Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence presented by Lsi john

DPeterson & RalphLender - WP:CANVAS & WP:GAME & puppetry

Sample of behavior:

After their post on AN/I against FatherTree failed to garner support (here), DPeterson and RalphLender opened 3 virtually identical threads on the admin boards at the same time (here, here and here). Each falsely claimed prior 'admin support' (from a non-admin), in an apparent effort to 'kick start' their threads. Ironically these 3 noticeboard posts claim WP:CANVAS against FatherTree, and actually appear to be an attempt to canvass support and game the system. And by acting in concert it appears to be a form of puppetry.

When I realized they had failed to notify FatherTree about any of the posts, I notified FatherTree (here). DPeterson's responsed by attempting to involve another admin, claiming that I was 'unhelpful' (here).

I suggested to DPeterson that cross-posting multiple open threads constituted canvassing (here), and recommended that he close two of the threads (here), DPeterson replied

" ...Since each one gets a variety of comments from a variety of editors it may make sense to keep all open... -DPeterson" (here).

Shell (admin) ultimately realized that multiple threads were open, and closed one on AN (here), and later also closed the other two.

DPeterson copied Shell's AN comment to both AN/I threads, and misrepresented her as supporting his charges (here and here).

RalphLender, copied Shell's AN comment to the article talkpage here and falsely claimed:

"... the administrator did find that the issue of FatherTree knowinlgy making false accusations of sockpuppetry is real and valid ." -RalphLender

Shell responded with a categorical denial (here):

"Whoa - I did not support your accusation; I said if he was doing it to warn him and then let me know if he continues. You would need to provide some kind of proof to back up those accusations and his continuing after your warning. That in no way was a finding that FatherTree had done anything improper. Also, I specifically noted that the accusations of canvassing against FatherTree were false"-Shell

Another time, when I was attempting mediation on Shell's page, SamDavidson attempted to involve yet another outside party, with whom he presumably thought I was in conflict (here).

Response to DPeterson

In spite of his claims, there were THREE simultaneous threads on the noticeboards (two opened under the DPeterson account and one opened under the RalphLender account), in addition to the one he filed that 'rolled off' the board due to lack of interest. He used this same 'it disappeared' excuse to justify opening the multiple threads and subsequently refused to close them or ask that they be closed. Accidental opening could be written off on Good Faith. Refusing to close any of them, shows intention. Peace.Lsi john 18:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by StokerAce

There Have Been Repeated Personal Attacks on ACT and its Members

There is an apparent effort by DPeterson and a number of other editors to denigrate Advocates for Children in Therapy (ACT). In an early example, user AWeidman made a number of allegations against Jean Mercer, one of ACT's leaders, calling her, among other things, a "fringe advocate." here AWeidman was criticized by an admin for his remarks, which the admin referred to as "disturbing." here

The admin's criticism occurred on April 27, 2006. Soon after, on May 20, 2006, user DPeterson opened an account. here (With regard to the relationship between DPeterson and AWeidman, I will discuss this as part of a separate assertion).

DPeterson also had nasty things to say about ACT. For example, on June 30, 2006, a little over a month after he created the account, DPeterson also called ACT a "fringe group" here

Then, on July 21, 2006, DPeterson created a Wikipedia page about ACT, in which he said ACT was "not part of the mainstream" here

The current Wikipedia page for ACT continues to have disparaging statements about the group, which seem designed to impugn ACT's reputation. For example, the page says:

"The group is led by Linda Rosa, RN, Executive Director; her spouse Larry Sarner, Administrative Director; and Jean Mercer, Chairman of Professional Board of Advisors, none of whom are licensed mental health providers."

This statement tries to undermine ACT by suggesting that its leaders are unqualified because they are not "licensed mental health providers." However, there are obviously other ways to have expertise in this area besides being a "licensed mental health provider." According to her resume, one of the ACT leaders, Jean Mercer, is an academic who has published many, many papers in this and other fields. here Thus, it is not appropriate to make deceptive statements like this on the ACT page.

The page also says:

"While ACT seeks to "mobilize" various groups, professional medical and psychiatric organizations such as the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers have not taken positions on ACT's work, nor is there any evidence that those groups use ACT's materials; although these groups do seek and use input from various other advocacy groups."

This statement seems designed to imply that the major organizations listed have a negative opinion of ACT. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this is in fact the case. The idea that any of the listed organizations should "take positions" on ACT's work is not a sensible one. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of non-profit advocacy groups like ACT around the country. The organizations in question cannot possibly be aware of, and "take positions" on, all of the groups. To single out ACT as a group for which these organizations have not "taken a position" (assuming this is even true, which has not been demonstrated) seems to be an attempt put ACT in a bad light. Furthermore, there is no evidence that ACT has ever tried to influence the listed organizations. Attempts to discuss this with Dpeterson and others (such as RalphLender and Dr. Becker-Weidman) on the talk page have been met with unreasonable, cryptic and stonewalling responses. (See, e.g. here and here)

Despite the fairly clear bias in these descriptions of ACT, Dpeterson and others immediately restore them whenever they are deleted. See, e.g., deleted here and restored here.

The Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy page was created as an advertisement by one of its practitioners

The DDP page was created by user AWeidman (here). As far as I know, it is undisputed that user AWeidman is Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidman. See the signature "Dr. Becker-Weidman" here

Dr. Becker-Weidman is the head of the Center for Family Development, which runs a commercial therapy practice using DDP. (here)

Thus, Dr. Becker-Weidman runs a commercial therapy practice involving DDP and created a Wikipedia page for DDP touting its benefits. Note that the bottom of the original DDP page has a link titled "Source for information on treatment," with a link to the Center for Family Development web site.

There is some evidence that Dr. Becker-Weidman is somehow related to user DPeterson. DPeterson once had a sign in error, which gave the IP address as 68.66.160.228. (here) IP 68.66.160.228 checks out to Buffalo, NY. Dr. Becker-Weidman's center is just outside of Buffalo, NY. See bottom of this page Also, user AWeidman has edited IP 68.66.160.228's contributions (related to ACT and Dr. Becker-Weidman's Center for Family Development) within seven minutes of their original posting (see here)

Since the original creation of the DDP page, DPeterson and others have resisted any effort to present DDP in a neutral way.

As seen on the talk page, attempts to make the page more neutral have been completely rejected by DPeterson and several others. See(here)

One neutral editor tagged DDP page as a fansite (here). Within 15 minutes, MarkWood reverted (here)

Another editor tagged it as an advert (here). Within 33 minutes, DPeterson reverted. (here)

As a result, the DDP page continues to makes claims that are completely unsupported. The entire introduction reads like a marketing piece. If there is to be a page, it should be based on references to neutral, credible articles. Dr. Becker-Weidman has published several pieces on the topic. If they are used ,it should be noted that he is a commercial practitioner of the therapy, not an objective observer.

Response to DPeterson

Below, DPeterson asserts that ACT "may be" a fringe group due to their opposition to physical torture and abuse resulting from attachment therapy. He claims that no mainstream body supports ACT's view. This has been discussed on the talk pages, and DPeterson's claim is clearly false. To cite just one example, the U.S. Senate has passed a resolution stating, among other things: "between 1995 and 2005, at least four children in the United States have died from ... forms of attachment therapy." (here) This statement was made in the context of condemning rebirthing therapy, which was described as a "form" of attachment therapy. Based on this, it seems clear that ACT is very much in the mainstream.

Response to JonesRD's QWERTY Keyboard Point

Below, JonesRD says that the spelling errors referred to by FT2 are simply common errors with the QWERTY keyboard. According to Wikipedia, QWERTY "is the most common modern-day keyboard layout on English-language computer and typewriter keyboards." Yet virtually the only people in the world to make these errors are DPeterson and the others mentioned by FT2, and they all make these errors frequently. I think the conclusion here is fairly obvious.

Evidence presented by Jean Mercer

Refusal of discussion and ill effects on article

About a year ago,DPeterson and associates edited my contributions to such an extent that I stopped attempting to edit the articles and confined my participation to Talk. I thought some discussion might encourage compromise, and that I could present queries that would lead to a more productive approach. However, my requests for a rationale for claims were never answered except by repetition of the original statement.The group of editors in question practices proof by assertion and perseveration rather than by reasoning and analysis of evidence.

The deleterious effects of this approach have been 1) to insert Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (DDP) into a number of articles about childhood mental health issues, giving the naive reader the impression that DDP is a leading form of treatment, whereas it is in fact little-known, poorly documented as to details, and weakly substantiated, and 2) to include statements insisting that DDP is an evidence-based practice (EBP), an evaluation not congruent with the nature of published reports about its efficacy.

DPeterson and his associates have persistently refused to discuss either the status of DDP or the reasoning behind their claims of an evidentiary foundation, going so far at one point as to declare, quite incorrectly, that publication in a peer-reviewed journal indicates the EBP categorization. I am at a loss as to whether they are actually unaware of the issues here, or whether they find it convenient to cloud the discussion by incorrect statements.

DPeterson and associates have repeatedly attacked me personally

It would be excessively time-consuming for everyone for me to list the personal attacks I have experienced when trying to edit the articles in question. These began in 2006 with a misstatement about my sexual identity and the birth of my children, made by an individual who may or may not be among the parties to this discussion (this was in fact my introduction to Wikipedia). On many later occasions, and culminating with a statement by Ralph Lender on 22 May 2007 [2], this group has stated that I am unqualified to contribute to the topic. A particular issue has been the propriety of my citation of my own articles and books, published in professional journals and by legitimate academic presses. For example, on 20 July 2006, Ralph Lender referred to "your own book, which is merely a bit of broadside and polemic for the fringe group", and advised me that "citing your own book" is equivalent to NPOV. [3]

DPeterson has attacked my publications and ACT

DPeterson has also attacked my publications, stating incorrectly that "Attachment Therapy On Trial" was published by Advocates for Children in Therapy rather than by a legitimate academic press, and claiming that no one cites ACT materials, among which he has included this book; in fact, the book was cited by the Chaffin task force report, as well as receiving discussion and reviews in "Scientific American" [4] and in "Contemporary Psychology" (Vol. 49, Suppl. 14) My later book,also noted on the ACT web site but also not published by the organization, "Understanding Attachment," was reviewed in the "Times Literary Supplement" (Oct. 6, 2006).

Unless an arbitrator specifically asks me to provide information to support my expertise or published work in this area, I do not intend to waste everyone's time doing so. On request, I will provide an up-to-date c.v.The one DPeterson and associates are using is several years old.

It does strike me as paradoxical that I'm said to have been able to build a career from my association with an organization that DPeterson and others claim to be unknown and without merit, and that the organization is said to have benefited from my publications, which are dismissed as trivial.

Response to SamDavidson's comments

Of course, Mercerj was me; I apologize but I must have accidentally used my college library user name. But I find it quite unbelievable that SamDavidson deliberately draws attention to an exchange full of personal attacks on me and my family and with no connection whatever to the substantive issues in the articles.

Evidence presented by Shotwell

DPeterson et al. engage in meat-puppetry

• DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavison, JohnsonRon, and User:MarkWood provide unfailing support for each other. This support extends to arcane issues such as redundant see also links.[5] Most importantly, these accounts have uniform opinions regarding Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (DDP). Each account has either inserted or defended claims concerning DDP into a large number of articles. (e.g. Reactive Attachment Disorder, Child welfare, Psychotherapy, Child abuse, Adoption, PTSD, Cognitive behavioral therapy)
• The accounts of DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavison, JohnsonRon, and User:MarkWood were all created in May-June of 2006. [6][7][8][9][10]. At this time there was mediation concerning John Bowlby between AWeidman and Sarner.[11] This dispute centered around whether or not Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy ought to be mentioned in the article. Each of the accounts named above immediately involved themselves with the dispute and sided with AWeidman. (AWeidman's account has been inactive since his off-wiki dispute with Jean Mercer was pointed out [12]) In the following July, they all participated in this afd, which is demonstrative of their similar editing patterns.
• Prior to account creation, there had been a handful of ip editors who sided with AWeidman in this dispute. They only made a small number of contributions, but each ip resolves to the the New York area where AWeidman's clinic is based. 68.66.160.22866.238.216.11966.238.222.3866.238.223.245. Both AWeidman and DPeterson have added their signatures to edits by 68.66.160.228.[13][14] The other ip editors made one or two edits, each a WP:COI allegation against User:Sarner.[15][16][17]
• DPeterson has also added his sig to an edit by 66.238.222.38 (ip mentioned in the above point).[18]
• The accounts in question make highly similar formatting errors. For example, they very frequently (or almost always) use too many apostrophes when bolding text. Additionally, they have previously shown a uniform inability to properly link to pages in the wikipedia namespace. For example, they link to Verifiable instead of Wikipedia:Verifiability or Assume good faith instead of WP:AGF. Since the time this has been pointed out, they have varied in their ability to properly link to the wikipedia namespace. See the suspected sock puppet report for some example diffs.
• This set of accounts makes use of their large numbers to give the false appearance of consensus. This is made perfectly clear in day to day talk page discussions. Note, for example, the astounding number of straw polls set up by members of this group. Some examples include: [19][20][21][22][23][24][25]

DPeterson et al. will not discuss

• This set of accounts also uses their large numbers to set up echo chambers of irrelevance. This behavior completely stalls meaningful discussion and has been occurring with increasing frequency. See, for example, how this discussion degenerates into repeated WP:COI allegations. The same thing happens here and here.
• Additionally, this group of accounts subverts meaningful conversation by simply parroting each others' vacuous arguments and refusing to address legitimate concerns. In this discussion, for example, they decide to remove a critical source on the basis of an amazon.com user review. Note how they refuse to address my primary concern about using an amazon.com user review to remove a source [26]. Another example can be found in this lengthy discussion. I started with what I consider to be legitimate points worthy of reasonable responses. Instead, I got shallow responses such as this and this. It is important to note that the entirety of the previous discussions consisted of them repeatedly saying something along the line of "these sources are verifiable, we have already addressed this". This example is characteristic of their talk page tactics. Essentially, they all repeat "Nope, you're wrong and we've already told you you're wrong". This behavior is easily seen across the talk pages of Advocates for Children in Therapy, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Attachment disorder, Attachment Therapy, Candace Newmaker, and John Bowlby. It would not be so disruptive if it were not parroted by so many accounts.
• These talk page tactics are coupled with the strong tendency to immediately revert changes they do not like. In reverting, they refuse to address concerns or make references to WP:OWN and WP:CON. The contribution histories of the relevant articles make this allegation very clear; see two characteristic reverts here and here. The large number of accounts involved means that they need not worry about 3RR violations. Their willingness to revert has kept the attachment therapy related pages static for the last year.
• Another talk page tactic is to severely misrepresent sources during discussions. For example, here DPeterson heavily paraphrases a source and dramatically changes the author's intent. (Original source at Sagepub). Again, this would not be too disruptive but they all repeat this behavior. This misrepresentation of sources commonly occurs in the article namespace (for example, Advocates for Children in Therapy). This behavior obviously makes meaningful discussion quite difficult.

Response to RalphLender

Forum shopping

• RalphLender has erroneously stated that the issues have been resolved in mediation and "re-raised by the same group of editors when the outcome was not to their liking". He uses the following three mediation attempts as supporting evidence.
  • Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-21 John Bowlby: ended because the mediator resiged.[27]
  • Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-18 Sarner's reverts-edits of Bowlby and Candace Newmaker: (initiated by DPeterson) was merged into Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07 Advocates for Children in Therapy.[28]
  • Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07 Advocates for Children in Therapy: ended because I withdrew.[29]
• DPeterson, JonesRD, JohnsonRon, and MarkWood have drawn similarly erroneous and improbable conclusions from the failed mediation attempts.[30][31][32][33][34]

Response to response

• RalphLender claims that an administrator raised the issue of StokerAce and Sarner being sock-puppets. This allegation was actually made by non-administrator User:Nwwaew (the mediator in that case).[35] This accusation was made on the basis that Sarner and Stokerace use all capital edit summaries. Ironically, the edit summaries were merely the section headers to which they were responding --- all capital section headers by DPeterson et al.
• RalphLender also erroneously claims that his AN/I post was "different" than DPeterson's. He has previously acknowledged that he copy/pasted DPeterson's AN/I post.[36][37]

Evidence presented by Fainites

DPeterson et al own articles to control their content

DPeterson, MarkWood,SamDavidson, RalphLender, JohnsonRon and JonesRD work together to ‘own’ attachment pages. They maintain Dr Becker-Weidmans views, edits and assertions in the related articles. There is a substantial content dispute, but it is the way they own and control the pages and swamp opposition that is the main problem.

AWeidman, AKA Dr Becker-Weidman and Dr Art, the main proponent of Dyadic Develomental Psychotherapy, edited in his own name and as IP 68.66.160.228 from 4th December 2005 [38] Neither he nor DPeterson, knew how to sign in and added and linked their names. DPeterson has also edited as the same IP [39] [40] [41] Here that same IP, writing in support of DDP, claims to be a ‘disinterested person and licensed therapist providing services for children and adolescents’ [42]

The methods used are reverts, insistence that any edit has to be agreed (despite their overwhelming consensus), polls, repetition rather than answering points raised, personal attacks and accusations of vandalism and attacks on other editors motivation. Numerous diffs can be provided, but it is evident from the talkpages.

• Ignoring ‘consensus’ when it suits. The 'consensus' version excluded this list wherein DDP is listed amongst some evidence based therapies. It was subsequently added.[43]
• Here a 'consensus' version which included this passage from the Taskforce had Becker-Weidman added into the cites very shortly after it was posted. [[44]]

Use of articles to promote DDP

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy

Started by AWeidman, (who subsequently claimed copyright) [45]

Here IP 68 and AWeidman work together to remove criticism from the talkpage [46] [47]

DPeterson arrives June 2006. Adds claims re DDP and removes critical edits [48] [49] [50]as does RalphLender when he arrives in July 2006. [51]SamDavidson and MarkWood arrive on 21st and 22nd July adding links [52] [53]

DPeterson adds a statement that DDP is in compliance with the Taskforce report (Chaffin/APSAC) [54]and more claims [55]On 17th October 2006,

The article then stagnates until 10th May 2007 when DPeterson puts in Craven & Lee in support of the statement that DDP is evidence based (which this study does not claim).[56]

The way this is achieved is by the concerted control of the article by the use of reverts, polls and ‘consensus'. The 6 editors all act in total support and agreement. This can all be clearly seen on the talkpage.

'Reactive Attachment Disorder Article'

This is cited as another example of the effect these editors have on articles they 'own'. Until the 4th December 2005 the article contained a 'controversy' section that dealt with the controversial diagnosis and treatments of ‘attachment therapy’ based around the Institute for Attachment and Child Development. This is a centre whose name is well known to those who take an interest in the attachment therapy controversy. [57] On the 4th December 2005 IP 68 put in a series of edits that removed mention of this centre and inserted DDP in glowing terms as standard, successful and evidence based. It is also stated that other treatments for Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) are ineffective.[58] [59] also a link to Becker-Weidmans clinic [60] Despite the efforts of individual editors it looks similar today, defended by the 6 editors who succeeded Becker-Weidman. [61][62]

Attachment disorder, Attachment Therapy, Advocates for Children in Therapy, John Bowlby, Candace Newmaker etc. show very similar talkpage and editing patterns. Diffs can be supplied if required.

DPeterson et al frequently breach the rules on sources

Examples of alterations of quotations.

• Removal of a section on age regression from a quote given by a source stating age regression is key to AT, and for which Becker-Weidman was by the Taskforce.[63]

• At 23.32 (last edit) a sentence is removed by DPeterson from another editors proposed article edit, without comment, making it look as if the study (on holding therapy) was quoted approvingly rather than criticised. At 23.34 he votes on it.[64][65]

• The repeated insertion of Becker-Weidman into an extensive paraphrase/quote from the Taskforce by SamDavidson, DPeterson and JohnsonRon. When I complained, the quote was altered, claimed to be not a quote and Becker-Weidman reinserted in two places. This creates a misleading impression that Becker-Weidman is mainstream and quoted approvingly by the Taskforce. As they take turns to revert there is not much one opposing editor can do. I was then warned by DPeterson for 3RR.[66][67][68][69][70][71][72]Consensus is claimed.[73][74]

Examples of misrepresentation of Taskforce report

• DPeterson adds statement that DDP is in compliance with the Taskforce report (Chaffin/APSAC) [75]Here DPeterson and JonesRD totally misrepresent Taskforces citations of Becker-Weidman[76][77]

• Repeat unsourced claim, that the Taskforce report was written far earlier than its publication in December 2005, did not have materials from 2004, and that the follow up response of November 2006 did not see Becker-Weidmans 2006 study despite full quotes being provided to the contrary.[78](at the bottom)[79][80][81] (quote provided)[82](at the bottom)

Examples of misrepresentation of other sources.

• Claiming or implying Craven & Lee said DDP was evidence based and repeatedly removing accurate representations.[83][84]

• Resisting accurate insertion of Craven and Lee whilst continuing to insist it says DDP is evidence based.[85]

• Mischaracterisation of sources (right at the bottom), calling Prior and Glaser, published by the Royal College of Psychiatrists Research and Training Unit ‘polemic’.JonesRD[86]DPeterson[87]

• Cites from 2006 attacked as ‘out of date’.[88]

• Claiming historical material in a section on history is out of date and voting to delete it.[89][90]

• Claiming citations from the Taskforce report are slander.[91]

• Repeatedly arguing attachment therapy is synonymous with rebirthing, that ACT claims when they don't, even on the cites provided in support.[92].[93][94]( scroll down past list of AT therapies to explanation).

• An example insisting that ‘evidence-based’ means published in a peer reviewed journal.[95]

• When asked for sources to support claims for DDP, DPeterson adds 'Becker-Weidman' to every unsourced claim.[96][97]

• Conducting a poll to keep an OR and wrong statement about ACT.[98]

Examples of the obfuscation of the nature of attachment therapy

• Two edits to clarify nature of AT and ‘evidence base ‘ of treatments by Aplomado, reverted by DPeterson to repeat claim that AT as a term has ‘no utility’ and to position DDP as evidence based and in line with relevant standards.[99]

[100]

• 31st July JohnsonRon reverts edit stating AT is controversial, to a version saying it doesn’t really mean anything.[101]RalphLender adding to the ‘AT doesn’t mean anything’ approach.[102]This carries on throughout the Attachemnt therapy article aswell wherein it is described as 'smoke'. This is 'supported' by insistence on the repetitious inclusion of lists of publications that don't define AT.
• From 3rd May 2007, DPeterson. "The APSAC report does not describe "Attachment Therapy", it uses the term "attachment therapy" (no caps or quotation marks)." This capital letters argument arises again and again.

interfering with talkpage edits and personal attacks

• Proposed sections of AT article posted on the talkpage at 12.11 for consideration. Between 00.28 and 00.51 DPeterson rewrote it, removing most of the new material and inserting old material from the article. He then invited other editors to comment although they would not have been able to see the proposal.

[103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113]

• Here RalphLender interposed a paragraph.[114]When it was put back in thread and date order it was reverted by Jones RD and RalphLender. RalphLender and DPeterson attacked me on my talkpage.[115]

[116]

• Removing other editors spacing of points making contributions difficult to read.

[117] Replacing this [118] with this [119]

• Personal attacks.

[120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128] repeated ad nauseum across many talkpages. Also constant 'reminders' to others about WP:AGF and personal attack if an editor disagrees with them.

Comment on DPetersons section on Fainites

DPetersons claim about talkpage edits is misleading. My proposed article paragraphs posted on 13th April were the first such proposals. There was no prior agreement as to how this was to be commented on. They weren't commented on then. DPeterson almost completely rewrote it late that night. I replaced the original. I later suggested that interspersed comments all be done in italics so as not to render proposed edits unreadable.[129] Fainites 22:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, I state that altering another editors proposals in this way is editing in bad faith. Fainites 21:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments on FT2

Another element peculiar to this group of editors is interference with other editors talkpage edits such as excessive indenting (including proposed article sections) and the removal of spacing put in to highlight quotations or seperate points. I have not come across this elsewhere on Wiki. RalphLender[130]JonesRD [131][132][133]JohnsonRon [134][135]DPeterson[136][137][138]

Comments on JonesRD

• The list of 12 links to odd editors to show 'this dispute is largely driven by ACT and their supports' contains two links to Raspors' block and two links to talkpage comments by Raspor from before his block. It also contains two links to User:KipMiller who appears to have edited mostly on a non-related page and who's few talkpage edits on John Bowlby bear no relation to ACT's POV. Also two links to IP 69.211.150.60 who appears to have had very little involvement and has mostly edited elsewhere.

• Despite repeated assertions of JeanMercers alleged WP:COI, none of the 6 editors have ever taken this matter to the WP:COI notice board for resolution.

Comment on RalphLender and others

• It is disingenuous to say this is a content dispute driven by the advocacy of ACT and its leaders. There is no evidence that the other editors here are supporters of ACT or even hold all the same views except insofar as they oppose the activities of the named 6 editors.

• ACT, Sarner and Mercer have never been in a position to 'own' or 'control' any articles nor to prevent the activities of the 6 editors, even when their own reputations are savagely attacked. They are not driving anything. They have always been on the back foot.

• It is not ACT who started the ACT page, or indeed the DDP page. The ACT page was started by DPeterson and 'owned' by that group and has always denigrated ACT and its 'leaders'. Furthermore AWeidman was involved in total support of that group despite his disputes off Wiki with Jean Mercer.

Comment on LsiJohn

• When filing the ANI's described by LsiJohn, DPeterson also accused Fathertree of WP:CANVASS, a claim found to be unjustified by admin Shell.
• DPeterson has canvassed himself. [139], [140], [141][142] [143] Note the request also to take part in an RfC.
• Three of these editors (including two from the paedophile pages on which DPeterson edits) then accused the attachment editors opposing DPeterson of being in a coalition with "those who condone paedophilia". [144]

• Note also this is signed by MarkWood, JonesRD, RalphLender, SamDavidson and JohnsonRon, all of whom must have known that none of the opposing editors on the attachment pages had anything to do with the paedophile pages. This unpleasant and baseless attack may have contributed to the effective stalling of the RfC. Fainites 23:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment on SamDavidson

Re SamDavidsons accusation of meatpupptry by Sarner. 6 of the 8 diffs are on talkpages and all are plainly continuations of exchanges.

• This diff [145] is from Sarners talkpage and says 'this is my talkpage'.
• This diff [146] says 'see my comments above'.

Forgetting to sign in occasionally is hardly meat or sockpuppetry. This is a patently false allegation.

Evidence presented by {DPeterson}

First, I would like to respond to the accusations by editors User:StokerAce, User:Lsi john, User:Jean Mercer, User:Fainites.

{User: StokerAce makes several accusations}

1. . ACT is a fringe group. I believe that may be an accurate characterization. By fringe I mean a group that is not part of the mainstream mental health professional or advocacy community with a large base of members, such as the American Psychological Association or the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, among others. In addition, no organization or group cites ACT or uses its materails. It advocates positions that seem extreme, such as, “ACT works to mobilize parents, professionals, private and governmental regulators, prosecutors, juries, and legislators to end the physical torture and emotional abuse that is AT” [[147]] (retrieved 07 July 2007). There is no evidence that any mainstream professional body uses or supports ACT’s positions. This content issue has been raised for quite sometime and since the leaders of ACT (Mercer and Sarner) have not provided any such evidence, I think it may be reasonable to make the statement I did.
2. . ACT is not mainstream. See above comment.
3. . Not licensed mental health professionals.

Mercer acknowledges that she is not a licensed mental health professional: [[148]] [[149]] The material published about Sarner and Mercer on the ACT site clearly does not say they are licensed and being licensed is a notable credential. [[150]] [[151]], [[152]], [[153]], [[154]], [[155]], [[156]], [[157]], This is a notable fact regarding the credentials of the leaders of Advocates for Children in Therapy and belongs in an article about ACT.

1. . Various major professional groups use the input of some advocacy groups and not ACT. This is a statement of fact. For example, the American Psychological Associaiton does advocacy and uses materials from various other groups [[158]], as do other groups [[159]]. In addition, ACT does not list any collaborations with any other advocacy groups or professional organizations. [[160]], yet they do list and describe all their work.

{User:Lsi john makes several accusations}

1. .Opened three AN/I. I opened two, if I recall correctly. One in the wrong location. Since comments were appearing in both locations I left both up and assumed that an administrator would fix this if it required fixing. This is precisely what occurred.
2. . FatherTree knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry. User:FatherTree has made several of my being a sockpuppet, despite knowing that there have been two searches into that “question.”

Accusations: [[161]] [[162]] [[163]] [[164]] [[165]] [[166]] [[167]] [[168]] [[169]] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FatherTree&diff=prev&oldid=140833107]]

He was informed that his accusations were untrue, yet kept making them: [[170]] [[171]] [[172]]

The question of being a sockpuppet was researched twice, with the result being “unfounded” each time [[173]], [[174]].

{User:Jean Mercer makes several accusations}

User:Jean Mercer makes several comments without any evidence. However, Mercer makes several statements that she considers it a personal attack that questions were raised about the propriety of her citing her own material. Mercer’s WP:COI here is evident in pushing her own materials, career, and financial advancement as well as that of her group, Advocates for Children in Therapy. Her two books are largely position papers of her group, ACT: [[175]], [[176]], which descrbes them as, "An Expose by ACT authors."

{User:Shotwell makes several accusations}

User:Shotwell raises the issue of sock and meat puppetry. This has been researched at least twice and resolved (see above). The IP addresses questioned were Adelphia IP's, if I beleive, which is a provider of internet services in NY, PA, and surrounding areas. Many of the comments Shotwell makes about unfailing support can also be made about the group of Shotwell, et. al. The fact that several editors have a similar point of view should not be surprising, on either side. These are complex issues and there is a long history of dispute on these issues (See the ACT website for material going back a number of years). The rest of the accusations seem to be more about the content dispute and that we do not agree, which is true.

{User:Fainites makes several accusations}

User:Fainites raises issues similar to that raised by the previous editors in their material. It seems in one instance (Shotwell) I am accussed of not debating, while Fainites accuses me and others of over-debating. In such a complex content dispute ranging over many articles with many contributors, it is not surprising that there is a lot of discussion at times. Most of the rest of her comments regarding “frequently breach the rules on sources,” are content disputes and many of the diffs relate to my trying to reach consensus with Fainites regarding edits to the articles. She mentions that I interfered with talk page edits, yet she was the one that invited me to edit her suggestions on the talk page as a method of building consensus. Proposals were posted on the talk page and then various editors made changes there to further discussion and build agreement. The following diffs show that it was her idea and that she participated in this methodology: [[177]] [[178]] [[179]] [[180]] [[181]] [[182]]

{User:FT2 makes several accusations}

The question of being a sockpuppet was researched twice, with the result being “unfounded” each time [[183]], [[184]].

The comment I removed was done "early" in my experience with Wikipedia, before I understood the proper procedure for addressing what appeared to be WP:Personal attacks and inappropriate comments. That was an error on my part.

User:JonesRd makes several points

I support this statment that may suggest how the group ACT and its supporters have brought a long simmering dispute on the internet and in other venues into Wikipedia.

A recent WP:SPA addition to the dispute can be found at: [[185]]

[{WP:COI]] regarding Mercer and Sarner

I would have to agree with JonesRD regarding this COI. They are leaders of the advocacy group [{Adovcates for Children in Therapy]{, which has a specific POV that they push, regardless of evidence to the contrary, as Jones RD points out. Their edits to all these pages, Bowlby, Attachment Therapy, Candace Newmaker, etc are driven by their POV and as such they should be sanctioned. DPeterson^talk 00:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {FT2}

Evidence that all of these accounts are indeed extremely likely to be socks of AWeidman, that they engage in a long-term pattern of POV pushing and group ownership, that this has included using Wikipedia for professional and personal defamation and subtle sabotage of links, with little to no regard for reasonable conduct or policy, and that this pattern extends widely outside this article to many others.

{Evidence tending to support concerns over puppetry}

Further to evidence by shotwell, commencing:

"*DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavison, JohnsonRon, and User:MarkWood provide unfailing support for each other [...] The accounts of DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavison, JohnsonRon, and User:MarkWood were all created in May-June of 2006 [...] At this time there was mediation concerning John Bowlby between AWeidman and Sarner [...]Each of the accounts named above immediately involved themselves with the dispute and sided with AWeidman."

These editors have repeatedly stated that there were two investigations into sock use, "both unfounded" [eg see this page: DPeterson "This has been researched at least twice and resolved ... unfounded each time" JonesRD "There have been two investigations into the sock/meat puppet accusations, both unfounded" as well as other talk pages]. This isn't quite true. Of the two RFCU's, one (RFCU/AWeidman) was declined and never checked (on grounds of bad timing/questionable motive/faith since a RfM was also underway). The other (RFCU/DPeterson) was considered unconnected at the time, but was very basic and apparently never tied into much significant evidence beyond an IP check; also multiple IPs were in use. Checkuser is one of many kinds of evidence of puppetry.

AWeidman, DPeterson and MarkWood evidenced as being puppets of some form

I attach the first few contributions of the editors concerned, which I have checked and which tends to support the above statement by user:Shotwell:

DPeterson early posts

22:21, May 27, 2006 Talk:John Bowlby/Archive 1 (?Requestor Response to Mediator) 22:21, May 27, 2006 Talk:John Bowlby/Archive 1 17:31, May 27, 2006 Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-21 John Bowlby (?Request Information - comments for mediator to consider) 12:39, May 27, 2006 John Bowlby (?Use of Bowlby's Theory in Practice - edit practice section, remove redundant material) 12:36, May 27, 2006 Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-21 John Bowlby (add details) 17:57, May 25, 2006 John Bowlby 17:55, May 25, 2006 m John Bowlby (?See also - add link) 17:55, May 25, 2006 John Bowlby (?Use of Bowlby's Theory in Practice - repair deletions) 17:52, May 25, 2006 John Bowlby (add references) 12:35, May 25, 2006 Talk:John Bowlby/Archive 1 (addition of questions regarding contributor to this page) 19:06, May 24, 2006 Reactive attachment disorder 01:21, May 21, 2006 Talk:John Bowlby/Archive 1 (?Sarner member of Fringe Group) 01:21, May 21, 2006 Talk:John Bowlby/Archive 1 (?Sarner member of Fringe Group) 21:27, May 20, 2006 Talk:John Bowlby/Archive 1 (?I prefer the other) 15:15, May 20, 2006 Talk:John Bowlby/Archive 1 (ACCOUNT CREATED)

MarkWood early posts

15:40, May 28, 2006 Reactive attachment disorder (?Controversy - clarify what is AT and HT) 15:35, May 28, 2006 Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-21 John Bowlby 15:32, May 28, 2006 Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-21 John Bowlby (?1. Section on Legacy/Practical Application of Attachment theory) 15:31, May 28, 2006 Talk:John Bowlby (Comments on mediation so far) 14:33, May 27, 2006 Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-21 John Bowlby (response to reqest for information) 21:00, May 22, 2006 Talk:John Bowlby/Archive 1 (?Truth Will Out!) 20:55, May 22, 2006 Talk:John Bowlby/Archive 1 (?Sarner member of Fringe Group) 20:52, May 22, 2006 John Bowlby (Restore revert done by Sarner) 12:11, May 22, 2006 Talk:John Bowlby/Archive 1 11:56, May 22, 2006 Talk:John Bowlby/Archive 1 (?Sarner member of Fringe Group) 11:51, May 22, 2006 John Bowlby (repair page reverted AGAIN by Sarner) 21:54, May 21, 2006 Talk:John Bowlby/Archive 1 (?Sarner member of Fringe Group) 21:53, May 21, 2006 Talk:John Bowlby/Archive 1 (?Sarner member of Fringe Group) 21:51, May 21, 2006 Talk:John Bowlby/Archive 1 (?Sarner member of Fringe Group) 21:51, May 21, 2006 Talk:John Bowlby/Archive 1 (?Sarner member of Fringe Group) 01:24, May 21, 2006 Talk:John Bowlby/Archive 1 01:23, May 21, 2006 Talk:John Bowlby/Archive 1 16:26, May 20, 2006 Talk:John Bowlby/Archive 1 (ACCOUNT CREATED)

Note the obvious similarities in both target areas, and timings.

• DP and MW both commence editing under their respective accounts on 20 May 2006, 3/4 hr apart.
• The next day, both commence the next days editing 2 minutes apart. DP edits twice at 01:21, and MW edits twice at 01:23 and 01:24, neither then edits for the rest of the day. The edited article in each case is Talk:John Bowlby/Archive 1, the target in each case criticisms of user:sarner ([186] [187])
• The next notable event, AWeidman edits on 27 May 2006, and DP and MW both edit several times on 28 May 2006. DP makes a few edits on 1+2 June 2006. All three then fall silent. 2 weeks later, DP returns to editing on 16 June, and AWeidman and MW both return and recommence editing on 17 June 2006. For the record, the comments on return are not prompted by each other: AWeidman posted on Talk:Attachment theory, and MW and DP both posted comments against Sarner (who had stated a view that certain "see also" links were advertizing; DP and MW wrote separately but almost identically against this Talk:John_Bowlby#Wiki_references, Talk:John_Bowlby#WIKI_REFERENCES:_An_appeal_to_concensus_building_and_mediation, Talk:John_Bowlby#Also_See_Links)

• User:AWeidman, user:MarkWood and user:DPeterson all had a similar learning curve on name signing to talk page posts. For example, on April 27 AWeidman was still not consistently signing talk page posts [188][189] or signing them incorrectly, manually [190]. By June 17 he's got the idea [191]. On May 20, first editing, user:MarkWood hasn't got the idea [192] but he's trying to correct DPetersons signature [193]. On his first edits (May 20), DPeterson is manually typing his signature in, as can be seen by the typos [194][195].

• On this edit, User:68.66.160.228 signs one paragraph as user:AWeidman and another as user:DPeterson.
• On this edit, User:66.238.222.38 signs one paragraph as user:MarkWood and another as user:DPeterson [typo'd as "PPeterson"].

Strikeout of above twop items: - Following an email from Fainites, I checked if the above DIFFs might be the IP user copy/pasting from assorted posts elsewhere that included existing signatures. These are the only two DIFFs in my evidence where this was possibly an issue. The first diff is a cut/paste of multiple authors (original source), although this was far from clear in the edit itself. The other is also a cut/paste, where editors responding to comments reposted the original comments and thread (including sigs) in their responses. Eg, Original post ... reposted with response added ... response added [...] whole thread finally re-re-posted yet again by IP editor. No other DIFFs in this evidence are affected by this issue.

• There is clear evidence of intent towards puppetry here on 20 May. An IP editor connected geographically and via sign-in with AWeidman (user:68.66.160.228) posts "So I guess you are connected with, or at least sympathetic with, the fringe group ACT. It shows." and leaves it unsigned (see above; at this point DP/MW/AW were also leaving their posts unsigned) ... 2.5 hours later the same IP starts a new section below and in support of this: "Yes, you are right. Sarner is a member of ACT and in league with Mercer and Rosa. Clearly Sarner is biased and acting to implement an agenda rather than the free flow of information". This statement is clearly intended to support the first one, but intended to appear to be from a different person.

(Cross ref: This IP was also noted by user:StokerAce above)

• There's more in this sequence of edits. The second of these statements by user:68.66.160.228 is then signed by DPeterson [196] (incorrectly) who seems to have trouble as he corrects it a second time [197]. The same signature is then corrected almost immediately by the account MarkWood [198] who also overlooks the same mistake DPeterson didn't notice with curly brackets [199], until a bare 3 minutes later our original IP editor user:68.66.160.228 returns to correct it. [200]. In the space of 8 minutes (1:19 to 1:27) we see the IP user replying to himself, then signing the reply as DPeterson, then getting the signature format confused as DPeterson, then MarkWood still getting them confused and then as the IP editor again finally correcting.

• The next edit after this display by any of the three (once the siggy is corrected) is over 20 hours later [201] and it's user:MarkWood giving his own strong support to DPeterson's post attacking Sarner.

• Ironically [202], in that edit, MarkWood makes the same typo with curly brackets on his sig yet again that DPeterson made in the previous edits, and then has to re-edit himself again to fix it.

• Given the above, it is probably significant that user:AWeidman (who also signs his posts "Dr. Art" (ie, Arthur) [203][204]), user:DPeterson and user:MarkWood shared typo's in common. This was at the time when Weidman and Sarner were in dispute already. Weidman and Peterson both habitually mis-spell "consensus" as "concensus": DPeterson [205][206][207], AWeidman [208][209][210]. According to Google (en.wiki search: talk 'consensus'=105000 hits en.wiki search: talk 'concensus'=6650 hits) most references to this word in en.wikipedia.org are spelt correctly (the search is designed to filter out most non-talk pages since these will be corrected by other editors, and avoid google's spelling corrector).

• I quickly checked user:MarkWood as well. Compare: [211].

• Later on I noticed in fact user:JohnsonRon does the same too [212] (see below, this came up when citing DIFFS to back up the WP:LAWYER issues).

• See below (sub-section: user:AWeidman removes others talk page comments).
  In fact he's not the only one. Compare these two edits on Talk:Reactive attachment disorder and Talk:Attachment disorder: [213] [214], by user:AWeidman and user:DPeterson respectively. DPeterson removes the comment directed at AWeidman, even though DPeterson isn't mentioned in it, nor is it directed at him.

• As a balancing view I did note that AWeidman on his account has not visibly made the "{{" -> "[[" error that DPeterson and MarkWood made on a few occasions. However, on closer inspection, AWeidman actually didn't make any talk page posts via that account at that time; his last was April 27, his next a brief one on May 27 and then more after June 17; the above error (which MarkWood/DPeterson got wrong) were posted around 20-22 May and the signature issue was visibly sorted out shortly after.

• It's also worth noting that user:MarkWood posted comments that had the effect on a reader of emphasizing the separation between himself and AWeidman, for example "In fact, if I read Dr. Becker-Weidman's ... website materials correctly, they both fully comply with the recommendations of that report!!" [215]. This is not evidence per se of puppetry, but if puppetry is found it is evidence that it was more deliberate.

RalphLender, JonesRD, and SamDavidson evidenced as being the same person as DPeterson, MarkWood &c

Given that AWeidman, DPeterson and MarkWood have a collective track record of immensely novel spelling, I decided to look at other very unusual spellings errors in the article, to see who shared them, and how common they were in Wikipedia. This would not have worked for most situations, as such a range of notable spelling errors on common talk page words are usually (unhelpfully) quite rare. In this situation that was not the case and this approach was viable.

I searched in four pages: Talk:John Bowlby, Talk:Attachment therapy and their respective sole archive pages, to see which words had been at some time or other mis-spelt in a surprising way. (I did not look at other pages, other articles, talk pages or mediation/project pages.) I then got a rough estimate of how common the given mis-spelling was by counting "hits" for the word and its correct spelling using otherwise identical searches via Google.

Word	Editors that have used this spelling	Hits (per google) in talk / en.wikipedia.org for comparison
"beleive"	MarkWood [216] DPeterson [217] RalphLender [218] (and not one other editor)	2410 hits spelt like this [219] 331000 hits correctly spelt [220]
"similiar"	DPeterson [221] (self identified in summary) [222] [223] MarkWood [224][225] (twice), [226] JonesRD [227] (3 times) RalphLender [228][229] SamDavidson [230] (and not one other editor)	1710 hits spelt like this [231] 97700 hits correctly spelt [232]
"controversary"	DPeterson [233][234] MarkWood [235] JonesRD [236] (and not one other editor)	16 hits spelt like this [237] 31000 hits correctly spelt [238]
"reveiw"	JonesRD [239][240] DPeterson [241]	218 hits spelt like this [242] 62600 hits correctly spelt [243]
"psychotherpay"	AWeidman [244] DPeterson [245][246] IP user 68.66.160.228 [247] RalphLender [248] JonesRD [249][250]	5 hits spelt like this [251] 820 hits correctly spelt [252]

Note: Google does not report all incidences of the searched words.
That said, the comparison is a valid one for the purpose of comparing orders of magnitude
and thus whether the typo is common or uncommon in Wikipedia.

Other highly uncommon/notable typos included:

• SamDavidson and JonesRD share the same typo for "previouls(y)": SamDavidson JonesRD
• SamDavidson and DPeterson share the same typo for "Therapuetic": SamDavidson DPeterson
• DPeterson, RalphLender and the IP user all share the typo of "-ness/-nss": DPeterson RalphLender 68.66.160.228

I gave up searching at this point.

In fact there are so many typos that it is hard not to have a concern that the editor behind all of these is significantly dyslexic. And only the alleged socks, have this trait, and all of those named in the above table do it. Any editor wishing to check this can take the above pages and check them personally.

Examples supporting this include: principel, solicite, condusive, dispell, whould, flexiable, suggesitons, pressented, prominanlty ["prominently"], vanaldism, addtion, etc.

Review of edits of JohnsonRon

Finally I also looked at the edits of user:JohnsonRon who did not feature heavily in the above search, to confirm more fully the extent of evidence and the nature of their edits. user:JohnsonRon was interesting. There were again, also typos of the kind above (mateiral, Wikkipedia, wikipeidis) as well as some AWeidman classics ("concensus") and a heavy involvement in pushing the actual wikilawyering with the others involved (See below).

The stance of these editors

Evidence of breach of WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL etc

Given the above, it's a reasonable interpretation that has to be considered, that DPeterson and MarkWood and the others have acted like attack/POV warfare socks run by AWeidman or associates. Even if this isn't the case (or wasn't apparent back then), they really should have been dealt with on the basis of WP:NPA long ago.

Example post by MarkWood, on 22 May 2006, 2 days after the account was created: [253]:

"Here is another long winded diatribe by Sarner which shows a lack of understanding and a biased view. Sarner is clearly not open to any information other than what Sarner wants to believe [...] In fact, if I read Dr. Becker-Weidman's and Dr. Hughes' website materials correctly, they both fully comply with the recommendations of that report!!

"Yes, the real realotry [sic] and stubborness are apparent in Sarner's repeated reverts and distortions."

Many more similar comments are visible in the above/below DIFFs as well as the article talk pages.

Evidence of AWeidman's inappropriate removal of other editors' comments

• See for example AWeidman edits, removing comments critical of himself: [254][255][256][257], all dated August 2006. At the point the page was archived (March 2007), the removed comments were still deleted. (See last diff before archiving, dated December 2006 [258])
• As noted above user:DPeterson removes negative comments aimed at AWeidman too [259].

Evidence of IP 68.66.160.228 sabotaging links

[260]. Linked to from one of the posts critical of AWeidman, which he deleted (above). This edit is in the nature of sabotaging of links, rather than "simple vandalism", involving replacing "i" by "ii" in the URL, and the like.

Evidence of Wikilawyering with WP:OWN, WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS

The editors named have engaged in a clear pattern of enforcing a preferred viewpoint through wikilawyering. The classic stance taken several times was roughly: "You may certainly comment. But you are in the minority." followed by an accusation or implication that the person is trying to WP:OWN the article and that they will be rebuffed and likely warned or sanctioned for unwiki-ish conduct and tendentious editing, since their view is not WP:CONSENSUS. A 'vote' was then called which was used to creat what was described as 'consensus' and add authority to the rebuff.

• Five of many example DIFFs of this strategy being used:

1. JohnsonRon (note - relevant paragraph is the 2nd of 2 on the right, the paragraph starting "The materials and statements meet Wikipedia standards...")
2. JohnsonRon again... this time agreeing quite affably that the material can go in... with the twist in the tail "Again, we'll see what other editors have to say and the consensus will determine the outcome.".
3. JohnsonRon again, next edit after the above... this edit shows the curt use of wikilawyering of this kind, to cut off a debate without respect to balance, policy or indeed reason. It also (2nd paragraph) shows how user:JohnsonRon again uses lawyering on WP:OWN, WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS to push a preferred approach. This is then followed immediately (same edit) by a 'vote' to determine "concensus" [sic] -- note JohnsonRon uses AWeidman's mis-spelling of this word.
4. user:JonesRD doing the identical same twist: "We certainly should give others a chance to comment. While you have written the material underdiscussion here, you do not OWN it [emphasis in original] and there must be broad and generally agreement, but no one person has a veto..."
5. user:RalphLender does likewise: "But, in any event, this [giving cite info to allow checking of a paper] is a side issue and not to the point. I support leaving both references in and so do the vast majority of contributors."

The 'vote' at Talk:John_Bowlby#Proposal shows also by example: the various puppets working together to create a "consensus", including user:DPeterson (1) unilaterally overruling a strikeout of new single purpose acccount (and suspected sock [261]) user:Wallyj (not otherwise mentioned in this RFArb) from the 'vote' on fairly spurious grounds that differ from community consensus, and (2) unquestioning permitting a 2nd supporting vote from then-new editor user:JohnsonRon.

Gaming the WP:CITE and WP:V systems with bad faith

Eg:

• Refusal to adequately cite beyond vague mention of a publication which others had concerns over, eg.see the two consecutive sections #Question_about_peer-review_support_for_DDP_and_Theraplay and #Evidence_Base_..._Leave_Page_As_Is in which cites are requested, and danced around. ("

• MarkWood then misrepresents the above debate to slant Sarner as being unreasonable ... several diffs later its still danced around with a claim that he has been given "all he needs" ... until DPeterson states "See, there he goes again with personal attachks and raising irrelvant issues. The references are irrelevant to the fact that consensus has been reached and he apparently will not accept that" (!!) Sarner's request after this comment here.

Scale of activity elsewhere

If puppetry is deemed to have taken place, then I don't think the potential scale has yet come out in this RFArb. This is only one of over 50 articles where the same group are active. Often several accounts each join an article (or 'vote' mutually endorsing each other's stance in debates) within a very few days of each other. See attached summary:

Quick example evidencing that similar joint action takes place on other articles not connected to Attachment Therapy

• Child sexual abuse Talk:Child_sexual_abuse#POLL_TO_DELETE_THIS_SECTION (RalphLender, MarkWood, DPeterson, JonesRD, SamDavidson respond to a poll by RL)
• Background to this: Talk:Child_sexual_abuse#Deleted_methodological_issue where editors complain about DPeterson deleting significant cited material from academic studies, and the ensuing discussion is taken over by DPeterson, JohnsonRon, RalphLender, and SamDavidson, until SamDavidson declares "Yes, RalphLender, it does look like there is a clear agreement or consensus among five or six editors and only one (or two?) who seem to disagree. Deletion is the plan now." [262] and RalphLender declares he sees a clear majority and calls a vote.
• After a mass flurry of warning templates, some of which are stated to be "red herrings", including threats of "last warning before block", one editor states "When people are trying to remove material that have major impact on the research area while claiming that it is undue weight to even include it, then we have major problem. It doesn't matter if it is ignorance or in bad faith, it just isn't possible to edit this article under such conditions. Let's settle this in ArbCom and get it done already" [The editor concerned was later blocked himself; however this does not invalidate that as expressed, his stated concerns were reasonable.]
• ... which DPeterson powerfully tries to deter via lawyering again: "Please read the Wikipedia dipute resolution documents. The proper steps would be first to hold an informal poll [!!], then work toward compromise, then, do an RfC, then, if all else fails, you can file a request for Mediation. AbCom would reject any request at this point as premature." [263]

Comment by IP editor on article talk page

The following serious issue was raised by IP account user:70.156.183.109, regarding user:AWeidman using Wikipedia article pages to publicize serious professional and personal defamation. This allegation should be looked into (if it hasn't been already) as it is rather serious and also supported by DIFFs.

The original post - The main DIFF by AWeidman it cites as an example

Evidence presented by {JonesRD}

{Socks}

Several of these editors only began editing recently and as part of this dispute and might be considered WP:SPA (Sarner, Mercer, Maypole, StokerAce, FatherTree, Note: Maypole has since been banned). It is not clear what is their relationship to the ACT group.

Other editors have come and gone who only edit on this dispute from the ACT point of view: [[264]], [[265]], [[266]], [[267]]. [[268]], ([[269]]) [[270]], ([[271]]) [[272]], ([[273]]) [[274]], ([[275]])

This supports the contention that this dispute is primarily a content dispute and it is largely driven by Advocates for Children in Therapy and their supports.

{Accusations by several editors}

The various other accusations are responded to by DPeterson and I agree with those resonses, such as the repeated accusation of my being a sockpuppet of several other editors.

Spelling

The spelling errors cited are common errors with the QWERTY keyboard. I am sure that there are lots of other common spelling errors one could use to "link" any group of editors one wished to link. The salient point is that there have been two investigations into the sock/meat puppet accusations, both unfounded.

Conflict of Interest

There seems to exist a major conflict of interest WP:COI regarding Sarner and Mercer, both of whom are primary leaders of ACT and whose books are publicized on the ACT website and who clearly have a financial interest in this dispute. Mercer's recent career seems to be primarily built on her association with ACT and its position.

Evidence presented by RalphLender

Overall, I agree with the material presented by DPeterson and JonesRD.

[[WP:COI regarding User:Jean Mercer and User:Sarner

User:Sarner and User:Jean Mercer having a WP:COI regarding these various articles and the content disputes . The dispute initially was driven in part by the unique positions of two leaders of the advocacy group, Advocates for Children in Therapy (Sarner and Mercer) and their supporters. Their advocacy is the basis for this content dispute. The conflict of interest involves the following #. They are leaders of the advocacy group Advocates for Children in Therapy, [[276]] #. They have published books and so have a financial interest in the dispute. [[277]], [[278]]. # Mercer’s recent career involves advocating the positions of this advocacy group. [[279]], [[280]], [[281]], [[282]], [[283]], [[284]]

Forum Shopping

Several disputes were mediated and resolved, only to be re-raised by the same group of editors when the outcome was not to their liking. See:

1. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07 Advocates for Children in Therapy
2. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-21 John Bowlby
3. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-18 Sarner's reverts-edits of Bowlby and Candace Newmaker

Sarner and StokerAce being Meatpuppets

An administrator raised this issue a while ago: [[285]]

Response to Lis john and shotwell

My AN/I on FatherTree was different that DPeterson's. The sockpuppet issues was raised and addressed on two occassions.

Evidence presented by SamDavidson

There has been a substantial amount of improper talk page conduct by several of the editors involved in this dispute. Personal Attacks, self-promotion, disrutpive editing, among other problems.

Sarner is disruptive

Cites own book (WP:COI) & self-promotional: [[286]]

Cites own book without acknowledging (COI) it is his & continues to argue against inclusion of phrase, "Unlicensed therapists", despite evidence provided by an independent Editor (Disruptive): [[287]] His own book supports statement that they were unlicensed: [[288]] Sarner makes several statements to exclude his group from discussion: [[289]] [[290]]

Found to be disruptive and told to disengage from DPeterson by an administrator…but does not: [[291]], based on statement: [[292]] “'You have been blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks [293] and disruption, including the AfD which in my opinion is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. When you come back, you are to disengage with DPeterson; he has complained to me that he feels harassed and I don't blame him. I have looked through his contributions and I don't see any incivility coming from him. You may contest this block by placing {{unblock|(reason you should be unblocked)}} on your user talk page, which you can still edit. Mangojuice^talk 01:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)'”

Showing that Sarner and Mercer have a vested interest in these disputes: [[294]]

Mercer is disruptive

Financial Interest in her articles/career: [[295]]

These disputes are her career and the basis for her publications: [[296]]

Advocating ACT’s position and bringing those disputes into Wikipedia: [[297]] In particular a focus on Dr. Becker-Weidman: [[298]] [[299]]

Shotwell is disruptive

Based on “bias?” rejects with distain verifiable sources: [[300]]

Makes disparaging statements, that are, in fact, false: [[301]] The material is not self-published and was in professional peer-reviewed publications.

FatherTree is disruptive

Here we see evidence of the ACT positions: [[302]]

Additional Socks and Meatpuppets

Mercerj: [[303]], who is Jean Mercer.

[[304]]

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.