Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:18, 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)

As described below, you were aware of the facts but continue to raise issues that have already been settled in the past. The sockpuppetry issue was resolved as unfounded. The Sockpuppetry issue as raised and found to be 'UNFOUNDED' ]. RalphLender 15:20, 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)

and User:Maypole RalphLender 15:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. I am neither a single purpose account nor of very recent creation with one primary focus. Feel free to look at my contribs record since I started on 9th December 2006. None of the other pages I have been involved in editing in a substantial way are connected to attachment therapy.Fainites 14:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that you've been around five months and have edited a few other pages...very true. Also true seems to be the coalition among User:Fainites, User:Shotwell, User:StokerAce, User:FatherTree as evidenced by their planning strategy on each other's talk pages and via e-mails mentioned on talk pages. RalphLender 15:20, 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)

Please avoid Personal attacks against other editors. That is not helpful for building agreement or collaboration. RalphLender 16:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, JimBurton, WillBeback, VOB and Squeakbox are all editors on the paedophilia page. There is an ANI about Addhoc saying that JB and VOB condone paedophilia on this RfC. It looks like a dispute from another page has spilled onto this one. Can I urge you gentlemen to look at the AT talkpage and the RfC for this dispute, if you haven't already done so. I couldn't see anyone from the AT page involved in the paedophilia dispute, apart from WillBeback and Herodotus who are very recent arrivals there. Fainites 17:18, 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)

This may look at first sight like a content dispute but it isn't. Its about a concerted POV advertising campaign for one therapy - Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. I, like StokerAce also attempted to take the page away from the ACT/DPP feud. I stated so openly on the talkpage. It was obvious from reading the earlier talkpage, other attachment related sites and from the state of the article that this was what had happened. The article set out to obscure and confuse its subject and pretend attachment therapy was rare, very fringe and not really possible to define. The more I attempted to negotiate on the talkpage for the insertion of plain, well sourced, factual material, the clearer it became that the group of editors named on the RfC had an agenda. This was:

1. to maintain that AT was pretty much undefinable.
2. To claim that Attachment Therapy with capital letters was different to attachment therapy with small case letters and attempt to imply that sources on attachment therapy were dealing with something else.
3. To rubbish ACT.
4. To claim or imply that attachment therapy was synonymous with rebirthing.
5. To position Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy amongst evidence-based, mainstream therapies.
6. To position Becker-Weidman amongst cited sources as if he was quoted with approval by mainstream sources rather than criticised by them.
7. To exclude material that might in anyway relate to the matters for which Becker-Weidman has been criticised such as age regression and inappropriate claims of evidence base.
8. To exclude historical and theoretical material showing the development and practice of attachment therapy by its main proponents.
9. To conceal the information on the prevalence of these therapies by only agreeing to cite lists of bodies which have position statements against it, and including OR claims of it being 'rare, or there being 'very few', and refusing to agree to well sourced statements on prevalence.

In pursuit of these aims, any edit not agreed on the talkpage is reverted (until the page was blocked containing some edits by editors not yet reverted.) All proposed edits have to be posted on the talkpage first where they are often rudely criticised and and interfered with. My propsed paragraphs put up for discussion were at times altered out of all recognition so other editors would not have known what I was proposing. Then incessant polling is used in which any edit not in line with the above agenda is voted for deletion, or OR additions are voted for inclusion, like AT being synonymous with rebirthing, or lists of organisations that don't describe AT, or Becker-Weidman added to quotes from other sources. On one occasion they all voted to include a paragraph that contained odd leftovers from talkpage posts. Any attempt to defend edits on the grounds that they are from verified and credible sources is met with unsourced statements such as that a 2005 Taskforce report was written in eg 2000/02, or that the writers of the report did not see Becker-Weidmans latest study for the purposes of their November 06 reply, when they say they did. Posting chunks of the source on the talkpage is simply ignored. Requests for sources for OR statements are largely ignored, or the source does not say what they say by consensus that it does say. They make it clear that 'consensus' overules wiki policies on sources, as consensus will decide what evidence based means and whether a source is valid for the edit and even that a source says something quite different to what it does say. They recently claimed to have 'consensus' to keep in dead and faulty links!

I don't know if they're socks or meats or merely an organised group, but they function more or less as one editor in many ways. I usually just say 'you' whoever I'm dealing with and they mostly simply reply and carry on each others arguments. It is inconcievable that so many different editors could all have misread so many of the same sources in exactly the same way, or all agree so completely and wrongly about what 'evidence-based' means, or all ignore a posted quote on the talkpage that shows they were factually wrong.

The listed editors have no interest in producing an informative, well resourced article. Every thing in the article is twisted to conceal the fact that DDP is considered by some commentators to be an attachment therapy and to position Becker-Weidman and his therapy amongst the mainstream.

I have suggested on a number of occasions that Becker-Weidman and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy are left out altogether as the the controversy surrounding it is not necessary for this article and neither I nor, as far as I am aware any of the other independent editors have any interest in attacking DDP. Sarner has not been active for months. At one point there was agreement on a section which did leave out DDP and Becker-Weidman but as soon as the agreed version was posted, Becker-Weidman was inserted to make it look as if the Taskforce quoted him approvingly.

I agree with StokerAce. The editors jsut want a NPOV article, from proper sources. Not one distorted by an ongoing ACT/DDP feud and promotion of relatively obscure therapies. Fainites 15:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

These are the same arguments raised before by the ACT group and Fainites colleagues. The issue is a content dispute that is being distorted by this group into some specific attack on Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and Dr. Becker-Weidman. It's been going on for years now and the same old issues keep being raised periodically by members of this group, and then either resolved, or found to be unfounded. All the points raised above are content disagreements that could be resolved by consensus...or maybe, now, by Mediation. RalphLender 15:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The talkpage speaks for itself. Fainites 15:46, 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)

Disingenious and false statements

I won't bother responding to all the issues raised by User:Shotwell, but merely point out at least one that the user clearly knows is false and so the RfC is a disingenious attempt by that group. The Sockpuppetry issue as raised and found to be 'UNFOUNDED' ]. They were and are aware of this. There clearly is a group working in concert and in a coordinated manner see ] for just one example. I won't clutter up this page with a point by point description comment on their issues, unless an admistrator wishes some response. The material and it's clear agenda lack of cred. speak for themselves. RalphLender 14:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether This is a Content Dispute

For those who say this is a content dispute, can you please give some examples? What are the specifics of the dispute as you see it? StokerAce 17:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)