Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Add User:AWeidman to list of involved parties

1) User:AWeidman should be added to the list of involved parties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I neglected to list AWeidman as an involved party on the request. This was an oversight on my part. This account has not edited significantly for some time, but many allegations regarding this account are being made in this case. shotwell 06:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

He was very prolific when he was editing and edited along side the current 6 named editors until November 2006. Fainites 19:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

* No I don't see this user's involvement in the current dispute. What would be the point? MarkWood 20:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

* Yes As the evidence I intend to submit will show, the commercial motives of the other six become clear in light of their involvement with User:AWeidman and in furtherance of that particular user's commercial aims. Larry Sarner 14:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

* 'NO' User has not been involved for months, a year now. I have no commercial motivates, as do Seraner, Mercer, and ACT crew. DPeterson^talk 01:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Presumably somebody will actually ask him? He ought to have an opportunity to answer the sockpuppet question below. Fainites ^barley 20:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

An interesting response. Asked whether AWeidman should be enjoined to the case, DPeterson responds "I have no commercial motivat[ion]", as if the matter was about him, or as if commercial motivation is what is at question here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Also note:

1. User AWeidman is recently both active and seeking indirect involvement/editorial influence in this debate, even if peripherally. See this edit on March 13 2007, 3 days after Fainites first edited on Attachment Therapy as a newcomer on the topic, on March 10.
2. Cases and sanctions relate to individuals not accounts; so if there is evidence this is a sock for other users in this case it should be included in order for evidence for/against to be examined.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If Shotwell brought this ArbCom, is he not entitled to simply add AWeidman, albeit late and with apologies? So much is being said about him here, he must in all fairness have the opportunity to defend himself. Should not a notice be posted on his talkpage? Fainites ^barley 22:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No real point since he is not active in this dispute and has not been for many months. RalphLender^talk 20:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

* Yes - and the IP user(s) identified in /Evidence too, since these accounts don't seem to be used by anyone else. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

* Agree - per nom. He is an involved party. Peace.Lsi john 02:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

NO He is just not active anymore, and with good reason, given the attacks by others. SamDavidson 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No He's not been involved here to any degree of significance. JohnsonRon 17:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Temporary injunction

1) For the duration of this arbitration, the person(s) operating the accounts AWeidman, DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavison, JohnsonRon, and User:MarkWood, and operating the IP editors 68.66.160.228 and 66.238.xxx.xxx shall limit their editing to their own and others user and user talk pages, and subpages of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy (this arbitration), subject to any exceptions approved by the Arbitration committee. They also shall not encourage or permit other person(s) to edit on their behalf. Violation of this injunction, activity through other accounts or IP's, or abuse of editing privileges (including but not limited to personal attack) shall result in a temporary block of any relevant accounts until the conclusion of arbitration.

(With sock-activity and frequent sock-warfare now apparently evidenced on potentially 50+ articles, as well as project space consensus-seeking pages such as AFD and RFC, and sneaky vandalism and deletion, I think this one's appropriate) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't believe there has been any finding of sockpuppetry...Actually, the issue was researched and was unfounded. DPeterson^talk 22:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You'll notice the proposal doesn't mention it. It proposes that the editors using various accounts should be placed under a temporary injunction, and clarifies that this includes procuring or permitting others to edit on their behalf. The reasoning behind it is precisely described as apparently evidenced sock activity, but that's not the proposal, it's just my own comment and rationale. You're entitled to disagree with it, of course. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

FT2's evidence seems pretty convincing and the accused have offered little in the way of response or explanation. I agree that an injunction is appropriate. StokerAce 01:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The same argument can be applied to the group composed of StokerAce, FT2, Fainities, Mercer, et. al. DPeterson^talk 13:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This notional 'group' being the one I had zero connection with, zero involvement in the dispute of, zero administrator actions, and zero editing activity in common with, other than via this arbcom evidence page on July 9 ... around 70 hours ago? ... produced solo without others' involvement ... and this rather telling comment on DPetersons conduct RFC, on 21 May. Apart from these, I'm finding it rather hard to spot the connection. Can you help with an actual DIFF or two evidencing a group? I'd appreciate it. Failing which, I cite this as an example of further evidence that even at this stage, in front of arbcom, the fabrication of accusations to distract from own issues are a compulsive behavior and therefore less likely to be amenable to rehabilitation-style remedies. (See also: the little known guideline WP:SQUEEZINGTHEOTHERFOOTINONESMOUTH). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(Silence? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

No evidence of sockpuppets and this appears to be a furthering of the dispute by the ACT group. SamDavidson 00:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Another involved party seeking to assert I'm part of a "group" - and the "ACT group" no less. And that this proposal is the "furthering of the dispute by the ACT group". See above comment which applies here too. Please add your DIFFS or evidence in support of this statement. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Temporary Injunction

2) For the duration of this arbitration, the person(s) operating the accounts User:Shotwell,User:FatherTree, User:Maypole User:Jean Mercer, User:Sarner, User:StokerAce, User:Fainites, User:HealthCareConsumer, User:PsychPHD, User:Raspor, User:Mercerj, User:‎69.170.233.237, User:‎‎70.18.125.6‎, User:‎69.211.150.60‎, User:KipMiller, User:‎206.81.65.148, shall limit their editing to their own and others user and user talk pages, and subpages of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy (this arbitration), subject to any exceptions approved by the Arbitration committee. They also shall not encourage or permit other person(s) to edit on their behalf. Violation of this injunction, activity through other accounts or IP's, or abuse of editing privileges (including but not limited to personal attack) shall result in a temporary block of any relevant accounts until the conclusion of arbitration.

(With sock/meat-activity and frequent sock/meat-warfare now apparently evidenced on potentially 50+ articles, as well as project space consensus-seeking pages such as AFD and RFC, and sneaky vandalism and deletion, I think this one's as appropriate as the first one listed here) JohnsonRon 17:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Another copy/paste job. Fainites ^barley 22:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the patently false claims made as a result of the copy/paste, I am particularly concerned with the attempt to bring new user User:KipMiller into this dispute. He has just made an account, he is enthusiastic on the talk pages (even said we were a great bunch), and there is no need to drag him into a sticky mess. This is disingenuous and disruptive behavior. shotwell 22:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

He's also editing in his own name and has provided a link to the site he runs. He is a relatively well-known campaigner over here. These patently false allegations are not only unkind, but also unwise.Fainites ^barley 22:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is warranted to the extent that the first one is warranted. I think, actually, there may be more evidence to support this than the first one, given the large number of IP addresses and the degree of SPA's and support each editor provides the other. DPeterson^talk 23:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Clueless copy/paste of (1) with names changed to opposing editors. Shotwell's said it for me, too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not helpful. The block suggested is appropriate given their level of disruption, personal attacks, and other violations of wiki policy. RalphLender^talk 20:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Question to parties from the clerk

There are sockpuppetry accusations being made against both groups of editors in this case. So I have a question for all parties in this request for arbitration. Do any of you admit to having used sockpuppets (IP addresses or accounts) in relation to this dispute? Do not volunteer others, just state whether you have or have not done so. I hope all twelve parties will answer, and I hope they will do so honestly. Picaroon (Talk) 01:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• As the two previous checkuser investigations have found, No. DPeterson^talk 02:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• I have not. shotwell 06:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• I have not. Fainites 10:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC) (I assume occasionally forgetting to sign in doesn't count).
• No, but I used the wrong username by accident a couple of times.Jean Mercer 13:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Although not a party (purely an uninvolved contributor of views and evidence to the arbcom case), for the sake of good form, I confirm that I have not. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Though never done to hide my identity, occasionally I have not signed in (or been logged out) when my IP address (which is known here) has appeared. I have never edited under another account name than this one. Furthermore, I am exactly who I say I am in the wide world beyond Wikipedia. Larry Sarner 03:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Conflict of interest

1) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a guideline, discourages editing of articles concerning matters you have a substantial personal interest in, such as articles about medical treatments where you hold an opinion on the merits of the treatment. Editing of these articles, however, is not strictly prohibited; such editing is acceptable if and only if the edits follow Wikipedia policy, especially Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Holding an opinion on the merits of something is not a conflict of interest by any standard. Kirill 04:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

That sounds reasonable to me. You want experts to be editing Wikipedia, but not experts who are biased one way or the other. I'm not sure how you stop people from just editing under a pseudonym, though. StokerAce 01:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think WP:COI covers the example given above, ie 'articles about medical treatments where you hold an opinion on the merits of the treatment'. Surely here interest is used in the sense of financial, personal or other stakeholder interest rather than in the sense of 'being interested in'. Fainites 22:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And both Sarner and Mercer have a financial interest in this dispute given the books they have published and careers they advance. DPeterson^talk 22:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is undisputed that ACT is a non-profit group and thus financial interest is not an issue. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, they should feel free to present it. StokerAce 01:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of interest, I don't quite buy that financial interest is the most general test for COI anyway (although it's a fairly substantial one if present). One can profit from fame, even if not directly profiting from the issue one is famous for. The relevant test is probably more like, is there evidence of a strongly held and publicly evidenced position that is likely to bias an individual's editing, and create concerns over advocacy, unless they take especial care to edit from a neutral point of view. That's just an "in principle" general observation though, not a comment on this case. I agree that this is a fair statement of my understanding of Wikipedia's stance on COI though. The question is, when does "holding an opinion" become "having a conflict of interest", and for that, you're looking at some kind of position, employment (in the broad sense), significant publicly held stance, or potential profit, sufficient to suggest that some given view is likely to be difficult for them to view neutrally. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think COI should also here include status in my definition of interest, as in making an individual out to be more recognised, important, authoritative or accepted than they actually are. In this regard I refer to the diffs in the evidence showing the insertion of Becker-Weidman and his therapy amongst accepted evidence based therapies, or the citation of him as an authority for matters relating to attachment. Fainites ^barley 16:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by me, to go along with DPeterson (talk · contribs)'s findings of fact and remedies. No comment on the merit of the conflict of interest suggestions/accusations. Lifted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood and modified somewhat. Picaroon (Talk) 01:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

2) A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. StokerAce 01:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Werbung

3) No biased advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable only if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. StokerAce 01:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

...and viewed neutrally, meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria (notability, verifiability). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a battleground

4) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Some thoughts. Kirill 04:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It's not quite an ideological struggle. More of an advertising campaign. Under Wiki policies, if editors abide by the rules, it should be possible to fairly present an ideological struggle.Fainites 22:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And in Sarner, Mercer, and other supporter's of ACT, we clearly see an ideological struggle and disruption occuring. As cited on the evidence page, Sarner has been held accountable for harrassment. DPeterson^talk 00:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As best I can tell, Sarner, Mercer and ACT are trying to stop what they consider to be child abuse. Even if you disagree with their views, I don't think their position qualifies as an "ideological struggle." StokerAce 01:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The fight to promote ones perceptions of good ideas and ones good intentions is capable of being an ideological struggle. It's more down to how blinkered or single-focussed one is, and where one goes with it. Splitting hairs isn't needed, this seems fine to me as a principle, even if perhaps not perfect. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Conflict of interest

5) Editors at Wikipedia are expected to work towards NPOV in their editing activities. It is not possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest codifies the principle that editors may not edit articles about themselves or organizations they represent due to this inherent conflict. However, the conflict of interest policy is of deliberately limited compass and does not prohibit editors from working on articles about entities to which they have only an indirect relationship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

More thoughts, from SSB2. Kirill 04:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I think this is one area where Sarner and Mercer's conduct clearly violates COI. RalphLender^talk 20:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sarner and Mercer neither started the ACT page, nor have been allowed to edit it to remove personal attacks on themselves, an exception to COI. The six editors claim COI prevents Sarner and Mercer from editing any pages relating to attachment. This cannot be the case. It is asserted by DPeterson et al that having published books on attachment issues means you have a financial interest in the dispute. I do not understand this point. Fainites 21:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

They both have an activist agenda that they push on many pages of Wikipedia. Reading their website supports this statement. DPeterson^talk 00:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of what Sarner and Mercer have done on Wikipedia is defend themselves against false personal attacks and try to make these articles NPOV. As for the "agenda" they supposedly push, you have provided no evidence of this. StokerAce 01:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There are two points in this proposal, one on NPOV/activism, one on COI/directness. Both seem flawed to me:

• It is not my understanding that there is a general rule or principle in Wikipedia that asserts what is and isn't possible, on this. Policy states what is expected, and leaves it to editors to find ways to achieve that, or recuse themselves from the debate. I would accept a change that replaced "It is not possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda" with "Editors who are unable to write from a neutral point of view are expected to recuse themselves from editing on that subject."
• WP:COI does not limit primarily upon whether a relationship is direct or indirect; it limits based upon "an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia ... and the aims of an individual editor" [...] "contributing ... in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups" and situations "where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests". None of these are limited by the nature or directness of the interest. Examples include financial, legal antagonism, self promotion, close relationship, and campaigning, but are not limited to these. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Sarner benefit from this conflict in several ways. First, by pushing the position of their group, they advance their group's interests and seem to want to eliminate any evidence to the contrary. Second, helps their book sales and their invitations to present their views to others, and seems to be the basis for Mercer's recent career focus. MarkWood 20:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

1/ This proposal is not about specific editors, but about what WP:COI considers, as a policy. The above is irrelevant for this item. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that as a matter of course there is a potential COI for Sarner and Mercer on the ACT article, but whether or not they've breached this is an entirely different question. If they haven't and have shown no signs of doing so, there would be no basis for a sanction of any kind. Fainites ^barley 17:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

To be technically correct, the Conflict of Interest guideline (not policy), discourages (not prohibits) coi edits. And, if they become disruptive, they lead to account blocking. (See #1 above COI).

"COI edits are strongly discouraged. When they cause disruption to the encyclopedia in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, they may lead to accounts being blocked and embarrassment for the individuals and groups who were being promoted."

Peace.Lsi john 01:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

6) Wikipedia editing is based upon consensus, communal practice, and policies/guidelines. Consensus on Wikipedia always means, within the framework of established policy and practice, not "whatever editors might agree between themselves". Corollary #1: Editing decisions are not based upon "vote counts". Corollary #2: Opinions expressed in polls do not usually override policy related matters. Corollary #3: Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly (such as content-related policies/guidelines).

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree. 'Consensus' as in 'a majority on a vote' cannot and should not override policies on sources, NPOV or accuracy of meaning. By the latter I am referring to examples such as the insistence by consensus that 'evidence-based' means 'published in a peer reviewed journal'.Fainites 21:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

NPOV is a core policy

7) The core principles of Wikipedia, such as Neutral point of view are non-negotiable, mandatory, and cannot be superseded. NPOV anticipates that articles will be neutral, factual, non-advocative, and encompass and contrast different views without taking a hostile stance towards any – and requires editors to edit with this approach.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. Fainites 22:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sockpuppetry

8) 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.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is a direct quote from here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

That doesn't make any sense. Using that argument, then there are only two editors here. Or, if we look at other disputed pages, such as the NLP article, there are only two or three editors...or if we look at the articles related to Pedohilia, there are only two "sides," and maybe two to four editors...This is not the Wikipedia definition of Sockpuppetry...It is that definition that should be applied. DPeterson^talk 00:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a long-standing arbcom approach and policy, often applied in disputes where a group of editors edit in tight unison, and with similar other characteristics, making it impossible to tell if they are best friends or the same person, for example. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Edit warring

9) Users who disrupt using aggressive biased editing may be banned from affected articles, in extreme cases from the site.

(Direct lift from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Use of Wikipedia articles as a vehicle for defamation

10) The wilful use or attempted use of Wikipedia articles as a vehicle to publish and distribute professionally or personally defamatory comments worldwide, is a most serious action. Wikipedia has an exceptionally wide breadth of usage, such acts can seriously harm Wikipedia's reputation as well as that of the intended party.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This may be an area where some of the comments by Sarner, Mercer, and ACT fall. RalphLender^talk 20:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence that comments by Sarner, Mercer, and ACT fall in this category. StokerAce 01:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sanctions vary according to seriousness

11) Sanction decisions vary case by case. Examples of issues which indicate a more serious case and which attract heavier sanctions or exclusion include amongst others, the duration and wilful nature of misconduct, the use of more damaging forms of "sneaky" vandalism which attempts to conceal itself, the scope and extent of actions, the extent of hostile editing patterns towards other editors, denial and repetition patterns, and the apparent regard or disregard for the basic premises of Wikipedia, according to evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

(Blindingly obvious? Added this since in view of the case, I think it's worth a formal statement of principle) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Cumulative personal attack

12) Constant 'reminders' to editors who dispute a point, to avoid personal attack, or assume good faith, or giving advice to calm down or let hurt feelings subside instead of answering issues raised, is a form of personal attack in itself.

Fainites 22:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think it's incivility, not a personal attack, but the injunction against personal attacks is just a subset of the general requirement for civility. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It's a form of something, but I'm not sure if it's exactly a personal attack (or should be classed as one in the Wikipedia sense). Gaming, lawyering, bad faith, incivility, and dodging the issue, yes. Personal attack... not sure. It's intended as a debate tactic against someone, or to smear them. But I see where you're getting at, and it's probably a "something". Just can't think what, right now. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Its a way of a) avoiding addressing factual issues, b) making the recipient look at first glance like the problem. Particularly if accompanied by false statements like 'I have already answered this point'. Very effective for fooling passing, overworked admins who don't have time to wade through pages of similar stuff. Its effectively a constant drip of minor false allegations that have a cumulative effect. How about a new form called WP:PPPA. (Persistent, Petty, Personal Attack). Fainites 22:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think it's valuable, perhaps consider working it out more fully, and then suggesting it on Wikipedia_talk:No personal attacks? You're right that it's not an altogether uncommon technique in POV warring. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with it is that it does form a steady drip of petty implied allegations. How about WP:AETO, or "Avoid Excessive Ticking Off' ? 86.143.211.251 18:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Sorry Fainites 18:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, this isn't about policy proposal, it's about whether an existing policy or guideline is breached. Whether cumulative small scale jabs like this are a form of personal attack (or something else) is the question here, not policy development. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm saying it is a breach of WP:CIVIL in the form of implied personal attack.Fainites ^barley 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the evidence page supports this as applied to Sarner's comments and also to FatherTree. JohnsonRon 17:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No self promotion

13)Writing about oneself in a way that exaggerates or otherwise misrepresents ones status within the scientific community is a breach of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX Fainites 22:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have in mind here the frequent insertion of Becker-Weidman and his therapy amongst well recognised, evidence based therapies, the insertion of Becker-Weidman into passages from recognised and notable commentators as if he was one of them and the citation of Becker-Weidman as if he was an acknowledged or notable authority on attachment and related issues. Fainites ^barley 17:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not to suggest that he cannot be appropriately cited in relation to DDP. Fainites ^barley 17:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have in mind here the frequent pushing of ACT POV and positions by Sarner, Mercer, and ACT supporters. JohnsonRon 17:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Checkuser

14) Although checkuser reports may be concluded as "unconnected", this conclusion is based only upon visible IP evidence, and may need to be reconsidered in light of other information and later events. Checkuser cannot prove two accounts are unconnected, it can only succeded or fail in finding evidence they are. There are many ways to show evidence of sock and meat puppetry. Checkuser is just one of those and "unconnected" means that that particular form of evidence, at that particular time, failed to show clear evidence. It does not mean that no evidence exists in other forms, or none will ever exist.

