Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Response to FT2: edit self rvt
DPeterson (talk | contribs)
4,116 edits
Line 265: Line 265:


4. I think that many of the accusations made about me were also relevant to others and so made those statements on the evidence page with supporting evidence. If this was not valid or is considered to be inappropriate, I am sorry.
4. I think that many of the accusations made about me were also relevant to others and so made those statements on the evidence page with supporting evidence. If this was not valid or is considered to be inappropriate, I am sorry.

5. I made some edits and comments to NLP because of my concern about it's pseudo-scientific basis and did not edit war; merely made some comments and a few minor edits.

6. I beleive I have had valuable contributions to various articles on Wikipedia, such as NLP and others I've mentioned above that make me a positive contributor to Wikipedia.


<font color="Red">[[user:DPeterson|DPeterson]]</font><sup>[[User talk:DPeterson|talk]]</sup> 22:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
<font color="Red">[[user:DPeterson|DPeterson]]</font><sup>[[User talk:DPeterson|talk]]</sup> 22:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:51, 12 August 2007

Relevant Pages

Due to the large number of articles involved, I thought it would be handy for anyone viewing this case to have a list of all the pages this encompasses. I didn't want to clutter my evidence section.

Articles

Wikipedia namespace

-shotwell 12:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Form and length

All contributors to this page should pay attention to the box at the top of it:

This is not one of those situations where the person that writes the most, wins. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information

I have been alerted to the fact that my name has been included in this arbitration case. After reading through the section where my name is mentioned I'd like to rebut a statement made about me. The section which says "On 28 Jan 2007, someone suborns Beno1000 to create an "Attachment theory" template which has the DDP and Theraplay articles as entries. Over the next 45 minutes, Beno1000 adds it to the following articles, thereby giving a hyperlink to the DDP article in each and every one of them" is incorrect. The timing of the incident is coincidental. I was not "suborned" to do anything. At the time I was researching attachment theory and related subjects as part of my A-Level course and felt that a template on the subject would be useful for navigation. I have nothing further to say at this time. Beno1000 21:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting. It's one thing to create a navigational template on a subject. It's another to include controversial articles (tagged and all). Can you enlighten me (at least) as to how you came to include the DDP and Theraplay articles in the template? The clerk maybe should consider moving all this to the evidence page as having some pertinence. Larry Sarner 19:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair Larry, DDP and all the articles it was in were all linked by the named 6 editors already so an interested reader no doubt at first sight may well have thought it was a substantial, mainstream thing. Thats the whole point isn't ti? Fainites barley 20:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence Presentations

Can I ask please if the word limit includes responses? (I assume it doesn't but I just thought I'd check). Fainites barley 19:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to admit it, but I'm not sure about this! I'll ask around and get back to you as soon as I've found another clerk who knows the answer. Picaroon (Talk) 19:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it doesn't otherwise half the evidence page would have to be deleted. In a dispute covering dozens of articles for over a year, this would not help! Also, there may be serious allegations to respond to. By the way, is 1,139 OK? Fainites barley 20:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody seems to know, so I'll go ahead and say it is okay for a user's responses to other evidence to be up to 1000 words, too. So, a total of 2000 words for evidence and responses to other people's evidence, but with no more than 1000 for either one. And yes, 1,139 is fine. :-) Picaroon (Talk) 20:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HaHaHaHaHaHaHa... Thanks Picaroon9288, I needed a laugh today. Actually that may explain a lot of my computer program problems. All this time I've been assuming 1139 was larger than 1000. :) Peace.Lsi john 21:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be as concise as possible, please. Going slightly over is not the issue. It is a problem when parties write volumes of disjointed text thinking the most evidence wins. We put a numerical cutoff to aid parties in understanding this point. FloNight 22:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fainites barley 23:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, rearranging sentences to cut out extraneous words has slightly spoiled the effect of MarkWoods cut and paste copy of some of my evidence. Fainites barley 10:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment removed. None of my business. Fainites barley 15:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

I'm a bit puzzled Jayjig. Does this mean that the 3 socks and MarkWood used the same computor/IP and it is assumed that the later 3 are socks of MarkWood because he was the earliest editor? Also, was AWeidman included in this checkuser? Fainites barley 08:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they just randomly picked one of the accounts. shotwell 08:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I picked MarkWood as the puppetmaster because he created his account first. May 2006 versus June 2006 for the rest, if I recall correctly. Picaroon (Talk) 18:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A correction

DPeterson says, In addition, I beleive there is an explicit statement that statements during arbitration cannot be used as Jayjg seems to be trying. Nothing could be further from the truth; ArbCom can and will use behavior during the arbitration as a factor in deciding the case; and more than one case has been decided primarily based upon such behavior. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, JohnsonRon made the same claim. Fainites barley 14:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here.[1] Fainites barley 15:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be appropriate to put a formal notice on AWeidmans page? Fainites barley 16:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's surprising. Not. FCYTravis 17:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was quite alot of evidence that DPeterson was IP68 aswell. Fainites barley 19:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DPeterson

Is Dpeterson restricted to editing the arbitration and talkpages only? Fainites barley 14:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up, DPeterson continues to make edits to the attachment therapy page. It's not clear if the edits are in bad faith, but he does insert references to ACT for some reason, which, given his past reference to ACT as a "fringe" group, suggests he might have bad intentions. StokerAce 20:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There have been no temporary injunctions, nor community-based remedies, put in place, so he is currently free to edit as he likes, as long as he violates no policies. Picaroon (Talk) 20:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Do you have any sense of when the arbitrators will issue decisions on the matter? StokerAce 21:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are three stages of arbitration case once they are accepted, evidence, voting, and motion to close. This case is in the first, evidence, but it is getting closer to the voting stage, as you can see by looking at {{ArbComOpenTasks}}. I'd estimate the case will close between three to five weeks from now. Picaroon (Talk) 21:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for your help. Until then, I'll just try to make good faith arguments about DPeterson's edits, in the hopes that reason will prevail. In the past that failed miserably, but now that his socks are gone, maybe it will work out. StokerAce 21:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Fainites barley 22:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN Thread opened by DPeterson against FT2

here. Peace.Lsi john 13:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks pending arbcom case decision

DPeterson (1)

Basis of block

I have blocked DPeterson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for this edit, in which he inserts the following three items into the ACT article:

  1. "While ACT seeks to "mobilize" various groups, professional medical and psychiatric organizations ... 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. "
  2. "'Attachment Therapy' is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual, 2006. It is also not found in Bergin and Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change, fifth edition, edited by Michal J. Lambert, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2004
  3. Adding to "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" the text "none of whom are licensed mental health providers."

These are all pointy, and have all been disputed for neutrality, OR, and POINT in depth by editors. Each has at the least, questions over them. In the context of DPeterson's editing approach, they are a clear (if subtle) breach of WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT and when reinserted as often as this despite clear concerns expressed by all other editors (not just Mercer and Sarner), probably also conflict with WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV and WP:DISRUPT or WP:TE. DPeterson and socks have sought to insert each of the above texts not a few times, but many times. Examples of partial or full repeat insertions since May 2007 alone: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Notably the page was originally created as an attack page by DPeterson per evidence on this RFArb, which suggests a non-neutral intent to such edits as well.

Discussion

Their factuality is less an issue than the use of wikipedia to try and force in material that is clearly still the subject of significant strong concerns. DPeterson has asserted that "NPOV means presenting the facts" as a justification, despite being told otherwise, following which I have already to date:

  1. explained NPOV in depth yet once more ("line 836"),
  2. Reviewed the concerns and explained to him why having reviewed them, the concerns seem to have a basis in policy,
  3. Given clear guidance and warning not to breach these policies or edit tendentiously "Do not seek to win editorial arguments by repetition of inadequately backed assertations ... Do not ignore others attempts to work collaboratively, or stonewall the article's development in a disruptive manner ... with implicit hostility to viewpoints other than yours ... Edit with a view to presenting all notable viewpoints with fairness of tone, without undue wieght or bias ... Despite all this, my hope is that you will see the benfits of good quality, collaborative editing, and edit nicely, and in accordance with general communal standards",
  4. Placed a further warning and explanation about admin responsibility and WP:BLOCK again with an injunction to not edit disruptively, and the comment: "I would not like to apply any of these, but you need to know patience is running low and these are the options the community has sanctioned when patience expires. Even minor repetitions are becoming tiresome over a year of repetition, and should not have to be bourne by others or the editing community as a whole. Please do ask me if you need help understanding any policy matter, or have a question, but do not continue editing in conflict with policy, even if you are sure your activity is okay..."
  5. And yet a further followup-up explanation stating "To clarify, I don't like going the block (or article ban) route. But administrators are given that option because they are trusted to use it where appropriate. The above are the guidelines which I and any other admin refer to, in deciding whether protecting Wikipedia, its articles, its discussions and editorial environment, is necessary."

DPeterson's response after this has been:

  1. A complaint of abuse (based on false or misrepresentative matters, as noted at Arbcom), and
  2. To repeat yet again, the exact edits he was advised were problematic.


Outside editors should note that this 'arb evidences as background, that DPeterson has already been caught running 4 (probably more) socks after telling Arbcom he used none, engaging in sneaky vandalism, POV warring, and using Wikipedia for defamation.

Neutrality check

In view of DPeterson's attempts at smear, and in order to ensure any other administrator can be certain of proper conduct, I have discussed this block on admin chat, to confirm that action was not out of line, in the presence of at least 45 independent administrators and two Arbcom clerks, verifiable with two arbcom clerks, user:Newyorkbrad and user:Thatcher131 who were both present for the entire discussion, and who both also gave views when asked for independent review of the proposed block.

Block

In light of the above I consider a block long overdue, and have blocked DPeterson for 24 hours. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RalphLender (1)

Further to above, I have also blocked RalphLender (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on noticing he has done the same. Between 00:35 July 26 and 18:43 July 27, DPeterson inserted the above quotes 3 times and was blocked at 18.19; under 1/2 hour later, Ralphlender reinserted it at 18.43. 24 hour block applied on the same basis above.

Diffs:

There is (as notified to both previously) sufficient evidence to make WP:AGF somewhat untenable at this point. Also note likelihood of WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT (strong behavioral evidence RL == DP, or at least edits and moves identically). FT2 (Talk | email) 19:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DPeterson (2)

Four hours after his first 24 hour block expired, DPeterson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) went straight back to the same article, and made this edit, and also this edit and this edit, in which he adds back two of the 3 WP:POINTy items for which he was blocked previously, not just once, but twice each. He did this knowing:

  1. They were considered (by others if not by him) contentious and a problem under WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT.
  2. There was a consensus problem (Significance: DP and RL have both always been careful to tell other editors that consensus should be respected, they understand its importance even if often abusing it)
  3. That it had already been explained to him that the added 3 items were considered pointy in the context (see above), sufficient to be blocked for 24 hours, and that unilaterally re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-adding was also WP:DISRUPTive.
  4. That his views on legitimate editing are presently not being looked upon favorably per /Proposed decision which might lead to a degree of allowance that indeed his edits are problematic.
  5. That he had been warned many times not to edit in this manner.
  6. That he had just been blocked for this precise addition amongst others.

Within hours of expiry of the first block, DPeterson adds the same text as above (item #3) into the article twice, and #2 twice. [20] [21] [22]. I have reblocked the same again (24 hours). Please do not repeat upon expiry. I have left notes on your talk page of how to approach it without editing problematically. If there is a third instance of problematic editing, the block may increase from 24 to 48 hours. (DP and RL, courtesy note -- please note advance heads-up so there's no surprises. And please edit in accordance with policy.)

FT2 (Talk | email) 02:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralphlender and DPeterson: ANI

Following the end of DPeterson's 2nd block, RalphLender then re-adds the identical edits yet again.

  • Other POV/advocacy edits added by DP/RL: [26] (RL) lines 117 on, removing note of Hughes background, removing note that only two other studies exist, removing APSAC criticism and replacing with Craven & Lee praise; [27] (DP) removal of taskforce sustaining objections in their reply.

In view of allegations of "admin abuse", I posted a note seeking other eyeballs to review a sample of these edits in the context of this page's documentation of previous issues.

Both were then blocked by user:Thatcher131 "pending final decision in Arb case". [28] [29] FT2 (Talk | email) 17:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes left for editors, regarding POV issues

These notes are left without prejudice or blemish to any editor.

I have reviewed the edits being applied to AT, ACT and DPP in the short absence of DPeterson (due to his block for edit warring), to check for POV issues the other way. I have left two notes

  1. On the AT talk page regarding the evidence based section, which is in poor and visibly non-neutral condition as a result of the long edit war, with suggestions for a policy-based re-styling, and
  2. To user:Sarner noting that regardless of this arbitration, COI issues have been established, identifying the risks associated with some types of edit, and suggesting ways to handle COI/NPOV issues looking forward.

Links: Talk:Attachment_Therapy#Evidence_Base, User_talk:Sarner#Edits_to_articles.

FT2 (Talk | email) 11:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence Problem

I've just noticed that now the AT talkpage has been archived, links to specific sections of talkpage rather than specific diffs now just link to the whole archived talkpage. I'm not sure what can be done about this. Several people in their evidence have linked to sections of talkpage where there were simply too many diffs or the course of discussion was what was relevent. Fainites barley 22:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although since the great sock debacle perhaps it's not that much of a problem now. Fainites barley 22:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent links work through page moves, so instead of linking to something like Talk:Attachment Therapy#Craven/Lee etc, link to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attachment_Therapy&oldid=142685786#Craven.2FLee_etc shotwell 22:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that yours seem to work but mine didn't! I'd just copied and pasted the urls. What it is to be computer literate. Fainites barley 22:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FT2 abusing administrative status

I am not sure if this is the correct venue...if not pls point in the proper direction.

FT2 works with User:Fainites on the NLP articles (some material is on the evidence page regarding this) and is taking her side in the dispute regarding Attachment Therapy. User:Sarner, User:Fainites and others have ignored my comments and suggestions and reverted by edits to that article and Advocates for Children in Therapy but are not blocked for repeated reverts or disruptive editing. I have added factual material, such as the fact that the leaders of ACT (Advocates for Children in Therapy) are not mental health professionals (which Mercer has acknoweldged). I have not deleted any material from either article, only added material that is verifiable and referenced. The other editors delete my edits, and after one edit attempt by me, FT2 blocked me. I think that FT2's involvement in the situation is an abuse of FT2's status as FT2 is clearly favoring and defending Fainites, Sarner, and the other editors in that group. I could provide specific diffs, and have, on the artibration page. DPetersontalk 15:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [30] for deletion of material on AT under an edit summary saying no deletion. The allegations about working together on NLP are fully covered in Workshop and Evidence. Fainites barley 17:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DPeterson's "further evidence" on Sarner

There seems to be an unfortunate use of this Evidence page not to present evidence but to present arguments or refutations. Not surprisingly, DPeterson has been especially prone to doing so. I have tried to present evidence only on the page, keeping editorial comments to myself. Today, my self-restraint has been rewarded by DPeterson noting that others have failed to refute his (unsubstantiated) charges posted on the evidence page which purported to show I engage in conflicted editing, their silence implying that those charges are irrefutable. Rather than respond on the page itself, I am availing myself of the talk page, for whatever value my commentary on these charges (Further Evidence) may have to the arbitrators. The diff presented by DPeterson — which encompassed some others' editing, too — shows clearly that I was making small changes only (spelling, punctuation, and the like), and if such edits are WP:COI, then the policy is apparently intended to bar anyone from editing an article in which they are mentioned. As to the specific claims DPeterson makes:

  1. What he first accuses me of doing, to wit deleting the unsubstantiated claim that Rosa, Sarner, and Mercer are not mental-health professionals, was actually done by StokerAce ([31]), who is not a member of ACT to my knowledge.
  2. Regarding the second claim, that I removed the "factual statement" that Attachment Therapy is not mentioned in the AMA's Current Procedural Manual, that edit was actually done by Fainites ([32]), who also is not a member of ACT to my knowledge.
  3. The third claim, that I removed the statement that "[a]rticles and reports from ACT also often appear on" Quackwatch, is true. I removed it because the statement itself was untrue. DPeterson presents no evidence whatever that even one article or report from ACT appears on Quackwatch; and indeed he never will, because there is none. The one article which he cites in support of his claim ([33]) was actually written by Shannon-Bridget Maloney, who is not identified in any way with ACT.

DPeterson and RalphLender have been asked any number of times in the past to provide concrete evidence of these three claims, and have failed to do so. So many failures is constructively an admission that there is no evidence to produce.

DPeterson has here (1) made admittedly unsubstantiated claims, (2) falsely stated that I did editing that I did not do, and (3) presented evidence that is, prima facie, contrary to what is claimed for it. I contend that, in this particular, DPeterson is either deliberately misleading the Arbitration Committee, or attempting to waste its time. Is there a sanction for such behavior? I would suggest that, at the very least, the credibility of DPeterson should be hovering around zero; all of his "evidence" should be given weight commensurate to his own credibility.

Larry Sarner 01:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DPeterson has leveled a fourth charge about my recent editing on Advocates for Children in Therapy: that it is evidence that I and my "group" are pushing a POV for ACT's benefit by "continuing" a description of ATTACh ([34]). Consistent with my past edits on this article, noted above, this edit was refactoring an external link and the editing itself was content-neutral. The description of ATTACh was not authored by me, but by Fainites ([35]), who, to my knowledge, is not a member of any pertinent "group" to which I am also a member.

With each new edit of his on the Evidence page, the credibility of DPeterson asymptotically approaches zero. It doesn't improve (which my previous "hovering" remark may have suggested). I hope the arbitrators are taking note.

Larry Sarner 15:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Sarner removed ATTACh from the part of the article that lists profesional societies (where they had been maintained by DPeterson et al) because they're not a professional society. He also changed their description in 'See Also' to 'trade group for attachment therapists'. I replaced them in the article as an organization for professionals and families and replaced 'trade group' with their own description of themselves, which seemed fair. Compromise and consensus at work. All this is evident from the diffs.Fainites barley 22:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I changed the description of ATTACh in "External Links" not "See Also". That change was not part of the editing which DPeterson has lately criticized, as it had been completely replaced by Fainites (not one word of mine remained). DPeterson was attributing Fainites's version to me or my "group". Larry Sarner 23:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to know whether or not to keep responding to the constant stream of unvalidated allegations. Fainites barley 21:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At a loss

Like Sarner I feel it is becoming difficult to know what to do with the stream of inaccurate and sometimes absurd accusations. Here [36] I am accused of adding a ref by Mercer, when all I did was wikify someones elses ref. Small stuff I know, but why make these untrue petty allegations? None of the material I've added to the attachment disorder page comes from ACT. As for calling JeanMercer's book polemic, I don't actually have the book, but this group also called a publication by the Royal College of Psychiatrists Research and Study Group, who's aim is to provide details and explanations of the latest research, evidence and thinking on subjects, "polemic" so I would query his understanding of the word. Fainites barley 10:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the material is broadly accurate and to the point that Fainites, Sarner, Mercer, Shotewell, StokerAce, and FatherTree act in a conerted and coordinated manner. The Mercer books are merely opinion pieces, not empirical studies. In fact, Mercer has no background in clinical work and has conducted no empirical clinical studies, only written opinion pieces that reflect her fringe advocacy group's view. RalphLendertalk 13:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DPeterson and RalphLender have brought their POV warring to the only pages which Wiki admin has permitted them to do anything. I have not found their latest contributions to the "Evidence" article to be even offers of evidence for anything, much less presentations of anything factual. Unless they present on the Evidence page something as a fact, I don't regard it as worth even considering. The latest presentations of fact by DPeterson have proven completely untrustworthy, so he has been impeached as a source, as has all of his "evidence" to date. As for RalphLender, his contributions are for the most part apologia for DPeterson (such as the preceding), and polemical assertions without accompanying facts that are congruent to his argument (as also the preceding). These two were given a second chance by the ArbCom to defend their case, and this is what they have done with it. Perhaps it is evidence in a way...of the proposition that a tiger can't change its stripes. Kind of sad, really. Larry Sarner 16:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JeanMercer is right. [37] Fainites barley 22:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DPeterson was unblocked to defend himself; he now seems to be going on the attack. I would recommend he focus more on defending himself and explaining why he will be a productive editor in the future than continually attacking his opponents. This is because past cases have shown that such behavior merely convinces the committee that one is too combatative to work well with others. But who am I to make recommendations? Picaroon (t) 22:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to DPeterson comment

"If I am requested to respond more specifically to particular Wikipedia rule violations or instances, I will gladly do so, but in the interests of brevity, I will end here." - DPeterson

The problem is, DP, that you have shown zero compunction to do more than game, so far. It is hard to think of a single policy of relevance you have not gamed or ridden over. Let us review the features of your last year's editing which have led you to these pages:

  1. You joined, and set up multiple sock puppets.
  2. You created what was clearly initially an attack page on a group you are in disagreement with.
  3. You subtly vandalised cited reference links to cause them to break, in a way you clearly hoped would go unnoticed
  4. You added clear and strong professional defamatory comments about another person in article references where they were clearly not intended to be noticed
  5. You used every technique to drag out and extend this very damaging edit war, despite numerous good faith attempts by others.
  6. You expanded and heavily sock-edit warred on many other articles, ona wide scale on Wikipedia (not just a couple of articles), as evidenced in /Evidence.
  7. You used smear campaigns vigorously, and played the game with policy and with processes, when asked for information, and often fabricated claims to back points you wished to make. (You still havent apologized for the repeated "clearly is an ally of Fainites" idiocy)
  8. You demanded improperly of others that they respect your false (sock) consensus, that if they disagreed a poll (which you controlled) would be necessary for anything to happen, which they would have to then follow by undertaking full dispute resolution processes from scratch (which you stonewalled).
  9. By contrast, you switched mid arbitration to tendentiously re-re-re-editing your desired WP:POINTs, when you did meet an adverse and genuine (non-sock) editors' consensus and genuine (stated) policy based concerns, and ignored repeated suggestion to seek dispute resolution. The disruption was knowing and wilful; you knew what WP:DISRUPT and WP:DR said; you had told others what to do often enough.
  10. You wasted a huge amount of other people's time, goodwill and effort, which they cannot replace, and which time could well have been used for better things.
  11. You continued to do all the damage you were able, even up to Arbitration.
  12. Once in arbitration, you denied being a sock user profusely and attacked others for suggesting it, maintaining they were editing in bad faith.
  13. You played games with the proposals page, copy/pasting even matters that clearly did not relate to you, and continuing to support this by playing with socks.
  14. When asked directly by the Arbcom Clerks if any editor was a sock user, you lied to Arbcom as well.
  15. You then turned to smear accusation of admin abuse, based upon a spurious claim that you knew and had been told (and could have checked with others if unsure) was utterly and visibly inaccurate, creating and multiple reports to this effect at /Proposals, /Workshop, ANI, and other locations.
  16. To advance this you also ignored repeated requests for exact cites showing this claimed degree of collaboration. Ignoring these (while at the same time answering others' requests) does rather suggest you knew they were flimsy and untruthful. But despite these requests, you continued multiple times to repeat them, as you had repeated attempts to smear others (with little compunction) elsewhere.
  17. You then in synchronization with your behaviorally-evidenced sock RalphLender commenced - whilst still under review by Arbcom - to begin edit warring on a new article you hadn't touched before, NLP.
  18. When blocked, you began "forum fishing" and contacted at least two admins seeking to play on their good faith that the page needed protecting because of an edit war. You clearly didn't think it needed protecting beforehand, when you were winning, so even this was clearly a mere manouver to prevent other editors from accessing the page at a time you lacked the ability to dominate or influence it. A game again, in other words.


Finally, facing 3 opinions supporting a years ban (and the statement of an arbcom clerk that the outcome looks likely), you "defend via attack", prevaricate, and stonewall, and finally... at the very last moment, when the outcome seems decided and no other tactic remains ...

... you file a partial mea culpa complaining how you really thought it was all mostly others faults, that ignores the most disruptive of your activities pretty much completely, and seeks to focus instead on the content edits you believe are amenable to being justified, together with some passing reference to NPA that marginalizes the extreme nature of your attacks. Of those, you write, "I have responded at times in a manner that does rise to the level of personal attack".

Indeed. And then some....

FT2 (Talk | email) 20:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Response to FT2

1. I did not create an Attack page. The ACT article is valid and valuable to Wiki as it is a group invovled in the AT controversary with a very specific POV that is mentioned in that article.

2. Mercer, Sarner, and Rosa are not mental health professionals nor licensed in any state: that is a fact supported with evidence and Mercer even agrees with that as further evidence that it is truthful.

3. There is a content dispute regarding several pages. That is true. And it has been quite contentious and dragged on for quite some time.

4. I think that many of the accusations made about me were also relevant to others and so made those statements on the evidence page with supporting evidence. If this was not valid or is considered to be inappropriate, I am sorry.

5. I made some edits and comments to NLP because of my concern about it's pseudo-scientific basis and did not edit war; merely made some comments and a few minor edits.

6. I beleive I have had valuable contributions to various articles on Wikipedia, such as NLP and others I've mentioned above that make me a positive contributor to Wikipedia.

DPetersontalk 22:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DPetersons mea culpa

It is remarkably similar to his 'apology' on the initial arbitration page where he claims he was 'baited' and unfortunately rose to the bait. [38]This was of course written before his status as sockmaster was formally ascertained and before he continued his aggressive attacks and accusations in the course of the ensuing arbitration. Fainites barley 22:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Attachment_Therapy/Evidence&oldid=150679708"