Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by User:FT2

Main Arbitration evidence being collated at present (Nov 28). Will be presented shortly in a few more days.

It is time to come up with something Fred Bauder 15:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:FuelWagon

There are two basic issues here:

(NPOV violation) First, the editors critical of NLP generally insert statements in the article such as "NLP is pseudoscientific (Smith)" when they need to write it in the form of "Smith states that NLP is pseudoscientific". The first version states someone's view as if it were fact (with a name in parens to downplay that it is actually just someone's view). The second version clearly reports the view from the source who says it. This wouldn't be a problem if it were a rare occurrence, but this format is used throughout the article, which gives a heavily biased slant to the article.

(verifiability issue) Second, if these same editors cite a source, they cite the source with a name in parenthesis. They are not giving enough information that an uninvolved editor could verify that the person named actually said what the editor claims they said. A name in parenthesis is not enough for someone who knows nothing about the topic to verify another editor's work. Often an editor paraphrases some source and places a name in parenthesis, requiring other editors to take on faith that the paraphrasing was an accurate representation of the source's view.

I've tried numerous times to rewrite "NLP is pseudoscientific (Smith)" to "Smith states that NLP is pseudoscientific" but these editors refuse to follow policy. I've also told them numerous times that they need to provide more than just a name for verifiability purposes. The title of a book and a page number would be acceptable. A URL would be even better. But for the most part, this requirement for verifiability has been ignored.

A more subtle issue is that critics of NLP generally take the worst of NLP and use it as an excuse to present it as if it represented the core of what NLP is. Positive sources of information have been deleted and more oddball sources have been inserted as an attempt to present NLP as "occult" and other deragaory terms. This occurred less often then the NPOV and verifiability issues mentioned above, but it is another form of NPOV violation.

I don't know if sockpuppetry has occurred on the NLP page, but it is fairly hard to prove without an objective IP check. If it isn't a difficult task, I think a check for sockpuppetry on the following accounts would be prudent, just to put the issue to rest.

[edit] 23 September

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)

[edit] 25 October

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)

[edit] 27 October

06:31, 27 October 2005DaveRight edits opening sentence of entire article to call NLP "pseudoscientific". (violation of NPOV)

07:18, 27 October 2005 AliceDeGrey deleted successful use of NLP as "spam". Yet other critical editors have cited more oddball uses of NLP as proof that NLP is used for "witchcraft". (violation of NPOV)

07:19, 27 October 2005 deletes positive reference to research by PHD Patrick Merlevede that had a verifiable URL. (violation of NPOV)

08:01, 27 October 2005 AliceDeGrey, after deleting two positive sources above, inserts a critical source, showing editor's bias. (violation of NPOV)

14:53, 27 October 2005 HeadleyDown inserts "occult" applications of NLP. (violation of No Original Research, violation of NPOV)

17:13, 27 October 2005 HeadleyDown deletes positive reference to research by PHD Patrick Merlevede that had a verifiable URL. Edit summary says "one single dissertation is irelevant." (violation of NPOV)

[edit] 28 October

02:28, 28 October 2005 HeadleyDown deletes valid reference to NLP.

05:27, 28 October 2005 AliceDeGrey adds POV terms "idiosyncratically", "charismatically or evangeliestically taught", "magic", "new age fad", "considered as pseudoscience", "charismatic appeal, wish-fulfillment, quick fixes, and lack of critical faculty" (violation of NPOV)

06:12, 28 October 2005 DaveRight adds "because he could not resolve the dispute through the use of NLP", which is equivalent to "doctor, heal thyself". (violation of original research, violation of NPOV)

08:48, 28 October 2005 AliceDeGrey adds that NLP is "often promoted for the use of ... remote ESP influence" (violation of No Original Research, violation NPOV)

[edit] 29 October

05:59, 29 October 2005 AliceDeGrey needs to rewrite this to "Morgan stated that ..." (violation of NPOV)

[edit] 31 October

01:40, 31 October 2005 HeadleyDown adds "often promoted for the use of remote ESP" and "classed as pseudoscientific" (violation of NPOV)

03:30, 31 October 2005 DaveRight adds "inconclusive findings" with no source. (violation of No Original Research. violation NPOV)

09:53, 31 October 2005 AliceDeGrey adds that NLP is "often promoted for the use of ... remote ESP" also, later on adding "NLP has belief systems and social control methods. Certain cults use these in combination with the occult and pseudoscience" (violation No Original Research, violation NPOV)

15:11, 31 October 2005 HeadleyDown adds that NLP is "often promoted for the use of ... remote ESP" also, later on adding "NLP has belief systems and social control methods. Certain cults use these in combination with the occult and pseudoscience" (violation No Original Research, violation NPOV)

[edit] 1 November

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

[edit] 2 November

00:04, 2 November 2005 FuelWagon rewrites POV statement to NPOV

00:06, 2 November 2005 FuelWagon rewrites POV statement to NPOV

00:07, 2 November 2005 FuelWagon rewrites POV statement to NPOV

00:09, 2 November 2005 FuelWagon rewrites POV statement to NPOV

02:06, 2 November 2005 FuelWagon rewrites POV statement to NPOV

04:33, 2 November 2005 FuelWagon rewrites POV statement to NPOV

[edit] 3 November

02:31, 3 November 2005 (FuelWagon) 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.

02:33, 3 November 2005 (FuelWagon) "pseudoscience" is POV, and in this diff, the word is unsourced, reported as fact, violating NPOV.

02:37, 3 November 2005 (FuelWagon) 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.

02:14, 3 November 2005 (FuelWagon) 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.

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)

[edit] 5 November

04:51, 5 November 2005 FuelWagon rewrites POV statement to NPOV

16:41, 5 November 2005 FuelWagon rewrites POV statement to NPOV

[edit] 7 November

05:29, 7 November 2005 (FuelWagon) 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.

05:33, 7 November 2005 (FuelWagon) 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.

[edit] 10 November

02:23, 10 November 2005 FuelWagon rewrites POV statement to NPOV

02:24, 10 November 2005 FuelWagon rewrites POV statement to NPOV

[edit] 12 November

16:16, 12 November 2005 (FuelWagon) "quick fix or lay therapy, NLP trance seduction, and psychic or occult practices." completely unsourced, unverifiable.

16:20, 12 November 2005 (FuelWagon) 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."

17:02, 12 November 2005 FuelWagon rewrites POV statement to 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)

[edit] 13 November

02:10, 13 November 2005 JPLogan inserts "occult practices". Edit summary says "needs no references whatsoever" (violation of NPOV)

02:25, 13 November 2005 JPLogan use of "some say" should be rewritten to directly attribute source. (violation of NPOV)

03:18, 13 November 2005 HeadleyDown iserts "promotion of these dubious therapies" (violation NPOV)

03:43, 13 November 2005 HeadleyDown inserts therapies "have been found to be pseudoscientific." Should rewrite "(name) found therapies to be pseudoscientific" (Violation NPOV)

03:52, 13 November 2005 HeadleyDown removes one quote from Druckman that says studies of NLP are limited and insert a different quote more critical. Should at least report both views from Druckman.

[edit] 14 November

02:47, 14 November 2005 DaveRight adds "However, as with other pseudoscientific subjects," (violation of NPOV)

03:05, 14 November 2005 DaveRight calls those supporting NLP "supporters" and those who are critical of NLP to be "scientists". No source. (violation NPOV, violation original research)

09:58, 14 November 2005 Bookmain adds "Although NLP is has been found to be largely ineffective" (violation of NPOV)

10:04, 14 November 2005 Bookmain adds weasel words "attempt" and "claims"

10:11, 14 November 2005 Bookmain adds "However, as with other pseudoscientific subjects," (violation of NPOV)

11:37, 14 November 2005 HeadleyDown needs to rewrite this to "Singer states that NLP is..." (Violation of NPOV)

11:11, 14 November 2005 HeadleyDown needs to rewrite this to "Drenth, Levelt consider NLP to be pseudoscientific" (violation NPOV)

[edit] 15 November

03:09, 15 November 2005 DaveRight adds "NLP's pseudoscientific misconceptions" (violation NPOV)

03:18, 15 November 2005 DaveRight inserts text including "NLP, in addition to other pseudoscientific therapies, is criticised for..." (violation NPOV)

06:35, 15 November 2005 AliceDeGrey edit summary "Scientific view will prevail."

15:12, 15 November 2005 FuelWagon rewrites POV statement to NPOV

[edit] 16 November

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. (violation NPOV)

03:27, 16 November 2005 DaveRight "NLP is dubious" (violation NPOV)

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. (violation NPOV)

[edit] 17 November

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

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

05:18, 17 November 2005 Mysekurity locks page.

[edit] Evidence presented by Comaze

If I have time I will clean up, and expand the notes --Comaze 10:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Conduct Complaint User:HeadleyDown

Comprimse and dispute resolution were offered
  • [2] - Comaze offers alernative disputes resolution options
  • [3] - Request to direct personal attacks by email "in a less public venue".
  • [4] Comaze offers comprimise to have engram in one sentence only.
  • [5] - Attempt to comprimse with energy / new age POV
Removal of dubious tags without discussion
Personal remarks/attacks
  • [7] "Comaze. I am just wondering what it would look like if you went through and "copyedited" the article. Somehow I think it would need some further adjustments:) I'm not psychic, I just have a powerful intuition about these matters! HeadleyDown 11:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)"[8]
  • [9] - HeadleyDown says: "Comaze has already proved he has bad faith - its called NLP"[10]
  • [11] This is minor personal attack, but at the moment I have zero tolerance after being attack twice by you today, see diffs. I'm sending you these notes each time you make personal remarks against me until you lift your game and argue based on the merits of the facts. --Comaze 07:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)"[12]
  • [13] - This is the third time you have personally attacked me today, [HeadleyDown] says "If you are here simply to cause trouble, have tantrums, and remove cited facts, just go away and don't come back. That includes you Comaze and Akulkis" see diffs. The rest of the message outlines your intention to "own" the article with your group of editors. I urge you to co-operate with the others editors and respond directly to question rather than attacking the messenger. --Comaze 09:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)"
Blind Reverts - Ownership of article (obsessive edits)
This comment amounts to an intention to reinstate inappropriate or redundant criticism that was removed under mediation and negotiation... HeadleyDown says, "What else can I say. Just look at his history. And look at the past versions of the article. There is a whole lot of support for the views that are present on the article. All we need to do is revert it. Comaze and the other NLP fanatics are their own worst enemy. If they like, they can have all the past criticisms reverted back to the present artcle. HeadleyDown 13:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)"[14]
  • "HeadleyDown, Please explain this blind revert, diffs. I think you are just trying to take take ownership of the article again. We're all meant to work together here! This is wikipedia. Plesae check out the official policies regarding ownership of articles. --Comaze 03:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)"[15]
  • "HeadleyDown, You recent post on wikipedia discussion page, diffs. I will answer you here this time becaues you have ignored the private messages. It is a violation of wikipedia policy to ignore and revert blindly as you have just stated. It also not not fair on other editors and is called Wikipedia:ownership --- against the spirit of wikipedia. Now, your post also contains another personal remark should really be sorted out via private discussion. It is also also off topic because rather than a direct reply to topic of this thread (Loma, Raso, Barrett, NCAHF) you ad hominem argument. --Comaze 07:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)"[16]
  • "Today you have engaged in multiple personal attack against me. see diffs here and here. Saying that I have a "concerted agenda to remove cited facts" or "sociopathic" it not the behaviour of a wikipedian. It is your choice, simple stop making the personal remarks and I will filing evidence against you. --Comaze 04:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)"[17] - Multiple personal attacks
  • "Today you have engaged in multiple personal attack against me. see diffs here and here. Saying that I have a "concerted agenda to remove cited facts" or "sociopathic" is not the behaviour of a wikipedian. It is your choice, simple stop making the personal remarks or I will filing all of this evidence against you. --Comaze 04:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)"[18]
  • "This recent reversion is another attempt to take ownership of the article by reverting any edits that do not agree with you personal agenda. You have stated that you will blindly revert my contributions and this is unacceptable. This reversion even reinstates errors that I corrected. BUT my biggest concern is that you moved the detached the entire NLP applications section from the corresponding applications I have no idea what is your intention for that move apart from some agenda to confuse the article. --Comaze 02:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)"[19]
  • [20] - Personal attack, "As it stands, you have proved yourself to be just as destructive as Comaze."
Personal attack
HeadleyDown: impolite edit comments
Biased Edits
  • "This recent reversion and series of edits seem to be designed to disrupt the article. The most serious would be the removal of common NLP techniques and the complete removal of the meta model and milton model section. This was not discussed. --Comaze 16:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)"[21]
Vandalism
  • Deletion of entire text in the meta model article without discussion, "In this edit. You have deleted the text in the NLP meta model article. I think this is extremely biased and outside normal wikipedia rules. --Comaze 23:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)"[22]
Misrepresentation of sources
  • Misrepresentation of Raso / Barrett / NCAHF: "bias, see diffs. Firstly HeadleyDown's reversion was blind and did not take into account the recent discussion and contributions of other editors. Additionally, [HeadleyDown] added references that do not match the attribution -- The NCAHF, Raso, Barrett references are currently being debating in the discussion, adding mispresentations of critics does not help matters. To [HeadleyDown], What is your evidence to say that NCAHF has weight? The article you cite has no external citations. NCAHF has a low alexa rank. Loma is an unknown author. Raso's opinion is already included in the article elsewhere. It seems to be a circular reference except for Druckman and Swets who can be cited directly. No reputable university would accept this sort of intellectual dishonesty. --Comaze 03:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC) --Comaze 03:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)"[23]
Scientology Bias Engram/Dianetics
  • Comaze asks, "What is your source and intention for including this in the first paragraph of the NLP article? --Comaze 10:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)"[24]
  • "What is your source for the engrams concept? You reference Grinder & Bandler (1975a) but there is no reference to engrams in that book. --Comaze 23:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)"[25]
  • "HeadleyDown added a picture of Jesus to the Neuro-linguistic Programming page, and removed content that was not in dispute. This is a warning. regards, --Comaze 11:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)"[26]
  • "Engrams has no relevance in NLP. It has never been mentioned in any NLP training that I've done in the Grinder, Bandler, Gilligan, or Hall lineage. I cannot find any reference to engram in ANY of the reputable NLP literature. I will continue to revert your contribution if you continuing adding this. One comprimise would be to move all your current references to engram to one paragraph, as long as it is framed as who uses this idea, and who does not (ie. Bandler, Grinder, Gilligan, Delozier, Cameron Bandler, Dilts, Andreas, Hall, etc). regards, --Comaze 23:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)"[27]

[edit] Personal Conduct Complaint User:DaveRight

Personal Attacks/Remarks

Note: Most of these complaints involve attacking the man rather than argue based on merits and weight to be give to various points of view. [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]

Removal of sectional NPOV and sectfact tags without consensus

DaveRight comments, "NPOV tags removed (the NLP cultists are stalling because those sections are perfectly factual)" [41]

[edit] Personal Conduct Complaint User:Camridge

User:Camridge; Ignores requests for dispute resolution
  • Comaze requests mediation: "Would you like to get meditation (3rd opinion) on these matters? Additionally, based on the style and content of your posts I suspect that you are also a sockpuppet of HeadleyDown. I would like to get a third party opinion on this. --Comaze 08:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)"[42]
  • Camridge ignores multiple offers of RfC on conduct issues and content disputes, Comaze asks, "Will you agree to get a third party opinion on this? --Comaze 06:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)" [43]
  • Camridge respond to request for comment with a personal attack on the NLP talk page saying, "Comaze, Media13 actually has a vetting policy quite similar to that of a published paper journal. I suggest you are most definitely the most biased and zealous fanatic on this article. If anyone want's to join your ranks Comaze, they will definitely be labeled in the same way. Camridge 03:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)" NOTE: Media13 ([http://www.Media13.com/) is a internet site that ANYONE can freely post to -- contary to what Camridge says it has not no peer-review process.
  • "If you wish to resolve I am more than happy to engage a third party. --Comaze 10:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)"[44]
User:Camridge; violation Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks and Wikipedia:Civility
  • [45] - "I suggest you are most definitely the most biased and zealous fanatic on this article. If anyone want's to join your ranks Comaze, they will definitely be labeled in the same way. Camridge 03:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)"[46]
  • [47] - "Comaze, there are libraries in the world full of the information you claim to seek (but refuse to accept). Again you prove yourself to be here primarily as a censor of criticism. Your track record in that area is clear. Camridge 09:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)"[48]
  • [49] - "Comaze is still playing the same game as ever, and just trying to wind people up on their own userpages, making baseless objections to mediators/arbs whilst deleting as much as he can here in the process."[50]
  • [51] - "Comaze, if that means you doing your thing of trying to chuck out references on the basis that they do not promote NLP or that they contain evidence that places NLP as a fringe new age pseudopsychological fad, then I think you are on the wrong path. Clearly you seem to think there is something very wrong with the references that have been provided at your own insistance."[52]
  • [53] - Comaze asks for a RfC and Camridge return with another personal attack, " Listen Comaze, there is no way you are going to get away without someone pointing out your uncooperative behaviour. You have demanded so much, but you continue to deny the facts. These are not personal attacks. Truly the only personal attacks are the ones made by the promoters you work with towards nonpromotional editors, and I will repeat what the mediator VoiceOfAll has stated about you; "YOUR BEHAVIOUR IS TEDIOUS AND UNPRODUCTIVE". Camridge 03:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)"[54]
  • [55] - "Do you want to post a meatpuppet label on my personal page together with Comaze's many unreasonable objections? Camridge 04:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)"[56]
  • [57] - Personal remark in edit comments: - "Removing Comaze's lies. Engram is used in the field, and it is associated with the unconscious, just as Hubbard did."[58]
  • [59] - "Its good advice Dave. Comaze is as persistently damaging as anyone could be to any editor's state of mind. Lets all just be reasonable, chill out and get on with research/editing. Camridge 03:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)"[60]
  • [61] - "Comaze, your denial borders on delusion". see diffs.
  • [62] "NLP is fringe, and you are a fringe devotee. You are minority, and NLP is minority next to science."[63]
  • [64] - "Comaze, your anti-NPOV agenda is clear from your history. I have also noticed that RichardCleen and Blauregen are similarly credential-less. Looks to me like they are all meatpuppets of yours, or are siding with you in your long march to delete/obscure facts on Wikipedia. Camridge 06:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)"[65]
  • [66] Camridge wrote this in a subheadline: "Comaze's EXTREME ANTAGONISM surfaces again with his butchery of images (zealous fanatical censorship), Solution: Revert his nonsense, and report his deliberately tedious actions"[67]
  • [68] - Personal attack, word "zealot": "Comaze, your objections hold no weight. Your agenda is clear from your history (deletion of science and critical facts, persistent harrassment, and general NLP-zealot behaviour). You, and co-antagonists will simply be ignored. Camridge 05:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)"[69]
  • [70] - Camridge responds to direct question with an attack with attack the man, "Comaze, your question has been answered already. Your objection/suggestion is as unreasonable as your months of unsuccessful attempts to delete scientifically based criticism. Camridge 05:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)"
  • "[Camridge] responds again to request to stop with another personal attack. This just does not make sense. I've invited everyone to go through and remove all personal attacks... [71]. Again, you intention is beyond my understanding. --Comaze 09:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)"
  • [72] - "Your recent edit contains yet another personal attack against me. You've made it very obvious that you have no interesting in resolving the content disputes and every intention of attacking me in order to get some sort of reaction. Well I refuse to react to you bait, and never will. If you wish to resolve I am more than happy to engage a third party. --Comaze 10:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)"[73]
  • [74] - Camridge says, "I will continue to stay mild even during [Comaze]'s fanatical sociopathic accusations."
  • 06:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC) Camridge says, "Comaze will not stop his sociopathic harrassment, and my relatively mild comments (certainly in comparison with most NLP zealots"[75]
  • "Alternatively, lets revert all of Comaze's attempts to transform scientists and other experts into narrow minded fringe web page writers. There have already been many deleted views of scientists and other such experts. These were deleted through Comaze's advocacy for censorship. His attempts at censorship have sometimes been rewarded, and thus reinforced. If this article is further clarified by briefly placing the views of experts, then the NLP fanatics will be punished. In fact anything that clarifies the article will lead to NLP fanatics being punished. Looks like we have no choice but to torture Comaze and co by clarifying the article some more. Camridge 06:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)"[76]
User:Camridge; violation Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks in edits comments on talk page
  • [77] "09:30, 19 December 2005 Camridge (removed Comaze's psychotic harrasment yet again)"
  • [78] - "Comaze's extreme antagonism, and uncooperative, tedious censorship"
User:Camridge; Ignoring offers and reversion of comprimses; violation Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
  • [79] - Removing dubious tags while still awaiting evidence, diffs (Violation of Wikipedia:Disputed_statement).
  • [80] - Camridge says, "...I must identify you as a fervent promoter of NLP, and it is my duty to undo any nonsense you have created..."[81]
  • [82] - reversion of comprimise in regard to engrams - a minority view that is current presented with too much weight. (NPOV violation)
  • [83] - We negotiated that to rename engram to "Neuro in NLP" this comprimise was reverted without proper discussion.
  • In response to what I (Comaze) thought was neutral editing of images, Camridge posts, "==COMAZE HAS ONCE AGAIN BUTCHERED IMAGES ON THE NLP ARTICLE== Comaze, your intense antagonism and tedious, unconstructive nuisance is once again noted. Camridge 09:31, 20 December 2005"[84]
  • [85] - Camridge reverted this comprimise that was carefully paraphrased to not change any meaning, see diffs, except to add that engram is not a majority view in NLP which has been demonstrated in the discussion and agreed to by the mediator. This is another example where Camridge and group of editors have seeked to "own" the article by reverting without proper discussion. This is also an example of how you are "pushing POV" by promoting a fringe view that say NLP can be explained by engrams with the intention of confusing NLP with dianetics and scientology.
  • [86] - admission of attempting to "own" the article, stating, "Comaze's method of making edits that will definitely be reverted" I suggest that you retract this statement. see diffs.


User:Camridge; violation of Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View; Biased edits with User:HeadleyDown/User:DaveRight
  • [87] - "Camridge, your recent edits with DaveRight are biased. I'm preparing to lodge a formal complaint against you. I also suspect that you are a sockpuppet of DaveRight/HeadleyDown and group, so I will seek comment on this. --Comaze 04:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)"[88]
  • [89] - "Your most recent edits contain the same type of bias, even more serious because you remove statements that show other points of view. This is a violation of wikipedia policy: neutrality. --Comaze 07:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)"[90]
  • [91] - "Your recent edits with DaveRight and here [92] also contain similar bias. --Comaze 05:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)"
  • [93] - "This edit remove neutral statements... with misleading commments: [94] --Comaze 06:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)" diffs

[edit] WP:POINT violation (disruption of article) and POV Editing: Camridge/DaveRight

"Alternatively, lets revert all of Comaze's attempts to transform scientists and other experts into narrow minded fringe web page writers. There have already been many deleted views of scientists and other such experts. These were deleted through Comaze's advocacy for censorship. His attempts at censorship have sometimes been rewarded, and thus reinforced. If this article is further clarified by briefly placing the views of experts, then the NLP fanatics will be punished. In fact anything that clarifies the article will lead to NLP fanatics being punished. Looks like we have no choice but to torture Comaze and co by clarifying the article some more. Camridge 06:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)" A very similar comment was made by HeadleyDown the following, day:[95]

  • POV Editing DaveRight: 3 January 2006 [96][97][98][99]
  • DaveRight removes the NPOV section tags[[100]]
  • Voice of All (mediator) makes corrections to DaveRight's reversions [101]
  • Camridge enters the discussion and reverts the mediators' corrections
  • POV Editing Camridge: 3 January 2006 [102][103][104]

[edit] Editing from a Dianetics/Scientology bias: EBlack, D.Right, HeadleyDown

Notice the similar style images submitted by HeadleyDown and Eblack

It seems in an attempt to link NLP with Scientology (Dianetics) is the source most of the content disputes on the page. From my investigations, this started with EBlack adding links to NLP from the Scientology page....

And with HeadleyDown creating an account and then rewriting the history of NLP with a Scientology/Dianetics bias, that when they intentionally used the confusion about engrams. (NOTE: Engram is the central concept in Dianetics and Scientology, and is only used by a small minority of NLP practitioners).

EBlack's page it states "D.Right, Dave Right, Headley Down, JP Logan, Carl Oxford - actually come to think of it ... I'm actually a bit schizophrenic when it comes to getting my POV across, all tactics are justified." Note: Checking the history of this page finds that the comment was posted from anonymous FTP (located in UK).

I think EBlack is the original editor in this group; EBlack -EBlack Contributions

The follow events show that these users are working together to push a certain POV on the article. Attempts to correct or discuss were dismissed.
  • [107] - HeadleyDown rewrites the history of NLP with a Scientology/Dianetics bias
  • [108] - Comaze reverts HeadleyDown's post
  • [109] - D.Right reverts to HeadleyDown
  • [110] - Comaze reverts
  • [111] - D.Right adds the Scientology/History of NLP again.
  • [112] - Comaze Reverts
  • [113] - HeadleyDown adds the section again.
  • [114] - Comaze reverts

...This continues for a while...

  • [115] - HeadleyDown adds the Scientology stuff again and starts adding unreferenced information

...time goes by...

  • [116] - Scientology-NLP History is removed again.
  • [117] - HeadleyDown adds it again.

...repeats...

  • 07:06, 22 August 2005 - Sunray (Neutral third person) reverts - removing the Scientology-NLP history, and then ask

people to take it to talk page.

...another revert...

  • 13:54, 22 August 2005 - D.Right comments "Yeh! I prefer the Scientology version also!" and adds the Scientology-POV-history back in.

...this repeats some more...

  • 06:38, 23 August 2005 - Sunray attemps to write in some NPOV. included, "Some fundamentalist Christians regard NLP as being similar to what they categorize as "new age" movements (examples given are" This was immediately edited to, "Some critics regard NLP..."

[edit] Evidence presented by DaveRight

Look up there, FuelWagon just accused me of writing "NLP, just like other pseudoscientific subjects" as if it is a hanging offence. ITS NOT FAIR! The evidence is all over the place article. FuelWagon is clearly trolling!:) Banish him into the wilderness! Cheers DaveRight 03:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Material from decision to request arbitration

From Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/_archive5#Arbitration

In view of the fact that

  1. Users HeadleyDown and JPLogan (and others) have consistently shown little idea of, and minimal respect for, Wiki policy and have shown this for some time now
  2. There has been ongoing aggressive POV warring by these two (and possibly others) in the NLP article. [118] and [more references to follow] and possibly also [119] (by DaveRight; although it is citations, it seems a very slanted group of citations)
  3. At least one editor has called the results of their work "some of the most biased editing I've read... If you're a POV warrior using Wikipedia to advocate against something, you need to find a different encyclopedia to edit" [120]
  4. Valid and significant information based on original material are deleted by them on a frequent basis or replaced with POV wording. Established fact such as what NLP itself has identified as its goal, or direct textual based information, is described as "NLP claims.." and "supposedly...", ie weasel words. Example reversion: [121]
    Example - this text, comprising major corrections and explanations of what exactly NLP says, and including some citations and references, is based on citable source material, and this was noted on the Talk page. Despite this, it was reverted to a less complete and moderately inaccurate once [122], then again [123] and yet again [124] by HeadleyDown, despite at least two requests on the Talk page to identify any specific statements that were inaccurate or not common knowledge, which request was also ignored multiple times.
  5. Concerns over NPOV are met with personal attack or repeatedly treated with contempt. [125] and [126]
  6. Questions to ascertain extent of knowledge were ignored many times. Example: [127] and [128]
  7. Ignorance of fundamental subject material, as demonstrated by lack of knowledge of full research, and edits to material changing it from material represented in NLP texts, to material of non-standard (but pseudoscience style) authors, which is then used as evidence it is pseudoscience. [references coming shortly]
  8. Requests to discuss reverts on the talk page first, or to state exactly which facts were disputed, were ignored or dismissed [129]
  9. On several occasions, facts (or the significance of some material) appear to have been invented, exaggerated, selectively chosen, or not checked at all, and equally valid facts not desired by the above-named to be suppressed, attacked or reverted. Example: [130] (Deletion of commonly ignored source model despite citation) and [131] (claim that critic is "world renowned" and performed "research" when he is a comparative nobody and wrote basically just an article)
  10. The article does not actually even describe NLP as it stands (!)
  11. Mediation was attempted and seems to have failed before I got here
  12. I have attempted to make a start to sort out basic issues both on a separate page, and via a section explicitly described as"Not for flames but for better understanding of the issues", and again on HeadleyDown's talk page (with thanks and courtesy), all flamed in reply, typical response to label it "evangelism" and accuse of bias (again) [132]
  13. When I eventually got HeadleyDown's (somewhat grudging) agreement to mediation, within hours of thanking him and giving factual private explanations for discussion, intended to help bridge the gap, HeadleyDown's response was personal attack and POV warring against even that.
  14. I have given several warnings, as have other editors [133] that if this continues, Arbitration will result, possibly including an article ban, and asked for collaboration and a cooling down to avoid that. But nothing has improved. [134] and [135] and [136]
  15. As a result of the above aggressive POV warring and other persistent breaches of wikipedia policy, progress on the article has been and is being unacceptably stalled by the inability of these people to grasp basic concepts such as "NPOV", "courtesy" and "writing for the enemy", despite many requests by multiple editors, and courteous reminders that it will not be acceptable if it continues.

I am inclined to take the matter of these two editors, and possibly others, to the Arbitration Committee. If so, it will not be on the broad "he said/she said", or "Group A/Group B" basis that the request for Mediation was based upon. It will be directly undertaken myself, and specifically for aggressive POV warring, personal attacks, and persistent irreconcilable non-compliance with wikipedia policies by HeadleyDown, JPLogan and possibly others (to be decided).

Please vote below if you would be supportive, against, or have other opinions on this matter at this time. Note that ArbCom does not in fact require a consensus to accept a matter, so this is more a "straw poll" of feeling. (Sock puppets and suspected sock puppets, including unknown anon IPs, may be ignored) But I would want to think very carefully about such a step if mediation may yet succeed, or if I am in fact alone in thinking this is appropriate.

  • Support FT2 07:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Comaze 09:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Lee1 10:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support FuelWagon 18:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC) I believe my first edit to this article was about a week ago, on 22:04, 26 October 2005, in which the very first sentence of the article opened like this: Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a pseudoscientific development proposed for programming the mind, I removed the POV declaration that NLP is factually declared to be pseudoscientific. [137]. Things have not improved much in the week or so since then. And it seems clear that NPOV policy is either grossly misunderstood by a number of editors or simply being flagrantly ignored. Numerous attempts to explain NPOV have been ignored. I don't have experience with the whole history of this article and all 16 points, but I support the notion that NPOV policy is not being followed here. ANd I'd be willing to submit evidence to arbitration regarding my experience on the NLP article.
  • Support GregA 203.217.56.137 11:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, user:203.217.56.137. But you have only the one contribution under this address, and traditionally people with few edits are notrmally asked not to vote on matters like this, to avoid suspicion that they are accounts created by one "side" or the other just for the purpose. If you have an account, or have regularly watched this debate, and are not just a sock puppet, please feel free to edit your post adding more information why your vote should be included even though you have never made other contributions to the encyclopedia under this IP. It's not personal, I'm sure you are bona fide, but I'm sure you understand that even the appearance of bias would be best avoided, in the interest of scrupulous fairness, especially as there have been sock puppet accusations between other editors in the past. Please reply if you feel there are facts to consider that will change this, or indeed, contribute to the discussion. FT2 12:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry FT2. Yes I've posted plenty here I think you'll agree. Any probs let me know - sorry about the IP address. GregA 05:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
User previously warned vopte would not be counted; warning removed as user has identified self and is a known editor
  • Support User:PatrickMerlevede in several areas this page is not the NLP as it is described in the core books of the field (those written between 1974-1980) - a blatant example to me is the use of the word engrams. I also believe some "skeptics" are overdoning their case, by even misrefresenting their refeences (e.g. the references to cults, which I already tried to correct 2 times)
  • Support Justin9:54 am 11th November 2005. My first edit was about three months ago where the meta model was discussed. The topic of generalisations using meta model questions was lobbed together with a question for a simple deletion. I changed this twice more. It was reverted twice more then upon enterring for discussion I feel that some editors had been taking a turn toward the dramatic rather than even being remotely faithfully in stating what NLP is. Research was strong in one area but not other areas where I might suppose the editor thought the information wasn't important. The continued likenesss to engrams, Dianetics 9which involves talking to trees), cults and rituals (If I started talking about NLP and say it is a cult and they do rituals this might inspire a person to think it is some kind of witch craft or that I drink goats blood if they were so inclined) Without stating in what way NLP is like a cult or what rituals NLPers undergo i find these to be veiled insults to the institution and misleading to the reader
Comments

Hello FT2. Considering your recent additions of your own views to the article, I suggest that you need to go back to the reality check stage. We are in the constructive process of mediation, and if you hadn't noticed, the mediator is working well. He has even been moving or deleting criticisms from sections that your promoter team demanded to have supplied by neutral editors but then decided not to like. VoiceOfAll is working well for now. In future arbitration is always an option. I think it would be silly to pass up such a tolerant mediator as the present one. Regards AliceDeGrey 10:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

VofAll has been working on the mediation. Small edits to the article have taken place. But the personal attacks, the major POV warring, and the instant dismissal (as you have done yourself) of anyone seeking NPOV as part of "the pro group" or a "promoter" is not apparently being resolved by mediation, and this is what I am seeking to visit ArbCom with. Adequate requests and courtesy have been given, adequate concern was given that if the personal attacks and vehement warring continued then it would probably be felt that mediation was de facto doomed, and not only by me, and the situation is not fundamentally changed or likely to change; personal attacks and POV warring contuinue despite all the above.
ArbCom state that either mediation has formally failed, or reasons why you believe it will be fruitless. My reasons for believing the latter is the case, are given above, and I believe ultimately mediation will be fruitless and is doomed, because there is simply no sign whatsoever that Headley or JPLogan can comprehend wikipedia's meaning of "neutral" or other key WP policies. Please see WP:Arb
FT2 10:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


No support. Just patience. HeadleyDown 12:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


Hello FT2. I think you are treating VoiceOfAll's expert efforts unfairly. He has stepped in to remove direct insults, and has made very clear instructions of what you should and should not do (eg accusations section). It still seems to me that further exploration towards actual proceedings is in order. As you said, personal attacks etc. These do indeed need to be resolved. I think I am coming closer to an answer that is more related to how we resolve differences.

For example. One way to go, is to continue fulfilling the issues requirements that VoiceOfAll has provisionally set out. I can see we are getting closer to doing that. Certainly I have plenty of information that can help out there.

I have tried to point out people's clear biases and they tend to be based on vested and reputational interests (NLP teachers). But I realise there will always be fanatics who will come here to deface the facts.

I wish somehow to resolve that to some extent also. I'm wondering whether giving the article a more educational flavour may help (eg, pointing out the difference between science and pseudoscience etc). Whatever way is fine.

I am a patient person and also agree that arbitration is a long way off. You have been here only a short while and you are calling for arbitration already. I think most people would feel that is rash. Also, I feel people should be a lot more patient considering the compromises already made by the mediator and non promoters. Certainly, the mediator is a force of good for wikipedia and has proven to handle things well. So I consider him a friend to all wikipedians. A good force to work with. 203.186.238.214 12:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC) HeadleyDown 12:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


Wow FT2. That is an extremely appetising offer!.. Can you imagine- Comaze and others reverting facts during the arbitration, so called NLP experts adding the wrong theories, other so called NLP experts inadvertently adding pseudoscientific argument and refs about engrams and then trying to delete them (even though engrams are scientifically recognised and support the notion that NLP is science:), you adding your own biased views without supplying citations (because they don't exist). ANd you have not even slightly opened my can of NLP worms that I have stored away. Mmm, Yummy! However, I do think you have not given it enough time. As you have most definitely not represented the present mediation with any view to neutrality, I don't think you will be able to handle arbitration at all, let alone the article itself. With respect, its a nice offer, but you would do very nicely with VoiceOfAll on all balance. Best regards DaveRight 10:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, it's so very kind of you to consider what we will do 'very nicely' with. I've never known you to be so concerned before. Thanks Lee1 11:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

See above comment to User:203.217.56.137 for what neutrality means, Dave.
Also, please check your facts, which you (in common with Headley and Logan) are often abysmal at doing when it doesn't suit you:
  1. ...So lets see. I can find citations for any facts in doubt, but as I don't know what is common ground on this, I'll list what I see, and you can always ask for a source citation on any points raised. Would that work for you?... (my edit of 05:41, October 30, 2005) [138]
  2. ...No claims or statements are made that are unverifiable as far as I can tell, 4/ It explains both terms. Any criticisms please bring here, do not full-revert as I am unaware of anything controversial or disputed written in that section... (my edit of 16:01, October 29, 2005) [139]
Additionally, in terms of NPOV, how does this rate: ...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)... [140]
Last, because I think you really need to consider your own actions as an editor (I did say it wasn't just Headley and Logan), did you notice that User:VoiceOfAll(MTG) and User:FuelWagon asked you to cite a source [141] "...[Please tweak the article] so that it has some indication of how many view it as pseudoscience. Has there been some sort of poll you could cite? Otherwise, "often regarded" is a little too fuzzy. Perhaps there is some psychologist/psychotherapist organization that has come out saying that NLP is pseudoscience, and you can report that?..."
Your response to this request for a citation was as follows: "...Sure, VoiceOfAll. Apart from all the psychologists, psychotherapists, and linguists, The British Society of Psychologists calls NLP pseudoscientific" [142]
Not only is that a completely groundless and patently untrue avoidance of a citation, whats worse is, the one fact you did allege is also false, because you didn;t check your facts. In fact not even the BPS agrees with you. They don't count it as pseudoscience in the sense you are describing, much less "complete charletanary" as was in the article.
The BPS's actual stance, if you had cared to check for yourself, is that they count it along with Psychotherapy, Cognitive behavior therapy and Hypnotherapy [143] as fields supervised by the other main UK accrediting body in the psychotherapy field, the UK College of Psychotherapists. This is a major European accrediting body. If you check their view on NLP, you'll find that the Association of NLP International has had a seat on the governing board not too long ago [144] and also that the ANLP's Counselling and Therapy arm is still a member in good standing as at 2005 [145]. "Pseudoscience"? Or POV warriors?
FT2 12:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello FT2. I can see that you are not using the libraries to your advantage. Stop surfing and start researching. HeadleyDown 14:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Admin warning: Please Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks. It's not your place to tell other editors what to do. Uncle Ed 21:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


A request for arbitration has been filed. It can be found here. Individual users have been notified on their talk pages. FT2 10:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Evidence of fanatical harrassment by Comaze

Hello all. I have been working with VoiceofAll to make the article more concise. However, Comaze has repeatedly tried to baffle my efforts and has made many multiple accusations of personal attack. The ridiculous amount of extra work Comaze has provoked has also succeeded in creating conflict sometimes, whereby pointing out his nonsense is required. His many accusations are unfounded. Here is evidence of Comaze's intense harrassment, sometimes several times a day. [146] The only solution is to delete his extreme provocation and hilight it as the work of a fanatical sociopath who's only goal is to delete criticisms, and promote NLP, whilst whitewashing his own tedious and unconstructive anti-NPOV behaviour. He has been working hand in hand with the other editors who begged for this arbitration because they could not get their way through reasonable mediation. Camridge 05:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. I attack Comaze's actions, not his person. All of his objections are unreasonable under the circumstances of his misdeeds. [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154]

Comaze is bent on provoking attacks, but my responses were accurate descriptions of his fanatical slur campaign. I attack his persistently bad faith, uncooperative, antagonistic, fact deleting, rabble rousing actions, not his person.Camridge 07:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Saxifrage

(I'm not a party to this dispute. I will only add evidence here that I have to "clean up" from pages outside of the NLP dispute.)

DaveRight (talk · contribs) posted this to Wikipedia talk:Harmonious editing club at 20:54, December 20, 2005 (UTC) [155] (I've reformatted the section header into bold to avoid affecting this page's layout):

A sociopathic christmas
Hi folks. Ding dong merrily on high and so on. If you could convert Comaze from NLP fanaticism to NPOV fanaticism, that would indeed be a miracle worthy of Christmas. For those unaquainted with him, he has spent the past months since summer performing 10 reverts per day, removing all criticisms of NLP, advocating that others remove all criticisms, stating a committment to reducing the views to two key authors claiming that those authors are the only primary sources, making sneaky edits using minor edits to cap the more NPOV ones, making sneaky edits to images (and not announcing them), making many many multiple unreasonable accusations of personal attack on other editor's pages, and posting sockpuppet labels on ALL nonNLPpromotional editors' pages (a kind of slur campaign) and posting his own pov on the article. Joining this club is just a desperate attempt to whitewash his months of several misdeeds a day. I believe miracles are possible, though I also believe you have just got a 3rd rate sociopath in your Christmas stocking. Merry Christmas. DaveRight 04:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

For background, Comaze (talk · contribs) has recently added himself to the ranks of the Harmonious Editing Club.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 07:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected meatpuppets of Akulkis

Just so we know who we are dealing with:

It has come to my attention that Akulkis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been recruiting meatpuppets from the Mindmastery Essentialskills yahoo group. Here is the subject area of the said group:

"Amazing Power of REAL Mind Control, ancient teachings, Modern teachings scientifically researched. For YOU to GAIN ADVANTAGES & POWER in Secret, Hidden and Lost disciplines: Mind-Power, Mental Magic, Invisible Body, Miracles, Secret Prayers, Mental Atmosphere, Remote Influence, Mental Suggestion, Psychic Attack, Psychic Self-Defense, Mental Healing, Abundance, Mental Power, Psychotronic Power, Mentation, Subtle Body, Seduction, Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), hypnosis, Self-Hypnosis, Mesmerism, Mind Control, Remote Viewing, Manifestation, Invisibility, Orgone Energy Generators, Time Lines, Brain Waves, Psychic Influence, Astral Travel, Fluidic Body, Mental Plane, Psychic Powers, Mental Influence, Zipping Protection, Energy Healing, Martial Arts, Qi Kong, Remote Viewing Past, Controlling Future, Manifesting, Dream Control, Dream Invader, Cloud Bursting, Magick, Kahuna, Huna, Secret Technologies, Pranic Energy, Psychokinetic Phenomena, Mental Radio, Voodoo, The "God" Spot, Aura Shielding, Meridians, Magnets, Psychic Mind Control, Demons, Psychic Functioning, Prophecy, Black Magick, Precognition, Dream Precognition, Time Distortion, Size Distortion, Auto-Suggestion, White Magick, Brain Training, Pendulum, Depossession, Out-of-Body, Luck, Psychic Laws, Ha Prayer Ritual, Secret Banishing, Mana Charging, Diagnostic Methods, Intuition, ESP Brain Wave Secrets, Distance Influence, Alpha Brain Wave, L-Rods, Guarding Mana, Theta Training, Secret Door to Delta, Accessing the High Self Consciously, Bio-Plasma, Bio-Energy, Psi Secrets, Suggestology, Eyeless Sight, Radionics, Supernatural, Psionics Generators, Evil Eye, Dowsing, Mind Expansion, Levitation, Life Readings, Intercepting Telepathy, Dream Secret School, Pyramid Energy, Radiesthesia, Spiritualism, Spontaneous Telepathy, Telepathic Hypnosis, Thought Power, Odic Force, Orgone Energy, Aura of Energy, Mind Clarity, Subconscious Mind hookup, and much, much more."

Here is Aaron's message to the group (dated 15th Dec):

From: Aaron Kulkis <akulkis@...> Date: Thu Dec 15, 2005 7:31 pm Subject: NLP on Wikipedia akulkis2 Offline Send Email

Morons have polluting the Wikipedia page, trying to link NLP to Dianetics and Scientology, because obviously enneagrams = engrams....(even though nobody in NLP uses the term engram, other than some fringe loser author who absolutely nobody references except for these cranks -- who, it seems, have some financial and/or professional-status motivation to slander the NLP community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming#Engrams_-_enneagr\ ams

It's time to bring some people more knowledgeable than myself into this.

Plus, 10 people can pick apart the arguments of these cranks better than one.

Aaron

According to the NLP article history, Metta_Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), DejaKitty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), and Blauregen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) joined soon after the message was sent. There were also some anonymous IPs that also joined in the fact deletions and advocacy thereof.

I'm sure Wikipedia has nothing against someone's belief in remote influence, Kahuna sect, or Ha Prayer Rituals, and of course it is a free world mostly and one should not be banned or persecuted for remote viewing, telepathic hypnosis, or pyramid energy development as they wish. However, that background may cause a slight bias towards pseudoscientific thinking.

I will post the appropriate meatpuppet messages.

Bookmain 02:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Bookmain. I addressed your accusations already, both on your talk page and on the NLP page. The request you refer to went out after I joined wikipedia, so it is impossible that I responded to it. My edit history shows in my two weeks registered here at Wikipedia I've made reasonable contributions to at least 5 article namespaces, including Buddhism, Censorship, NLP, Melbourne city, filibuster, polyphase, and more. In stark contrast, your edit history shows in the 3 months you've been here you've edited exclusively in the NLP article namespace except for the one time you took the NLP conflict to another page so that the two pages could cross-reference each other's disputed facts. I'm still open to an apology and I would appreciate you at least admitting your error in accusing me. I've been more than tolerant of you and I have refrained from bringing further evidence against you to this arbitration case as I believe it's just fueling a wildfire. However, it seems you are doing your best to step on my toes. Peace. Metta Bubble 05:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)