(Relates to repeated comments that "this has been investigated twice and both times unfounded") FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No attempt has ever been made to explain the diffs showing DPeterson and AWeidman editing from the same IP number.Fainites 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

IP addresses come and go and vary...they can also be the same if users have the same provider and don't sign in...MarkWood 20:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If that is so how can 'checkuser' ever be conclusive proof, as claimed, that sockpuppetry has been disproved? Secondly, is it then just a coincidence that two random IP users, both happen to avidly promote Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy on Wiki, in the same manner and with the same tactics, defaming opponents, deleting talkpage posts, misrepresenting sources and so and so on? Fainites 22:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Once specific instance of checkuser being positive would be two users with overlapping posts from the same IP within the same time period.

As for dynamic IP's, it is statistically improbable that two editors, using the same ISP will both be assigned the same IP during a specific timeframe, and both individuals edit wikipedia, and edit so similarly in the same articles so as to attract attention. In this case, depending on the number of overlapping IPs, a match would carry a high degree of accuracy and almost certainly indicate meat puppetry at a minimum.

As FT2 correctly states, checkuser cannot prove two accounts are not socks, it can only fail to prove that they are socks. Peace.Lsi john 01:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser findings have been that there is not issue here...yet this group continues to raise the same issue continually. DPeterson^talk 01:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Citing oneself

15) If an editor has published the results of their research in a reliable publication, they may cite that source so long as they are doing so neutrally. Editors may not, however, draw on their personal knowledge without accurately citing their sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed (and mainly lifted from WP:COS). We actually have a great need for specialists who are willing to cite their sources and write neutral articles. DPeterson et al. have been pushing the false notion that any expert should avoid editing in their field. shotwell 03:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I prefer "...may not, however, assert personal knowledge, unless it has been verifiably published by a reliable source", which is the specific criterion. The comment however, I agree with. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A related question that has not been addressed involves the citation of in-press publications, which are of course not accessible unless supplied by the author. I would suggest that sourcing to in-press and self-published materials should be prohibited. This would prevent problems like the changing dates on one of Becker-Weidman's references, cited some months before publication actually occurred. A paper is not effectively public knowledge until it is published.Jean Mercer 20:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In this day and age, may journals publish their articles online before the print edition appears. MarkWood 20:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, an on line reference can be provided.Jean Mercer 19:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Editors should not be allowed to publicize their own books and materials...this comes too close to violating COI. MarkWood 20:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

the problem is that Mercer, Sarner, and the ACT group continue to advocate their unique and minority view on this subject and promote their books, articles, and careers. DPeterson^talk 01:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely there's a difference between publicising and citing. Fainites 22:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here I am thinking of Sarner and Mercer and ACT supporters frequently citing their own materials from their books and positions off their website. JohnsonRon 17:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I have some DIFFs that clearly show this, or a link to an evidence section, please? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The diffs are clearly on the Evidence page. I agree this applies to the ACT group of Sarner and Mercer. RalphLender^talk 20:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

An editor with potential COI may still edit an article. The requirement is that they edit with NPOV. I see no problem with them citing their own work provided it does not affect article NPOV. It would, however, be much better if someone else made the edit, based on a talkpage discussion. Allowing another editor to make the edit will help remove any appearance of COI POV editing. Peace.Lsi john 02:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground

16) Wikipedia is not a venue to carry on professional disputes. Importing professional disputes into Wikipedia is highly disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Short and to the point? shotwell 04:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Crossref with (4) "Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive." This one is accurate, but I prefer (4). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suppose this follows from "ideological struggle" in some sense. shotwell 07:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The use of sock-puppets

17) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, create false consensus, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Lifted from past decisions and added "false consensus" part. shotwell 05:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree, and note that false consensus is specifically forbidden by WP:SOCK. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

We this in the many SPA's who espouse ACT views and related users. DPeterson^talk 01:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Expertise

18) Editors who wish to claim expert knowledge should edit in their own names so their credentials can be checked, or have their credentials confirmed by Wiki authorities. Fainites 19:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I know this is the subject of the Essjay discussions, but some of these editors claimed to be mental health (or comparable) professionals directly or by implication, on user and talkpages yet there was no means of confirming this.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Fainites 19:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this written in a guideline somewhere? I've been under the impression that there was no consensus regarding such issues. shotwell 07:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus. Jimbo and others have expressed views. There's a proposed policy under discussion. WP:EXPERT Fainites 10:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the fact is that it was rejected by the community. DPeterson^talk 13:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like it was. I seem to be a bit out of date here. I dare say it's a subject that will keep returning though. Fainites ^barley 16:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This can come out actually. I seemed to have missed the point that this bit is supposed to be existing policies. Fainites ^barley 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Bad faith

19a) The essence of forbidden puppetry is the intent to hold forth as being two distinct users, in order to gain a covert advantage in a debate, when this is not the case. Using multiple accounts in a manner which is not misleading to other parties in the debate in regards to common operation, is unfavored but not a breach of policy.

19b) Accusing editors of serious breaches of policy, in relation to matters which are clearly and evidently to any good-faith editor not breaches of policy, constitutes an act of bad faith or personal attack.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm thinking of the accusation that Jean Mercer signing her name "mercerj" by mistake is an act of puppetry. There are two parts to this item: The essence of forbidden puppetry is the intent to hold forth as being two distinct users, when this is not the case. It is not the mere usage of a different form of name, or a mis-labelling of name, or even having two accounts which are clearly intended to be seen as the same editor in common. Compare for example multiple names used by AWeidman (AWeidman, Dr Art, Dr Arthur Becker-Weidman, etc), which nobody took as a basis of puppetry since these names were clearly not pretending to be another person.

To then accuse someone of puppetry on this basis seems to me an act of evident bad faith, or even attack, depending upon one's viewpoint. See evidence by SamDavidson, and numerous other references to Mercer engaging in "puppetry" which cite this as evidence. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This certainly applies to both FatherTree and Sarner, given false accusations and other material cited on the evidence page. JohnsonRon 17:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, which exact items of evidence are you referring to, when you say that "this certainly applies"? What "accusations of serious policy breach" have Sarner, and FT, made, which are "clearly and evidently to any good-faith editor not breaches of policy"? DIFFS or exact evidence section, showing the exact edits concerned? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The evidence page under one of the editors has several diffs demonstrating this. RalphLender^talk 20:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Harrassment and personal attacks against users is not tolerated on Wikipedia

20) Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users must refrain from this activity. Harassment of any editor, and personal attacks against any editor, are not tolerated on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This and the next two are lifts from precedent. I've condensed them down, but these three principles are not so far noted in this workshop. This one's a combination of the various harrassment and personal attack precedents. Given the virulent attacks and allegations on some of the talk pages, a general principle that such attacks and harrassment are unacceptable seems appropriate. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

POV pushing judged by editing activity within Wikipedia

21) A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A direct lift from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER and precedent. Seems relevant in relation to persistent accusations to this effect. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Compromise in all circumstances is not expected

22) Although discussion is always encouraged, users are not expected to compromise in all circumstances. This is particularly so in cases related to improper use of, appeal to, and reference to, community policies and guidelines. In such cases, users are encouraged to follow the dispute resolution process instead.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A slight modified version of precedent (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily). Two changes: 1/ removing reference to Arbcom, since it would be improper to put words in the mouth of the arbitration committee here, and 2/ focussing it specifically on improper use of policy (rather than "cranks and POV pushers" as originally stated).

I think it's important to back the view that some policies are "non-negotiable" and that editors who act in good faith and seek discussion but do not compromise on policy, are not in breach of WP:CONSENSUS in such cases; rather they are acting appropriately. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it expressed elsewhere as "assume good faith is not a suicide pact". This in particular must relate to plain mis-statements of what a source says, even when quotes are provided.Fainites ^barley 22:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Material from published sources should be presented in ways that reflect the intention of the original author

23a) Use of direct and indirect quotes should follow rules of print publications, e.g. APA or MLA style. This will prevent distortions of the original meaning.

23b) [alternative] Appropriate selection, precis and abridging of citations and quotations to remove extraneous words (including minor good-faith word edits), is a part of good editorship. Editors should be careful not to misrepresent or change the sense of the original text, or misrepresent its context, in so doing. Where words have been removed or replaced for editorial purposes, this should be clearly indicated with appropriate textual conventions, to make clear to reviewers and readers that words have been removed or modified from the source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Jean Mercer 00:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia standard of requiring verifiable sources and the Citations seem to apply and are both more specific and detailed. DPeterson^talk 01:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If you will glance back at what I wrote, the issue is not about how to do citations. It is the appropriate use of both direct quotations and paraphrases, particularly conventions for indicating that words have been omitted from or altered in a direct quotation. This was of concern with respect to editing of Fainites' quotation from the Chaffin report. As for whether sources are by definition published, I don't see that the "in press" designation falls clearly into that category.Jean Mercer 13:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the lack of serious response to editing of the quotation originally used by Fainites suggests to me that Wiki has no specific policy to handle this matter. In print publication, falsification of a direct quotation would be considered not only careless scholarship, but an ethical breach, and would have to be repaired in some way. I suggest that a specific Wiki policy on this point would work to provide some assurance of quality control in Wiki articles.Jean Mercer 13:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to say JeanMercer, that it always seemed to me to be the most serious piece of behaviour out of the whole lot. Perhaps there's no specific policy because altering a quotation to falsify what it says renders even Wiki speechless. Fainites ^barley 17:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The wikipedia policies clearly address this. RalphLender^talk 20:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

First of all, "published sources?" Sources have to be published. Second, why not just use Wikipedia's own citation templates when in a dispute over citation style. Picaroon (Talk) 00:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't primarily about citation style. It's about altering quotes to alter the meaning or purport of what the original author said. (And then claiming consensus on the 'new improved' version). Fainites ^barley 14:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has often resisted (whether wisely or not is irrelevant) tying its standards to external ones. Standards are based on principles, and community consensus, rather than prescription. Arbcom are also most unlikely to dictate editorial standards and styles - it's not their role. For that reason I don't think this proposal has much chance of going anywhere. However the principle it embodies, is what counts.

I would like to propose an alternative that hopefully will meet the goals of involved parties, in a manner pappropriate for an arbcom page, added above as (23b). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Template

24) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

25) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

26) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

27) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

28) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

29) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

30) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

31) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

32) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

33) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

34) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Sarner has a conflict of interest

1) Sarner (talk · contribs) has a conflict of interest on the following articles: Attachment Therapy, Reactive attachment disorder, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Theraplay, Attachment disorder, Advocates for Children in Therapy, Attachment Theory, Candace Newmaker, Bowlby.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by DPeterson^talk 01:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Split into two proposals by me. Picaroon (Talk) 01:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am very curious to see how the arbitrators handle this issue. Wikipedia must have come across this issue before. What rules apply when an expert in a field edits a page using his/her real name? How would Wikipedia deal with, say, Alan Greenspan editing a page on monetary policy? If you restrict editing in this way, you simply drive people to edit pseudonymously. Importantly, this is not a situation where a financial interest is involved, as ACT is a non-profit group, which makes it a somewhat easier issue. StokerAce 01:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The conflict is clear from Sarner's website (ACT), and several of his posts, which conform to the ACT positions.

Comment by others:

It is clear based on evidence. SamDavidson 00:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, noting that most of the comments on (2) and related to Sarner COI matters elsewhere on this page, are presumably also intended to apply to this one as well, but have not been sepecifically added here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on the evidence, this applies. JohnsonRon 18:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Jean Mercer has a conflict of interest

2) Jean Mercer (talk · contribs) has a conflict of interest on the following articles: Attachment Therapy, Reactive attachment disorder, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Theraplay, Attachment disorder, Advocates for Children in Therapy, Attachment Theory, Candace Newmaker, Bowlby.DPeterson^talk 01:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by DPeterson^talk 01:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Split into two proposals by me. Picaroon (Talk) 01:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see why there would be a WP:COI on the ACT article (unless removing or correcting misleading and defamatory remarks) but it is nonsense to suggest there is a WP:COI in relation to any attachment articles. Fainites 22:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

They have a financial interest in this dispute, which ranges across all those pages, as seen by their participation and representatio of the ACT view on those pages. DPeterson^talk 22:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

ACT is a non-profit group, so there is no, or extremely minimal anyway, financial interest here. StokerAce 01:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Book royalties, speaker fees, a benefit to career, etc. DPeterson^talk 13:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence of editing attachment pages to promote book sales etc. The odd mention of a relevent peer reviewed article or book on talkpages to make a point does not count as this. I didn't even know she'd written a book called 'Understanding Attachment' until you provided a link. On career, Mercer seems to have been a Professor for decades. She's had a big career. And how would representing the ACT viewpoint on Wiki promote her career? Surely the opposite. Fainites 22:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

May I point out that this is not an experimentum crucis? To claim that Sarner and I have conflicts of interest does not negate the possibility of claiming that DPeterson et al. have one, or however many would be needed for one apiece. Applying the COI rule equitably would require that DP & Co. provide to the arbitrators the type of information that Sarner and I have voluntarily disclosed. This could be done confidentially. I do not see how the arbitrators can make a decision about this issue with respect to some contributors, without considering everyone's position. Jean Mercer 14:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet another paradox: any person who has been sufficiently professionally involved to publish on a topic appears to be defined as having a conflict of interest that prohibits him or her from contributing to Wikipedia on the topic. This seems to lead to the conclusion that only non-experts can contribute to Wiki articles, which may be a reduction to the absurd, but would explain certain content problems in the articles under discussion.Jean Mercer 02:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is clear based on evidence. SamDavidson 00:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The evidence page clearly supports this. JohnsonRon 18:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The Advocates for Children in Therapy page was created as part of a personal attack on ACT

3) The Advocates for Children in Therapy page was created by DPeterson as part of a personal attack on ACT, with mis-leading and insulting comments intended to denigrate ACT. The current version of the page continues to cast ACT in a negative light. StokerAce 01:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

the article is supported with verifiable references and citations. It is NPOV and balanced. The leaders of ACT (Sarner and Mercer) have objected to it and filed the original material for speedy deletion. For some reason that group does not wish to have an article about them in wikipedia. RalphLender^talk 13:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It is plainly biased and insulting and has been since it's inception. Much of it's most offensive material was supported by Dr Becker-Weidman himself on the talkpage, until it was ascertained that he had professional disputes with JeanMercer outside of Wiki. The 6 editors have since maintained the early denigrating and insulting tone.Fainites 21:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a legitimate article about an advocacy group that espouses a specific position on the topic if Candace Newmaker, Attachment Therapy, and related issues. It contains factual and verifiable material. DPeterson^talk 01:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

For completeness, of course, the article about ACT should include items such as the Federal budget earmark [7]. Other activities of ACT, such as work with prosecutors, are confidential matters. Our concern (I believe I speak also for Larry Sarner, who is occupied with a family emergency)is once again with the absence of appropriate information in this article. Few small non-profits are thought to merit an article in Wikipedia, and since ACT has the honor of such public discussion, we would like to be able to add news of some of our achievements. Further links to comments praising "Attachment Therapy on Trial", as provided by one of the contributors to this discussion, would of course be most welcome.Jean Mercer 02:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

the article is balanced and accurate and complete. SamDavidson 00:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence to support this statement. JohnsonRon 18:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As I read the evidence page, there is not evidence to support such a remedy. RalphLender^talk 20:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy page was created as an advertisement for DDP

4) The Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy page was created as an advertisement for DDP. It is not neutral or objective. The current version of the page continues to read like marketing material for DDP. StokerAce 01:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree. It is also inaccurate, misleading and contains serious misrepresentations of sources. Fainites 22:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence to support this statement. MarkWood 20:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This article describes a treatment that has empirical evidence published in professioal peer reviewed journals, texts, and that is also cited by other sources (Craven & Lee, for example). It is an accurate description of the treatment and it's various elements. DPeterson^talk 01:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

the article is supported with numerous references that meet the Wikipedia standard of being verifiable and which are also professional in nature. RalphLender^talk 13:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

See Undue weight (a section within WP:NPOV). The fact that something is verifiable and professional in nature, supported by many cites, does not mean it is not represented neutrally, cited selectively, painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate, made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present it, described in terms which favor or weaken it, and so on. Verifiability is only one criterion. neutral point of view (including undue weight) is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. The concerns above related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and promotion, are not addressed even slightly by a response that the cites are verifiable and "professional in nature" (whatever exactly that signifies). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering the present concern in mental health circles with the nature of acceptable evidence and with design weaknesses such as nonrandomization, this article would be expected to explain why a nonrandomized design can be claimed to show a treatment's efficacy. As I recently pointed out in an open letter to ATTACh, practitioners who favor these weakly-supported treatments also need to present a rationale connecting infant mental health concepts like attunement to methods used with older children. It is the absence of these expectable features that marks the DDP article as advertising rather than as a straightforward, factual report of a neutral nature. It is surprising that practitioners who claim to use a new and efficacious intervention do not want to participate in efforts to pose and answers necessary questions about the treatment.Jean Mercer 02:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No evidence for this. The article is balanced and includes many sepecific citations and references to support various statements in the article. It has been edited by people who have no financial interest in the issue, except, Mercer, Sarner and the ACT supporters who do have a financial interest in the dispute. SamDavidson 00:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a financial interest? User:FCYTravis has a financial interest? You are making absurd claims. shotwell 07:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence to support this statement. The article is relevant, has clear empirical support, and a related literature, and is an accepted form of treatment as evidenced by its presentation at many many regional, national, and international conferences. JohnsonRon 18:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The only evidence ever cited in support of DDP was 2 studies, one being a follow up of the other, by Becker-Weidman, Becker-Weidmans book which it was claimed showed "a rich evidence base", and Sturt, based on Becker-Weidmans studies in a sort of round-up, and Craven and Lee which was inaccurately cited as claiming it was evidence based when it did not. Other evidence on DDP and Becker-Weidman from the Taskforce and Mercer was excluded. Fainites ^barley 19:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The several articles, book, and citations by others supports the article as a valuable addition to Wikipedia. The previous complaints merely underscore that the dispute is a content dispute. DPeterson^talk 22:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The point DP is not that it was cited, but that it was mis-cited. That's a breach, not a content dispute. Fainites ^barley 22:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

FatherTree made false accusations

5) User:FatherTree knowingly made false accusations of several editors being sockpuppets when there was evidence that the question had been researched and was unfounded.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

FatherTree was alerted several times that the accusations had been researched and were unfounded, yet he kept making such accusations, which, therefore, constitute a personal attack on several editors. RalphLender^talk 15:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide diffs or a link to an evidence section with diffs that verifies this? Picaroon (Talk) 15:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In the section about Lsi john by DPeterson [[8]] there are links and diffs. RalphLender^talk 20:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The question was not deemed "unfounded." Rather, the checkuser request simply did not prove they were sockpuppets. This does not mean they were not sockpuppets, however. FT2's evidence is pretty convincing in this regard. StokerAce 01:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

All of the diffs provided show FatherTree asking DPeterson if he is Becker, or saying he thinks he is. Mostly these are in response to attacks by DPeterson et al on Mercer, Sarner and their 'group'. Given not only DPetersons actions, but also the fact that he has claimed to be a mental health professional but won't allow his credentials to be checked, it is a not unreasonable question. Surely WP:AGF has limits when the editors are plainly editing in bad faith. Fainites 19:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

He repeatedly made these false accusations even after being told of the checkuser. His comments speak for themselves: they were clearly and obviously provocative and inflamatory, and therefore disruptive and fall under the category of being personal attacks. DPeterson^talk 01:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The evidence supports this statement. JohnsonRon 18:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Puppetry

6) DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavidson, JohnsonRon, and MarkWood are all sock or meat puppets of AWeidman, AKA Dr Becker-Weidman or Dr Art, and have used such sock or meat puppetry to WP:OWN articles and create false consensus.

Fainites 23:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Examined on two occassions and was unfounded. DPeterson^talk 01:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not considered "unfounded". Rather, the checkuser simply did not prove sockpuppetry. FT2's evidence is pretty convincing that there was sock or meat puppetry. StokerAce 01:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not founded on at least twice. SamDavidson 00:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

... before non-IP based evidence was identified. I think this refrain has been heard before; and comments on it have been made elsewhere. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No evidence to support this. JohnsonRon 18:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Identity of users

7) user:AWeidman, User:Jean Mercer and user:Sarner have allowed to stand (and not denied) identification or self-identification as Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidman, head of the Center for Family Development, Professor Jean Mercer, a professor of Psychology and President of the New Jersey Infant Mental Health Association, and Larry Sarner of the American Association for the Humane Treatment of Children in Therapy, respectively. All have strong professional and personal positions related to the issue of Attachment Therapy. Notably, each is a senior figure in (or founder of) organizations with opposing stances on Attachment Therapy, with A. Weidman on one side ("Center for Family Development", pro-AT) and J. Mercer and L. Sarner on another ("Advocates for Children in Therapy", anti-AT), outside Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think it's ok as well as relevant to this dispute. Larry and Prof. Mercer have been very open, as has Becker-Weidman. shotwell 10:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Picaroon. DPeterson^talk 01:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I hope to hell this is okay to add. I think it's accurate, relevant, and I believe the three parties have indeed identified or self-identified as stated and allowed the identification(s) to stand. That said, if there is any doubt at all, then please strike out any offending points immediately. If COI or external disputes are at issue then identification of the basis for asserting this is a relevant finding of fact. Also these are findings relevant to allegations of non-neutral editing and using Wikipedia to make a point. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is such in-depth identification needed? I'd think that merely saying they have a real-world interest in this subject is enough. Picaroon (Talk) 17:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think that asserting (stating) the fact "they have a real world interest" without recording any evidence backing that (even if the evidence can be found elsewhere), would be sufficient. if it is, then fine :) The fact is, they not only have a real world interest. They also have a real world dispute, and head up organizations that are fundamentally in opposition on the subject, is crucial. That finding probably needs to be noted in the suggested statement. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

AWeidman uses numerous sock-puppets

8) AWeidman has used numerous sock-puppets in order to create the appearance of consensus during content disputes, vote-stack on project related pages, and harass his opponents.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Same as above, but without the meat-puppetry part. The analysis by FT2 seems to indicate that, if puppetry is taking place, then a single person is operating these accounts. shotwell 05:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Short, sharp, to the point. Well worded. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence for this and it has been investigated in the past and was unfounded. DPeterson^talk 01:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Better worded than mine. Fainites ^barley 20:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No evidence for this, yet the ACT supporters continue to raise this issue in an apparent attempt to end opposition to their narrow view. SamDavidson 01:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Noted view that "no evidence exists for sock puppetry". I don't concur. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No evidence to support this. JohnsonRon 18:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

AWeidman

9) Aweidman has edited disruptively with numerous sock-puppets. This was done in an effort to promote Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy across a wide variety of articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. shotwell 05:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This was done for many reasons, probably... but I'm not a mindreader and this is too much like mindreading. And it has 2 parts, related to sock use finding (see 8) and COI/benefit. A more sharpened or unquestionable version of this one, please? (I might try writing one.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"AWeidman has edited disruptively with numerous sockpuppets for the ostensible purpose of promoting Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, and to that effect." Fainites 21:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No evidence for this. On two occassions the accusation has been investigated and been unfounded. DPeterson^talk 01:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, noted view that "no evidence exists for sock puppetry". I don't concur. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence for this. JohnsonRon 18:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Misrepresentation

8) AWeidman and connected accounts have knowingly on many occasions practised deception and attempted to mislead other editors and readers of Wikipedia, including false representations of events, of historical and scientific facts, and of Wikipedia policy, both for personal gain and in order to professionally harm others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strongly worded, but appropriate. The account under discussion is operated by a professional, a doctor who runs his own Center, and knew precisely what he was doing. In this item I am thinking of examples including (but not limited to):

• "practised deception and attempted to mislead [For examples, see case details and evidence page; concerning the strong wording, see below and note as a doctor, much less room for excuses]
• "other editors [what will happen under Wikipedia policy if they disagree with his actions; sock use with repeated denial; flagrant wilful mischaracterization of editors actions and agendas in debate; representing to arbcom and others that various individuals are in a group, or did things, which evidence shows they did not]
• "and readers of Wikipedia [inserting undue weight and mischaracterized information on scientific matters into articles which they may rely upon; eg mischaracterization of Mercer, and of scientific knowledge and research],
• "including false representations of events [actions in Wikipedia debate such as who was sanctioned or what RFCU said],
• "of historical and scientific facts [what had previously gone on in wikipedia debate; and mischaracterization of the state of scientific knowledge],
• "and of Wikipedia policy [as scare/chill tactics],
• "both for personal gain [self promotion]
• "and in order to professionally harm others [Mercer defamation]." FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd also accept a more tactful wording if appropriate, "have knowingly on many occasions made false representions to other editors and to readers of Wikipedia, including..." Deception is stronger than mere misrepresentation, and several actions are clearly closer to wilful deception with the intent to mislead, rather than 'mere' misrepresentation. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of accuracy: Becker-Weidman is not a doctor of medicine. He is licensed as a clinical social worker and has a doctorate in human development. His dissertation involved adolescent drug and alcohol use. These facts don't abrogate his responsibility as a professional, of course, but since "a doctor" is usually understood as "a physician or surgeon", I think it might be well to be more specific.Jean Mercer 13:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It includes mischaracterisation of sources, including interfering with direct quotes, misrepresenting scientific findings in peer reviewed articles, misrepresenting major and notable reports and commentary and misrepresenting important underlying theories. (See some examples in my evidence section). I appreciate this may seem somewhat arcane for those not interested in the subject, but it is actually the prime method by which the subject matter of articles is perverted, and the end towards which all other violations are undertaken.Fainites 19:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

He's not edited in nearly a year or more. This is clearly a content dispute and is motivated by the ACT group's POV pushing. DPeterson^talk 01:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually he appeared on my talkpage in March 2007 offering to help me edit AT almost as soon as I appeared on the AT talkpage[9] Fainites ^barley 13:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Noted as further evidence for AWeidman's enjoinment to the case, see above. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. SamDavidson 01:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Breach of policies is not a content issue, nor do content issues (if present) change that. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence of breach of policies here. This is a content dispute. JohnsonRon 18:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Puppets

8) User:Sarner, User:Jean Mercer, User:StokerAce, User:Fainities, User:Shotwell, User:FatherTree User:HealthConsumerAdvocate, User:PsychPHD, User:Raspor, User:Mercerj are all sock or meat puppets of ACT to WP:OWN articles and create false agreement. MarkWood 20:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As i've noted elsewhere, Mercerj was me, of course-- an accidental sign-in with the username belonging to a different process. Other than that, and the occasional flubbed sign-in, I've never used another name nor failed to use my own name. Jean Mercer 21:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If we're all socks and meats, how come we've never managed to WP:OWN a single paragraph? Fainites 21:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This and the following 3 allegations are copycat allegations. Fainites 21:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If they were made first, would that change your opinion? In fact, the statements are valid and supported with evidence on the evidence page. DPeterson^talk 00:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If they were made first, they wouldn't be copycat allegations. The others would. But they would still be unevidenced and not made out. Fainites 15:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I say that the idea that somebody called "JeanMercer" would invent a secret sockpuppet called "Mercerj" seems bizarre. Fainites 19:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This identity business is the cause of so much needless wrangling and so many accusations.It's very disturbing that a number of relatively intelligent adults are spending their time discussing who's a sock puppet rather than dealing with meaningful content issues. The fact that there is someone named Jean Mercer is no proof that I am that person, incidentally, so all this concern about my COI may be quite wasted. I realize that this arbitration can't change the rules of Wiki, but I hope that there will be changes at some future date. Jean Mercer 22:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC) AKA Mildred Simpson, art historian

Seems clear that this group edits in union and with the purpose of enforcing the ACT POV SamDavidson 01:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My evidence supports this. JohnsonRon 18:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

ACT (Sarner and Mercer) uses various sock and meat puppets

9) Sarner and Mercer have used numerous sock-puppets and meat puppets in order to create the appearance of consensus during content disputes, vote-stack on project related pages, and harass their opponents MarkWood 20:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

MarkWood's claim on the Evidence page that choice of statistical test is "arcane" indicates that he does not understand the issues under discussion. Rather than accuse people of being socks, he ought to consider that those who study research design learn similar facts.

The rules of research design and analysis are not invented ad hoc, and the particular point that was made about analysis of variance has been known for about a hundred years.Jean Mercer 21:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, MarkWood's remarks are an interesting bit of evidence in support of my view that mental health professionals rarely have extensive training on research issues and tend to be unprepared to critique research designs and conclusions. This is why it is not appropriate for the articles in question to be edited by MHPs alone.Jean Mercer 21:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

MarkWood's claim here is silly. I don't agree with some of what Sarner and Mercer have to say and have said that publicly. For example, I question whether DDP should be included in Attachment Therapy and asked Sarner about this on his talk page. StokerAce 23:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point. Some of the arguments that have been raised about statistics are quite arcane. DPeterson^talk 00:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that parties who seem to include (by their own descriptions) a person with a doctorate and several people with qualifications in social and other sciences, and who are readily able to debate evidence on psychotherapeutic techniques, find simple correlation which non-expert Wikipedians can understand with ease, to be "arcane". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Material generally studied by college sophomores is hardly arcane, at least from the point of view of persons with professional training.Jean Mercer 13:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I too queried DDP's and Theraplay's inclusion as an AT with ACT and on Sarners talkpage. Also, many of the editors opposing the 6 editors named opposed them alone or nearly alone, until very recently, and often refused to take part in the absurd polls. Fainites 15:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

the evidence clearly supports this. SamDavidson 01:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've presented evidence in support of this. JohnsonRon 18:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sarner and ACT

10) Sarner and ACT have edited disruptively with numerous sock-puppets. This was done in an effort to disparage Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy across a wide variety of articles. MarkWood 20:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There's no evidence of anything like this. StokerAce 23:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ample evidence has been presented on the evidence page that this may be a valid accusation. They certainly are advocating a unique limited view, the ACT POV. DPeterson^talk 01:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Can DPeterson specify elements of the ACT POV, and state in what way it differs from the APSAC POV, or from POVs about evaluation of research quality as suggested by, say, the Cochrane group? Such specification might help differentiate between disparagement and analysis.Jean Mercer 23:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

He has a history of disruptive editing and sanctions and the evidence presented clearly supports this. Additional sanctions are necessary to stop his disrution of the process. SamDavidson 01:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The evidence supports this statement. JohnsonRon 18:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Misrepresentations

11) Sarner, Mercer and connected accounts have knowingly on many occasions practised deception and attempted to mislead other editors and readers of Wikipedia, including false representations of events, of historical and scientific facts, and of Wikipedia policy, both for personal gain and in order to professionally harm others. MarkWood 20:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As I am sure MarkWood knows, if he made this vicious statement under his own identity, he would be liable to legal sanctions, as well as professional ones, if it so happens that he is a professional. I challenge him to provide any evidence whatsoever that these claims have a basis in fact.Jean Mercer 21:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This copycat tactic, filling a page with repetitive allegations looks familiar. The intended effect is that adjudicators or commentators give up and assume it's 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other. Where's the evidence for any of this? Fainites 22:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: Cut & paste of item (8), with name change to opposing side. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no evidence of anything like this. StokerAce 23:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The evidence seems to be on the evidence page. DPeterson^talk 00:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, both with the statement and with the claim that the evidence page shows significant evidence of the above. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the evidence page provides ample support for this. SamDavidson 01:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Bald assertions that the evidence page supports such calumny should be unacceptable. There should be links to specific sections on the evidence page supporting each element of this claim, or the failure to provide such links (or alternatively to make a retraction) should itself be treated as evidence to impeach the credibility of MarkWood, DPeterson and SamDavidson. Larry Sarner 05:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a single diff on the evidence page supports either the claims as to misrepresentation or that other accounts are 'connected' to Sarner and Mercer. (Assuming "connected" means sock or meat puppetry, or financial interest as has been alleged.) Fainites ^barley 08:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I see the diffs in the several editors' evidence sections relating to distortions of factual material, such as there being several empirical articles regarding DDP, as one small example. DPeterson^talk 01:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ask for a link or links and get another assertion. This is getting to look like the talk pages for the articles in question: make a direct request of the Buffalo Editors and get an evasion in response. (Often followed by a claim that the request is "disruptive" or "uncooperative" with their own "consensus".) Larry Sarner 14:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Established pattern of spurious bad faith accusations and disruptive tendentious editing, by AWeidman et al

12) AWeidman and connected accounts have a established pattern of both spurious and ill-founded bad-faith accusations, used in place of collaborative editing, and as a means of evading policy-based questions and deflecting concerns.

12) AWeidman and connected accounts have a established pattern of both spurious and ill-founded bad-faith accusations and disruptive tendentious editing, used in place of collaborative editing, and as a means of evading policy-based questions and deflecting concerns.

Note addition of "and disruptive tendentious editing" - see below FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't know if this is the best wording, but something like this would seem appropriate. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place but can I add here [10] from the RfC talkpage and this [11]from the RfC page. Fainites ^barley 23:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

this group tries to turn a content dispute into something else. This has been their pattern since their fringe views are just not supported by mainstream material. SamDavidson 01:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As said elsewhere, breach of policy is not the same as a content issue. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

APSAC [12]and the Royal College of Psychiatrists [13]are fringe? Fainites ^barley 10:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No evidence to support this statement. JohnsonRon 18:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive tendentious editing - rather than a separate item I have added this into the present one. Feel free to split them if appropriate.

• Tendentious editing is in respect of editing on this page as well as the evidence page, for example by 1/ copying almost all "proposals" related to AWeidman et al, with names changed, to the other 'side' (even if the wording clearly does not match their actions, such as "50+ articles"), 2/ repeatedly alleging and asserting "groups" even though on many occasions it is clearly pointed out no such group exists and evidence has been asked for association of the named editors (such as myself) without good response, 3/ the many many "this is clear from evidence page" (often in unison) when it is in fact not clear from evidence page, or 4/ repeated reliance upon 2 sock checks to prove bad faith when only one check was completed and further evidence shows connection, and 5/ plain water-muddying repetitive assertion of claims as facts, which any reasonable editor would agree are dubious at best from evidence and questions raised, together with 6/ repeated failure to respond to criticisms of evidence (as others do of their evidence) other than by repetition and assertion, a parrtern visible in their article editing too as noted in the evidence.

• Disruptive editing - defined as gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. A disruptive editor is an editor who: Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors, Cannot satisfy Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research, Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators. In addition, such editors may Campaign to drive away productive contributors: violate other policies and guidelines such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:OWN, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles. (See: WP:DR) It's hard to think of a better encapsulation of the editorial activities of the AWeidman connected accounts.

And so on. All of these have been amply covered many times, but continue to be used as mainstays of the AWeidman-connected accounts, in unison,

I have hopes that the response will not for once be, "this would seem to apply to the ACT group", or a cut/paste proposal with names changed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

13) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

14) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

15) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

16) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

17) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

18) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

19) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

20) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Sarner banned from certain pages

1) Sarner (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Attachment Therapy, Reactive attachment disorder, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Theraplay, Attachment disorder, Advocates for Children in Therapy, Attachment Theory, Candace Newmaker, and Bowlby permanently.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by DPeterson^talk 01:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Split into two remedies by me. Please specify a length of time and correct the red links. Picaroon (Talk) 01:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that is reasonable, particularily given Sarner's history of disruptive editing for which he has been sanctioned in the past. RalphLender^talk 13:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sarner appears to have been blocked once for 48 hours in July 2006. I understand he was also 'soft-blocked' from editing the Steven Barrett article at about the same time. On what basis do these past minor sanctions, on which sentence has been served, justify a permanent ban now? Does the same apply to DPeterson who was once banned for breaching 3RR? Fainites 22:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is appropriate, given his history of disruptive editing. SamDavidson 00:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Jean Mercer banned from certain pages

2) Jean Mercer (talk · contribs) Attachment Therapy, Reactive attachment disorder, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Theraplay, Attachment disorder, Advocates for Children in Therapy, Attachment Theory, Candace Newmaker, and Bowlby permanently.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by DPeterson^talk 01:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Split into two remedies by me. Please specify a length of time and correct the red links. Picaroon (Talk) 01:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Why would an expert in the field of child development be banned from editing attachment articles because she disputes the current presentation of Dyadic Developmental psychotherapy? Fainites 23:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

On what basis? I don't see any evidence that she has edited in a way that is POV. StokerAce 22:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

the evidence is clear and so she should be banned based on her being a leader of an advocacy group that advocates positions not accepted by mainstream groups and that are clearly not used by such groups. SamDavidson 01:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I see. The proposal is to ban me on the basis of who I am, not what I have done. Once again, I would like to see a list of the positions taken by ACT that are repugnant to SamDavidson and his colleagues.Jean Mercer 12:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Advocates for Children in Therapy is deleted

3) The current Advocates for Children in Therapy page was created as a personal attack on ACT by DPeterson and remains biased against ACT.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I propose that it be deleted. StokerAce 01:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion is the proper place for deletion discussions. But note that it can be rewritten without first deleting. Also, neutrality issues are not grounds for deletion unless the article is inherently POV (e.g. List of terrible bands). shotwell 01:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It was up for deletion and that was denied in part because the article was deemed worthy. DPeterson^talk 02:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It was only created as a personal attack. Under these circumstances, there is no point keeping it. StokerAce 02:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Once created, an article takes on its own life. It survives or is deleted (so to speak) according to normal article criteria - notability, suitability (WP:NOT), verifiable reliable sources, etc. There's a warning to this effect on WP:COI for what its worth. AFD is always available if it's likely that non-notability can be established. But "It wasn't created for genuine reasons" isn't a valid deletion argument. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is supported by verifiable citations and references. It presents facts about the group. For some reason the leaders of ACT want it deleted and filed the original speedy deletion on it. RalphLender^talk 13:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A small, accurate article instead perhaps? They are sufficiently notable to have given evidence to some Senate committee, been mentioned by the Taskforce, and some of its members give expert evidence at trials. Fainites 23:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

the article was reviewed for speedy deletion and the decision was to keep it. The ACT group and their supports want to delete it, it appears, because the article's accurate presentation of their activities and positions clearly shows the group to be an extreme group, not part of the mainstream mental health community. SamDavidson 01:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This comment demonstrates that you either don't understand WP:NPOV or that you don't care. shotwell 07:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an advocacy group and as such should have an article. JohnsonRon 18:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is deleted

4) The current Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy page was created as an advertisement for DDP by AWeidman and continues to read like one.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I propose that it be deleted. StokerAce 01:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is a factual description of an empirically supported treatment. DPeterson^talk 02:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with previous commentRalphLender^talk 14:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It could be completely rewritten as a small, accurate article. After all, Hughes, its progenitor, is mentioned by Prior in the 'non-evidence-based' chapter of her book, and Becker-Weidman is cited by name 3 times by the Taskforce. Fainites 22:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a treatment with a number of publications in professional peer-reviewed publications and which was labled evidence-based by Craven & Lee. It is used by a large number of practitioners. DPeterson^talk 01:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not labeled "evidence-based" by Craven & Lee. Please provide a direct quote and cite to back that up, if you can. If you cannot, the comment should be disregarded. StokerAce 01:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

StokerAce is quite correct. Craven & Lee did not categorize DDP as evidence-based, but as belonging to a less stringent category. No nonrandomized study could be considered evidence-based according to the SRS guidelines used by Craven & Lee. However, Craven & Lee erred in assigning DDP even to a lower category, as Pignotti & Mercer (2007) noted. When Lee & Craven responded to Pignotti & Mercer's comments, by the way, they did not attempt to argue the point about DDP, but concentrated on attempting to support their previous claims about holding therapy. Jean Mercer 01:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

N.B. Craven & Lee do not use a category "evidence-based" at all, but follow the model of Saunders, Berliner, & Hanson (2004). They do have an equivalent category, but it's not the one they assign DDP to.Jean Mercer 00:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

was reviewed, I think, and deletion denied. This is an accurate fact based, citation supported article. Deletion of it has been a major plank in the ACT position and advocacy efforts. SamDavidson 01:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A non-profit dedicated to the deletion of a Wikipedia article? Do you really mean this? shotwell 07:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No basis for this. The therapy has several empirical articles in professional journals, is represented at a number of regional, national, and international conferenes by invitation, and is cited by other professionals. JohnsonRon 18:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Certain editors banned from editing Advocates for Children in Therapy

5) AWeidman, DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavidson, JohnsonRon, and MarkWood are indefinitely banned from editing Advocates for Children in Therapy, based on their past misconduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by StokerAce 02:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no basis for such a harsh remedy. These editors have added factual material that the leaders of ACT and supporters object to, but which is supported by verifiable material. RalphLender^talk 14:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

See (10). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No basis for this. SamDavidson 01:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Certain editors banned from editing Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy

6) AWeidman, DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavidson, JohnsonRon, and MarkWood are indefinitely banned from editing Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy based on their past misconduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by StokerAce 02:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no basis for such a harsh remedy. These editors have added factual material that the leaders of ACT and supporters object to, but which is supported by verifiable material. RalphLender^talk 14:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed ban. These articles have been perverted and distorted. Wiki has unwittingly played host to an 18 month mass advertising campaign for a relatively obscure and as yet unvalidated therapy in the area of children's mental health. No argument, provision of sound sources, compromise, mediation or minor sanctions have any effect on the hard and fast agenda pursued by these editors. Fainites 21:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no basis for this. The supporters of ACT and it's position may be the more appropriate group to ban from editing the articles that are part of their advocacy, in accordance with the above principle regarding COI. DPeterson^talk 01:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See (10). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No basis for this. SamDavidson 01:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:FatherTree and false accusations

7) User:FatherTree be required to:

1. Apologize for acknowledge knowingly making false accusations of several editors being sockpuppets despite their being evidence to the contrary.
2. Refrain from making such comments in the future, unless there is a checkuser finding to support the statement; if violated, he should then be banned.
3. His comments be monitored for a period of six-months.

RalphLender^talk 15:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Father Tree has on the diffs provided asked DPeterson if he is Becker-Weidman on a number of occasions. In view of the fact that AWeidman and DPeterson have shared an IP, promote and maintain the same edits in relation to Becker-Weidmans therapy in the teeth of Wiki policies, and personally attacked the credentials of editors who do edit in their own names, it may seem like a not unreasonable question.Fainites 21:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue was researched twice and the checkuser finding in each instance was that the accusation was unfounded and FatherTree knows this as the diffs show. DPeterson^talk 22:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No such unfounded 'verdict' was ever issued by checkuser. Checkuser is incapable of 'proving' that two accounts are not controlled by the same person. Checkuser can only 'fail' to prove that they 'are' the same person. 'unrelated' means unable to prove a connection. Peace.Lsi john 02:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

given that the question was researched and then dismissed, his continued accusations are clearly personal attacks and must be sanctioned. SamDavidson 01:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

AWeidman et al banned from editing any articles relating to attachment

8) AWeidman, DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavidson, JohnsonRon, and MarkWood are indefinitely banned from editing any articles or parts of articles relating to attachment, it's history, theory, diagnosis, disorders or treatments.Fainites 22:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No Basis for this. The group of ACT and it's supporters may be the appropriate ones to be banned, based on COI criteria stated above. DPeterson^talk 01:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See (10). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

there is just no basis for this. Dr. BW has not been editing these articles in quite some time. SamDavidson 01:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

SamDavidson singles out and attempting specifically to protect AWeidman from the proposal ... whilst neglecting to spare even one specific word (beyond a general and unsupported claim) to defend his own account or anyone elses. Oddity noted. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no basis for this at all. There is a content dispute and the ACT group has prevented consensus building on these pages. JohnsonRon 18:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sarner, Mercer et al banned from editing any articles relating to attachment

9) User:Sarner, User:Jean Mercer, User:StokerAce, User:Shotwell, User:FatherTree, User:Fainities, User:HealthConsumerAdvocate, User:PsychPHD, User:Raspor, User:Mercerj are indefinitely banned from editing any articles or parts of articles relating to attachment, it's history, theory, diagnosis, disorders or treatments.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. MarkWood 20:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There is clearly no evidence to support this. StokerAce 23:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Their disruptive editing and POV pushing (The ACT "fringe" view) support this remedy. DPeterson^talk 01:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree, see item 11 SamDavidson 01:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, their history of disruptive editing and continuing to raise issues that have been settled by mediation, etc. suggest that they are engaged in POV pushing and that is disruptive. JohnsonRon 18:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I ask for a list of points that would define the ACT POV, as opposed to the POV preferred by DPeterson et al. I assume that POV refers to a set of a priori assumptions rather than demonstrable evidence, so, for example, the definition of evidence-based practice would not be a matter of POV, but of current professional opinion as evidenced in published materials. On the other hand, the appropriateness of age regression or recapitulation would for the time being be a matter of POV, as no existing research has actually tested claims about these practices. Can DPeterson or others supply a list of such beliefs that ACT espouses? This would allow some objective assessment of whether a POV has been pushed inappropriately. Jean Mercer 18:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I beleive the ACT website has all the evidence necessary to verify the previous ponts regarding POV pushing. DPeterson^talk 22:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know where it is claimed the 'ACT POV' as displayed on Wiki differs sufficiently from mainstream so as to render it fringe. We know where the Taskforce disagrees with them because we have the paper.Fainites ^barley 23:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

AWeidman and related accounts site ban

10) The person(s) operating the accounts of AWeidman, DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavison, JohnsonRon, and User:MarkWood, and operating the IP editors 68.66.160.228 and 66.238.xxx.xxx, having shown (firstly) a pattern of intense POV warring and sustained disregard for Wikipedia principles both during article editing and at arbcom, and on a large number of articles on many topics, (secondly) a pattern of serious misuse of Wikipedia to further professional defamation and misrepresentation including subtle vandalism and sock puppetry, and (thirdly) showing no evidence of desire to address these issues, are indefinitely banned from Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed to supersede 5, 6 and 8.
Alternative suggestion would be a 1 year ban, but I think given the wilful and subtle damage, total lack of regret, denials despite evidence, and attempts even now to bluster through it (accuse others and avoid own issues), an indef ban seems more appropriate. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There is not basis for this in Wikipedia policies, given that these are discrete editors. The recommendation misrepresents the evidence presented. DPeterson^talk 00:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I was originally going to suggest one year, but the behavior here is suggestive of an inability or unwillingness to change. shotwell 17:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no basis for this, given the evidence presented. Citing behavior during the arb is not supposed to be allowed. JohnsonRon 18:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The ACT group and supporters and related accounts site ban

11) The person(s) operating the accounts of User:Sarner, User:Jean Mercer, User:StokerAce, User:Shotwell, User:FatherTree, User:Fainities, User:HealthConsumerAdvocate, User:PsychPHD, User:Raspor, User:Mercerj , and related parties (as described in previous evidence sections) having shown (firstly) a pattern of intense POV warring and sustained disregard for Wikipedia principles both during article editing and at arbcom, and on a large number of articles on many topics, (secondly) a pattern of serious misuse of Wikipedia to further professional defamation and misrepresentation including subtle vandalism and sock puppetry, and (thirdly) showing no evidence of desire to address these issues, are indefinitely banned from Wikipedia.SamDavidson 01:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It's been many months since I attempted to contribute to one of the articles under discussion. I have confined myself to the Talk pages because nothing I added to an article was ever allowed to stand, and I hoped against hope that on Talk there might be some actual discussion. I don't see how this can be construed as POV warring on my part. As for the other issues, I believe they have been addressed, but if there are specifics that need to be clarified I would like to hear about them.Jean Mercer 12:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits: [[14]], [[15]], [[16]], [[17]], [[18]], DPeterson^talk 12:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Noted that three of those five show simple spelling corrections to cited author names. I think we can understand Mercer to be referring to "substantive editing involvement" rather than "all-or-nothing". Lawyering is not productive. For the three months from 1 April 2007 until commencement of Arbitration, Mercer seems to have made 47 edits comprising 4 article edits, 37 talk page edits, 5 user/user talk page edits, and one project page edit. The four article edits included two that were simple spelling corrections [19][20]. The statement Mercer broadly is making, is about her general editing involvement, and this seems broadly substantiated. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes--- sorry, I got carried away about the length of time. There was certainly a long time when I did not edit articles. N.B., however, that when I tried more recently (diffs above), Ralph Lender and DPeterson immediately deleted or altered my contributions, in ways that appear to me to be more supportive of DDP, and added material to the topic "attachment in children" that emphasizes attachment status in older people. Someone even removed the initial letter of an author's name in a reference I had given, perhaps not an intentional removal, but one effectively making it difficult for a reader to locate the original source. (Is "human bonding" on this list, too? I didn't realize that. ) Jean Mercer 14:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the last diff there, the only substantive edit on the pages under discussion is actually dated July 2006, as in fact is the last spelling correction. Given that it must have involved a search through 'contribs', how do these appear labelled as 'recent edits'? Fainites ^barley 14:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

However, it's true that I attempted a substantive edit to "attachment in children" on 26 June 2007, which was quickly altered by Ralph Lender etc. My purpose was basically to see whether the old pattern was still in place. I also edited "human bonding", commenting on some issues related to breastfeeding. I don't see how either of these can count as POV warring.Jean Mercer 15:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a copy of item (10) with names changed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the disruptive editing by some in that group and the unwillingless by many others to respond to consensus, this ban may be in order for some period of time. However, I think a better solution would be to require supervised editing so that they can continue to participate in Wikipedia, but in a way that prevents them from being disruptive. I'd hope that over time they would then offer a positive contribution to the Wikipedia community. DPeterson^talk 00:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Given their history of editing together, supporting each other, and most of the group limiting their editing to only these pages, I think this is clearly in order. JohnsonRon 18:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Article probation

9) Attachment Therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and all related articles (related to be determined using common sense) are placed on article probation indefinitely, commencing at the conclusion of this case. Any uninvolved administrator may ban a user or users they feel are acting disruptively from an article and/or its talk page for up to a month. Two or more uninvolved administrators who find that month-long bans have proven unsuccessful may impose longer bans of up to a year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sounds fine to me. It would be nice to know there was someone keeping an eye on these pages. StokerAce 01:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest adding, "after one clear and specific warning." This will allow editors to amend their conduct and would be a good way to evaluate later concnerns, if raised. DPeterson^talk 01:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to say, in my view probation would be pointless if AWeidman and his socks remain involved. (cf FT2 below). If they are not, probation is fine to see how everything settles down into genuine argument on points and hopefully the attraction of new editors.Fainites ^barley 15:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

After reviewing the evidence provided, I have come to think this is one of those cases, unfortunately. The last bit may sound a bit unfamiliar, seeing as I just thought it up right now. Feel free to replace it with more natural article ban phrasing. Picaroon (Talk) 00:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I was going to comment, but then it occurred to me I might have misunderstood your intent. Could you verify Picaroon, do you mean by this proposal, 1/ probation might be a useful additional option, in addition to any individual bans, blocks or other redress for misconduct that might be ruled for specific editors and actions? Or do you mean 2/ that probation might be all that is needed and this is intended to replace all other remedies? The expression "one of those cases, unfortunately" makes this ambiguous. Many thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this is my perspective on the matter:

As an outsider to the debate, of less than a weeks standing, my sole involvement has been with the arbcom case itself. The initial view is that either or both or neither side may have mis-edited, and so I checked both sides. There is strong evidence of AWeidman and connected accounts having ruthless disregard for policy, in regard to almost every core policy there is, every act of good faith that there is. All have been shredded.

By contrast I don't find anything like the same with mercer, sarner et al. There is no "ACT group", no strong evidence of forbidden puppetry, no subtle vandalism of links and references, no use of what fainites has rightly described as "repeat it many times with many socks in the hope that people will think its six of one, half a dozen of the other". I cannot judge their content, but their conduct has been markedly different.

Article probation may be relevant, yes. But I stand by the view that a more serious remedy is needed for AWeidman and connected accounts, due to the gross seriousness of actions and intransigence, which continues to today, and my view as stated above, after great thought, is that the appropriate remedy is an indef removal from the site, since I see no interest in learning policy even at this late stage, or editing other than in substantive bad faith.

I do not see it as "one of those cases". I don't see effectively shrugging and sending the whole article to probation as at all suitable. (Apologies offered if this mischaracterizes the intended opinion; it's my understanding of the words used and if mistaken, I would like to be corrected.) I see this case as a clearcut case of gross ongoing breach of policy, bad faith editorship, subtle vandalism, combined with confirmed malicious puppetry, and backed by neutrally verifiable evidence. It is a pattern of behavior that here, in front of arbcom, after a year's damage, the connected AWeidman accounts continue to dissemble, and to say through their words and conduct, that they have shown zero intent to alter whatsoever. By contrast, wrongdoings by mercer, sarner and editors not part of AWeidman's apparent socks (if any wrongdoings are notable in reality beyond the "smoke" of allegations), are far far lesser in degree and more evidently capable of quicker remedy.

This is my perception as a neutral outsider, based on hard evidence in the edits of all parties which I myself have documented.

Note that that proposal was made at a much later date than most of mine. This was because I do not like to suggest a strong remedy, and had thought that a lesser one might be more suitable. What I have learned in researching evidence here, finally led me to feel otherwise, even after allowing for presumption of rehabilitation. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the cryptic wording; it was directed mainly at the arbitrators, and I realize I should have been more specific. Having been involved as either a clerk or a neutral admin in several prior cases, I have run into multiple disputes that stretched across large amounts of articles and had a half dozen or more involved users. In some of them, there was a consensus that article probation was necessary; in some, this conclusion was not reached. The comment was meant to indicate that this was one of the cases where I think article probation will, in fact, be necessary, as opposed to a case where it won't. I do not suggest it to the exclusion of other remedies. Article probation is often merely a back-up remedy if individual paroles/bans/probations/warnings/admonishment etc. fail to stop the problem after the conclusion of the case. Picaroon (Talk) 01:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and apologies if the tone was in any way out of line. So you mean more, to propose that after any individual sanctions decided on the case are applied, the article should then in any event additionally be placed on probation, just in case problems did re-emerge or other editors (either not previously a problem, or newly arrived, or returning) turn out to raise conduct issues on the article again? Is that more what you're thinking? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Picaroon (Talk) 02:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Short and to the point. Worth clarifying. It'd probably reassure surviving editors which is worthwhile in its own right even if no problems did emerge, and also help avert claims of improper editing if any were made. Plus regardless of misconduct, there are potential COI issues and genuine questions of which are notable or "mainstream" views, which reliable sources (and viewpoints) carry more weight, and so on, and weeding out reliable content from POV-warfare content, where closely involved admins would probably be useful as a resource to aid the forming of a neutral view in future. Would it be possible to amend the proposed wording so it clarifies the intent? Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that I would cosid FT2 an uninvolved editor since FT2 has been very active on the NLP article and related articles with Fainites and in support of Finites, and the related talk pages. DPeterson^talk 03:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes. I don't suppose you checked my involvement on NLP, did you. For the most part, one arbitration case and removal of an inappropriate editor in June, one RFC and ANI case in February, and if you're looking for substantive edits as a contributor to the article itself, beyond an odd post here or there, you have to go back around a year to 18 months, to around Q4 2005 and Q2 2006. (Even that was mostly in the context of responding to a (later banned) sock/meat-group's POV warring.)

Was there other substantive evidence of this supposed "very active" and "in support of Fainites" on "related articles" at this time, which you proposed to add to the evidence page, beyond normal admin-related matters (which have gone both in support of Fainites and against Fainites [21])?

Note -- I don't plan to argue trivia or frivolous matters. Your claim is that there is significant involvement and especially, significant involvement as co-editor and supporter of Fianites in some way or other that's supposed to raise questions rather than merely be usual adminship/editorship. I'd hate to have to refer to the little-known guideline WP:SQUEEZINGTHEOTHERFOOTINONESMOUTH again. I look forward to DIFFs in evidence of this. My contributions list from July 2006 is here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Whilst we're on the subject of NLP, one last thing. It has been noted that you and other editors connected with AWeidman are attempting to edit there... and the edits do look of a similar approach, with good faith being rather hard to assume given their content. (RalphLender joins NLP 6 July ... DPeterson joins NLP 16 July). Nonetheless I have left them intact. For arbitrators note, the points by DPeterson are a repeat of tactics regularly used in the past by banned LTA HeadleyDown, AKA Maypole, who also edited for a time on Attachment Therapy.

I get the feeling that my attention may at some point be drawn to NLP again in some manner or other, if this is anything to go by. (At least until it has developed into a stable version that independent editors can agree from the evidence meets core policies such as NPOV.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure what DPeterson's trying to imply here, but I edited seriously on the NLP page from 9th December 2006 until about the 9th March 2007. During most of that time the article was dogged by a sock of HeadleyDowns. FT2's only major contribution of any note during that period was a substantial 'editorial note' of extensive advice on 12th February 2007, following the banning of Headleys sock, and presumably as an admin in relation to Headley. Therefore the allegation that "FT2 has been very active on the NLP article and related articles with Fainites and in support of Finites, and the related talk pages" is false. I have never edited with FT2 on either NLP or AT other than his February dip. Since March 2007 I've had the odd spurt on NLP, mainly cleaning up after another Headley sock (this one madly pro-NLP and also banned). Other than that I've mainly concentrated on AT with which FT2 has had no involvement until the RfC. I was a little surprised to see RalphLender and DPeterson arrive on the NLP page at this juncture. Particularly batting on about pseudoscience, one of Headley's bugbears, when of course AT is probably a classic pseudoscience.Fainites ^barley 14:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Although not a "finding" or "principle", I am strongly minded that to endure a vicious POV war by multiple editors, and keep a broadly policy based or civil approach, is quite an achievement. Perhaps some of the editors discussed in this case should be commended for their conduct. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others: