all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and one is inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions

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

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision Information

Proposed principles

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Dmcdevit· t 01:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Mackensen (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 14:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
What is more, the use of footnoting should be adequate and transparent, if that is what is employed. Charles Matthews 16:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Neutrality^talk 21:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

NPOV

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Inadequate sourcing

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed remedies

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

Probation

1) Any administrator, upon good cause shown, may ban any user, from editing Neuro-linguistic programming or a related page. All bans shall be posted on the affected user's talk page and at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans

Support:

Fred Bauder 20:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
If mentorship doesn't pass. Dmcdevit· t 07:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Second choice. See proposed remedy #6. Mackensen (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Charles Matthews 16:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 20:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Neutrality^talk 21:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Semi-protection

2) Neuro-linguistic programming shall be semi-protected indefinitely. Any administrator may vary the level of protection as needed. The talk page may be semi-protected if necessary.

Support:

Fred Bauder 20:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Not convinced this will help. All of the serious offenders are definitely over the account age limit, and anons do make helpful edits ( [1] [2]...) Dmcdevit· t 06:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Agree with Dmcdevit. Mackensen (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Semi-protection is best against casual malice or frivolity, and can't do much for a dug-in dispute. Charles Matthews 16:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Won't work in this case. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 20:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Per Dmcdevit and Charles both. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Agreed. James F. (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Not effective. Neutrality^talk 21:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Adequate sourcing

3) 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.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Note: I changed "the editors of NLP" to the specific names of those cited above. Dmcdevit· t 07:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Mackensen (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 14:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Charles Matthews 16:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Neutrality^talk 21:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

NPOV

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discuss reverts

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

Support:

If mentorship doesn't pass. Dmcdevit· t 07:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Charles Matthews 16:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
As per Dmcdevit. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 20:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Not sufficient by itself, perhaps, but I still support it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Necessary but not sufficient, yes. James F. (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Neutrality^talk 21:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Given the state of the article, this isn't sufficient. See proposal below. Mackensen (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not effective Fred Bauder 12:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Mentorship

6) The article Neuro-linguistic programming is placed under the mentorship of three to five administrators to be named later. All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page. The mentors are to have a free hand, do not have veto over each other's actions, will be communicating closely and will generally trust each other's judgement. Any mentor, upon good cause shown, may ban any user from editing Neuro-linguistic programming or a related page. All bans shall be posted on the affected user's talk page and at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans. The mentorship arrangement will be reviewed in three months. If, at that time, the mentors agree that the article has demonstrated the ability to grow without strife, the mentorship may be ended and this remedy declared void.

Support:

Mackensen (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Dmcdevit· t 04:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 14:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Charles Matthews 16:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Worth trying. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Agreed with Kat. James F. (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Neutrality^talk 21:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Fred Bauder 12:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Not effective reply

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) If a user banned from editing under this decision does so, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators Information

General

Motion to close

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

Finished. Dmcdevit· t 22:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Concur ➥the Epopt 22:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Close. Charles Matthews 14:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Close; I think that they will be effective in the end. James F. (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Close. Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Close. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Oppose in the absence of an effective remedy Fred Bauder 12:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Close. Neutrality^talk 21:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Close. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply