Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

• Blnguyen
• Charles Matthews
• Fred Bauder
• Jdforrester
• Jpgordon
• Kirill Lokshin
• Mackensen
• Matthew Brown (Morven)
• Paul August
• Raul654
• SimonP
• UninvitedCompany

Away/inactive:

• Flcelloguy
• FloNight
• Neutrality (Ben)

RalphLender and Aweidman

What of these two accounts? There is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence linking them to the DPeterson sock farm. Is it too ambiguous to make a formal finding regarding these accounts? shotwell 00:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Matching concern to the above: if such strong behavioral evidence, combined with

1. Existance of 4 known socks (denied)
2. Apparent deliberate attempts to separate at least some of the proven socks to different IPs by using different computers for different socks ("It appears that the puppetmaster has attempted to keep the accounts segregated, but has occasionally slipped up.") [1]
3. Continuation of DPeterson/RalphLender editing as identical editors even during arb

does not establish puppet status beyond reasonable doubt to an actionable level, then that's almost rewriting WP:SOCK to state that behaviorally evidenced socks cannot be actioned without IP evidence. It's an extreme take on the appropriate evidence level. A principle that strong enough behavioral evidence alone can be enough to demonstrate puppetry (or likely puppetry), would be useful to establish. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

NB - Often, behavioral match is the most reliable formal evidence that will exist, as DPeterson appears to have attempted in this case. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

For anybody bright enough to use two computers, behavioural evidence is the only evidence that ever will exist. Fainites ^barley 21:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also possible to check the location of the IPs, right? If the IPs are different, but from the same place (here, the Buffalo area, where Dr. Becker-Weidman is based), that seems like good evidence. Of course, that won't be the only relevant consideration, because it would be easy enough to use a friend or colleague from a different city as a meatpuppet. StokerAce 23:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

RalphLender

I note with great concern that no sanction is yet proposed for "RalphLender".

To recap, the "RalphLender" account has co-warred indistinguishably from DPeterson and his other 4 socks, has engaged in the same smears and rhetoric, has moved to the same articles at the same time to co-war with DPeterson against the same "opponents" on many (not just a few) articles and occasions, and is very strongly linked by behavior as the same person.

Checkuser matching is almost superfluous to ID these accounts as either the same user, or at least as indistinguishable POV-war accounts. Their behavior and behavioral evidence, along with the known mass creation of socks already, with the checkuser's comment that there have already been persistent attempts visible in the existing socks to keep them segregated, is sufficient to evidence this, and in the past users have been identified as socks and indef removed on similar or less behavioral evidence.

With all respect to the private discussions of the committee, it would presently be incomprehensible to me if these two accounts were not treated, as they have warred, the same.

FT2. 17:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)