| Revision as of 14:05, 17 May 2007 editMarkWood (talk | contribs)283 edits →Some Comments← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:07, 17 May 2007 edit undoMarkWood (talk | contribs)283 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| ::The RFCU was declined. All of the accounts had rather long edit histories when I requested it, perhaps this is the reason. There is, at the very least, a very clear pattern that emerges from their edit histories. The similarities are especially striking in their earliest edits. An alternative explanation is that they have all learned mediawiki markup by watching each other edit and recreated each other's mistakes. Even if this is the case, they have shown a willingness to engage in what amounts to meat-puppetry. ] 10:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | ::The RFCU was declined. All of the accounts had rather long edit histories when I requested it, perhaps this is the reason. There is, at the very least, a very clear pattern that emerges from their edit histories. The similarities are especially striking in their earliest edits. An alternative explanation is that they have all learned mediawiki markup by watching each other edit and recreated each other's mistakes. Even if this is the case, they have shown a willingness to engage in what amounts to meat-puppetry. ] 10:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::We see a very clear pattern of edit histories among ], ], ], ], ], among others, either being single purpose accounts or accounts of very recent creation with one primary focus. ] 14:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == "Coalition" == | == "Coalition" == | ||
Revision as of 14:07, 17 May 2007
Relatively recent examples have been provided, but it is important to note that the behavior described in this RfC has been sustained since DPeterson first began editing. shotwell 01:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- The charges of sock-puppetry apparently weren't pursued, but are being repeated. Is there a reason there hasn't been an RfCU to settle the matter? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 10:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- The RFCU was declined. All of the accounts had rather long edit histories when I requested it, perhaps this is the reason. There is, at the very least, a very clear pattern that emerges from their edit histories. The similarities are especially striking in their earliest edits. An alternative explanation is that they have all learned mediawiki markup by watching each other edit and recreated each other's mistakes. Even if this is the case, they have shown a willingness to engage in what amounts to meat-puppetry. shotwell 10:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- We see a very clear pattern of edit histories among User:Shotwell, User:StokerAce, User:FatherTree, User:Fainites, User:Sarner, among others, either being single purpose accounts or accounts of very recent creation with one primary focus. MarkWood 14:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
"Coalition"
I was completely unaware of the pedophilia disputes and I think it is rather glib to describe this RfC as a "coalition". If DPeterson has prevented proponents of pedophilia from inserting their nonsense, then kudos to him. I limited the dispute statement to his behavior on the attachment therapy articles. shotwell 10:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's slander, no one here "condones pedophilia" and there is no conspiracy of any kind going on. There are however lots of people from various places on this wiki who have noticed DPetersens behavior and found it disruptive. V.☢.B 11:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
What paedophilia disputes? The only thing I've seen is a discussion about whether self-confessed paedophiles should be banned. I think its on Jimbo Wales talkpage. What has that to do with this RfC? This is about attachment therapy and related sites on attachment issues. Fainites 11:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- This 'paedophilia coaltion' is just typical of the type of tactics that DPeterson has been using. FatherTree 12:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Some Comments
I have no idea what the paedophilia disputes are about. My involvement is with attachment therpay/ACT/DDP etc.
I have tried to bring the two sides (ACT/Sarner/Mercer and DPeterson/RalphLender et al.) together. Sarner has effectively abandoned Misplaced Pages, it seems, so really all that's left is the DPeterson group. They consistently try to put down ACT and promote DDP in a way that is clearly POV. Underlying it all seems to be a non-Misplaced Pages dispute between Dr. Becker-Weidman and ACT. According to a note someone left on my talk page, Dpeterson and Dr. Becker-Weidman are closely linked, which explains a lot. See http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:StokerAce#DPeterson_and_Dr._Becker-Weidman
Furthermore, none of us represent any particular view on attachment therapy. We just want the page to be NPOV, instead of a mechanism for criticizing ACT and promoting DDP/Becker-Weidman.
Here is DPeterson calling ACT a "fringe" group: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F2006-05-21_John_Bowlby&diff=61294566&oldid=60110817
He also created the ACT page, and in it called them "not part of the mainstream mental health professional community." http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy&oldid=65117165
Finally, he consistenty refers to DDP as "evidence-based" (see eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ADPeterson&diff=131438417&oldid=131436661 ) when it is clearly not. It is a new therapy with a couple journal articles supporting it, but that does not make it "evidence-based."
It's fine if he doesn't like ACT and does support DDP, but Misplaced Pages should not be a forum for pushing viewpoints. StokerAce 12:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments
This is content dispute and should be managed via Misplaced Pages dispute resolution procedures: Mediation. User:StokerAce, User:Shotwell, and the very recentor new "single-purpose" user accounts that have only edited this article, User:FatherTree for example, among others, all seem to act in concert, raising questions in my mind about their independence. Regardless, Shotwell has a long standing dispute with these articles. These were resolved at one point, and now have been reinvoked. There have been several RfC's and other administrative actions pursued regarding several of these pages that Shotwell initiated or was a party to that raised these very same issues and which were put to rest as resolved or unfounded accusations. MarkWood 14:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)