Latest revision as of 05:41, 26 March 2023

{{{1}}}

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

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Add User:AWeidman to list of involved parties

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also note:

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

FT2 21:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

What!! He's being accused of running 6 socks to totally distort amd misrepresent his therapy on an international encyclopaedia and you think there's no point letting him know? You cannot be serious!! Fainites 23:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Accused is not evidence. There is not evidence to that there is any misrepresentation of the several empirical studies and other citations. The fact is that Dr. Becker-Weidman has not edited these pages in months...in over a year maybe. DPeterson 03:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is, you say you are not connected to AWeidman. Your accusers say you are. This is therefore also an allegation against AWeidman. Whether you think the allegation is of substance or not, it seems very odd that you should argue strongly AWeidman should not be told of these serious allegations against him so that he can defend himself. Fainites 08:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Dr. BW has not been involved in this dispute for a very long time. There is no need to involve that old history. If you feel he should "be told of these serious allegations against him so he can defend himself," why don't you just leave a note on his talk page or send him an e-mail? It almost appears that you are acting in a manner similiar to the ACT group and wanting to attack Dr. Becker-Weidman. DPeterson 14:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

AWeidmans last edit from when he was editing regularly was this. He appears to have stopped editing when challenged as to the propriety of editing the ACT page given his off Wiki dispute with JeanMercer. His last edit altogether was this in reasonably quick response to a dispute about whether his article could be used on Wiki. Fainites 17:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

User:FT2 should be added to the list of involved parties.

2) This editor in heavily involved in the NLP article with editor Fainites. They both edit in a similiar and supportive of each other fashion. FT2 is not a neutral outside observer, but is affiliated with Fainites. DPeterson 14:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I only wish I could edit like FT2. I thought his analysis was brilliant. What do you mean by 'affiliated' by the way?Fainites 16:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

And adding him does what? He's participating in the Arbitration. Therefore he is 'added' by default. His conduct is open to scrutiny and question by the committee as a participant, named or not (as is my own). But if you feel better adding him, by all means, add FT2 at the same time you add Weidman. Peace.Lsi john 14:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm indifferent either way. If this is a bona fide request for a bona fide reason, then being a "party" is fine, if its a tendentious one in the belief that "being a party" means proposals and sanctions can be applied, then what I have edited here and elsewhere is always open to review anyway. FT2 17:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration related issues are dealt with in my evidence under reference Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Attachment_Therapy/Evidence#Response_to_DPeterson_allegation_of_collusion. (DPeterson et al please take note, that is how you specify evidence here, not just "the evidence is clear on the evidence page"). An RFC, a blocked vandal, and a warning to a sock-ring, all of which completely ignore all edits of the persona said to be "involved", do not signify editorial involvement of any kind, let alone "heavy". FT2 17:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Temporary injunction

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

(Silence? FT2 21:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC))