal view, then that it is a view he has heard from others who he calls "vandals" (but never names), finally stating that it "is not the view of any other author" but mere personal opinion. DIFF
      Rebuttal: Apart from the contradictions in his own words, it is clear that 1/ NLP has been criticized for being ineffective, Headley & Co. have dug up multiple citations to this effect. 2/ NLP has been criticized for being effective in and used as part of mind control and cults etc. Again, both Headley & Co. and I have dug up multiple citations to this effect as well. 3/ These contradict, 4/ The contradiction is noteworthy since it shines a light on NLP and NLP research, and 5/ The contradiction has not yet been resolved. I am unaware of a reason why this would be a remarkable edit or considered unsourced. The edit contains a variety of other edits too. The edit narrative states "Criticism - cleanup - see talk page". The talk page post I wrote explaining this edit is here and worth reading for its neutrality.
   7. Weasel words signoff: "There are many more similar breaches of cooperation, good research and policy that FT2 continues to commit" (ominous words, but none are cited).
   8. HeadleyDown, rebutted, attempts to back-pedal / soft-pedal his accusations and actions, adding that "The whole arbitration episode is quite ridiculous." [102]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (8/0/0/0)

• Accept cautiously, to judge behavior and not content ➥the Epopt 23:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Accept. James F. (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Accept. Kelly Martin ( talk) 14:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Accept, but suggest any mediation continue in the meantime. Fred Bauder 15:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Accept. Dmcdevit· t 01:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Accept. Mackensen (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Accept. Charles Matthews 16:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision Information

POV and obsessive editors may be banned

1) Users who edit in a point of view or obsessive way may be banned partially or completely.

Passed 9-0

Adequate sourcing

2) It is not sufficient to simply refer to "Jones (1984)" as the source of information. There are a number of acceptable formats but a sufficient reference includes sufficient information to enable others to easily find the text relied on.

Passed 9-0

NPOV

3) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding the subject of an article.

Passed 9-0

Obsessive and POV editing

1) A number of users have been engaging in aggressive point of view editing of Neuro-linguistic programming and related articles as well as personal attacks, examples may include but are not limited to: Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, AliceDeGrey, and Flavius vanillus.

Passed 9-0

Inadequate sourcing

2) Most of the cited sources in the article do not meet minimum standards for reliable sources, lacking information regarding page number and identification of edition.

Passed 9-0

Ascribing points of view

3) The article could more closely conform to neutral point of view by ascribing controversial viewpoints such as "NLP is pseudoscience" to those who have expressed such opinions, rather then presenting them as bald statements of fact.

Passed 9-0

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.

Probation

Passed 9-0

Amended 7 to 1 by motion, at 13:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Adequate sourcing

2) Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, and AliceDeGrey are reminded to provide an adequate description of the source of information included in the article, in the case of publications to page and edition.

Passed 9-0

NPOV

3) Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, and AliceDeGrey are reminded to ascribe point of view statements to those making them.

Passed 9-0

Discuss reverts

4) Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, and AliceDeGrey are required to discuss any content reversions on Neuro-linguistic programming on its talk page.

Passed 7-2

Mentorship

Passed 8-1

Addendum: The initial mentors selected were Jdavidb, Katefan0, Ral315, and Woohookitty.

Johntex is now a mentor. 01:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Jdavidb and Ral315 both subsequently resigned. Will Beback has been appointed to fill the open spot. 05:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Rescinded by motion on 02:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Article probation revocation (February 2022)

Remedy 5 of the Neuro-linguistic programming case ("Mentorship") is rescinded.

Passed 11 to 0 by motion on 02:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

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.

Place here the basis of any action taken under the provisions of any remedy imposed in this matter.

• One hour block placed on User:Camridge for comments in contravention of mentorship directions that incivility should be completely avoided. On Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Workshop: one uncivil comment "You could direct Greg Alexander to stop acting in bad faith" and one borderline personal attack [103]. Comments refactored. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/ poll 05:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Three hour block placed on User:Camridge for comments in contravention of mentorship directions about avoiding incivility, and snarky comments directed at me. [104] "pseudoscientific issues are discussed in greater detail in the book, so I suggest you use a library." Comments refactored. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/ poll 04:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• One hour block placed on User:Flavius vanillus for incivil comments in contravention of mentorship directions. [105]. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 11:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• 6 hour block placed on User:Flavius vanillus for continued incivility. He responded to a block of him for incivility with more...well incivility. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 11:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• 24 hour block placed on User:Flavius vanillus for continued incivility. He referred to comaze as a "lapdog" on his talk page. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 01:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Block on User:Flavius vanillus extended to 48 hours for this. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 05:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Extended to a week for [106] · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/ poll 15:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• 12-hour block on User:JPLogan for [107] · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/ poll 06:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• 1 hour block for User:HeadleyDown for [108]. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 12:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• 3-hour block for User:DaveRight for [109]. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/ poll 03:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• 24-hour block for User:DaveRight for [110]. Was originally 12 but what he said was so eggregious that 24 is warranted. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 10:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• 24-hour block for User:Camridge for [111]. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 15:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• 2 week block for User:Flavius vanillus for [112]. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 12:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Indefinite block for User:Flavius vanillus. He was up to 6 blocks. According to this, he really had no intentions of following our rules. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 19:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Indefinite blocks for User:DaveRight, User:JPLogan and User:Medius Maximus for sockpuppet use. Here is the evidence. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 19:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• 24 hour block for User:AliceDeGrey for [113] and [114]. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 08:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Indefinite block for Addsquad ( talk · contribs), who showed up right after the checkuser-related blocks. Only contributions were to troll the NLP talk page. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/ poll 15:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Hong Kong sockfarm checkuser'ed and blocked: LemonMnM ( talk · contribs), Oblio Yu HK ( talk · contribs), Figleaf Riverdance ( talk · contribs) and Superkyewl ( talk · contribs). · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/ poll 17:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• 48 hour block for User:HeadleyDown for this and this, which is gross violation of Remedy #4 above. -- Woohookitty ^(meow) 13:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• 24 hour block for User:HansAntel for [115]. Usually start lower, but this was a very eggregious violation of WP:CIV. -- Woohookitty ^(meow) 06:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Shortened block because of this. Apparently he was referring to literature that refers to it as Nazilinguistic. Warned him though that he needs to be more careful next time. -- Woohookitty ^(meow) 07:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• 24 hour block for User:Bookmain for blocked for disruption [116]. Removed over 10 disputed tags unilaterally and without sufficient discussion. -- Woohookitty ^(meow) 06:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• User:Camridge blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:HeadleyDown, as established by Checkuser. He has chosen to use the HeadleyDown account going forward. · Ka t efan0 ^(scribble) 18:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• User:HansAntel, User:AliceDeGrey and User:Bookmain have all been confirmed as sockpuppets of User:HeadleyDown and have been blocked indefinitely. -- Woohookitty ^(meow) 16:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• User:HeadleyDown for extensive sockpuppet use. He was allowed to continue when the first sockpuppet was discovered but now we have 4 more. Too excessive to permit under any cirumstances. -- Woohookitty ^(meow) 23:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• User:Helen Wu with an indefinite block. She is admittedly part of the same club as Headley and the others. I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt though but then she made an extremely incivil post. It might have been the most incivil post I've seen since I became a mentor on the article. -- Woohookitty ^(meow) 15:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Shortened the block to around 72 hours total for the personal attacks and incivility. Giving her the benefit of the doubt. -- Woohookitty ^(meow) 11:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• User:HongKongMasterofSci blocked indefinitely for being a likely sock/meatpuppet of HeadleyDown. -- Woohookitty ^(meow) 17:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• user:MastaMan (another likely sock) blocked indefinitely by RadioKirk for this and this rather obvious breach of WP:NPA against article mentor user:Woohookitty. FT2 ( Talk) 01:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• user:Attack s0ck blocked indefinitely by AmiDaniel for another attack + talk page vandalism on user:Woohookitty shortly after sockpuppet user:MastaMan blocked above. FT2 ( Talk) 03:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Further blocks documented on Wikipedia:Long term abuse/HeadleyDown.

Hi all. I accept all remedies here. I would like to point out that there are other people who need enforcing on the subject of NPOV on NLP articles. For example, both FT2 and Fuelwagon were guilty of extreme selective editing, and very obsessive editing as can be seen on the present NLP wikiproject. I believe those editors need to be reminded of this, and their names added to the list of editors you have on the remedies above. JPLogan 06:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply