Misplaced Pages

:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Workshop: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration | Attachment Therapy Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:54, 10 July 2007 editRalphLender (talk | contribs)1,054 edits Use of Misplaced Pages articles as a vehicle for defamation: comment← Previous edit Revision as of 20:57, 10 July 2007 edit undoRalphLender (talk | contribs)1,054 edits FatherTree made false accusations: diffsNext edit →
Line 273: Line 273:
::FatherTree was alerted several times that the accusations had been researched and were unfounded, yet he kept making such accusations, which, therefore, constitute a personal attack on several editors. <font color="Green">]</font><sup>]</sup> 15:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC) ::FatherTree was alerted several times that the accusations had been researched and were unfounded, yet he kept making such accusations, which, therefore, constitute a personal attack on several editors. <font color="Green">]</font><sup>]</sup> 15:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Could you please provide diffs or a link to an evidence section with diffs that verifies this? ] ] 15:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC) :::Could you please provide diffs or a link to an evidence section with diffs that verifies this? ] ] 15:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::: In the section about Lsi john by DPeterson ] there are links and diffs. <font color="Green">]</font><sup>]</sup> 20:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:'''Comment by others:''' :'''Comment by others:'''
:: ::

Revision as of 20:57, 10 July 2007

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

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Conflict of interest

1) Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest, a guideline, discourages editing of articles concerning matters you have a substantial personal interest in, such as articles about medical treatments where you hold an opinion on the merits of the treatment. Editing of these articles, however, is not strictly prohibited; such editing is acceptable if and only if the edits follow Misplaced Pages policy, especially Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:No original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Holding an opinion on the merits of something is not a conflict of interest by any standard. Kirill 04:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
That sounds reasonable to me. You want experts to be editing Misplaced Pages, but not experts who are biased one way or the other. I'm not sure how you stop people from just editing under a pseudonym, though. StokerAce 01:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed by me, to go along with DPeterson (talk · contribs)'s findings of fact and remedies. No comment on the merit of the conflict of interest suggestions/accusations. Lifted from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Starwood and modified somewhat. Picaroon (Talk) 01:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

2) A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. StokerAce 01:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Advertising

3) No biased advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable only if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. StokerAce 01:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground

4) Misplaced Pages is a reference work. Use of the site for ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Some thoughts. Kirill 04:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Conflict of interest

5) Editors at Misplaced Pages are expected to work towards NPOV in their editing activities. It is not possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda. Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest codifies the principle that editors may not edit articles about themselves or organizations they represent due to this inherent conflict. However, the conflict of interest policy is of deliberately limited compass and does not prohibit editors from working on articles about entities to which they have only an indirect relationship.

Comment by Arbitrators:
More thoughts, from SSB2. Kirill 04:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
I think this is one area where Sarner and Mercer's conduct clearly violates COI. RalphLender 20:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:

Consensus

6) Misplaced Pages editing is based upon consensus, communal practice, and policies/guidelines. Consensus on Misplaced Pages always means, within the framework of established policy and practice, not "whatever editors might agree between themselves". Corollaries: editing is not based upon vote counts, and consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly (such as content-related policies/guidelines).

FT2 20:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

NPOV is a core policy

7) The core principles of Misplaced Pages, such as Neutral point of view are non-negotiable, mandatory, and cannot be superseded. NPOV anticipates that articles will be neutral, factual, non-advocative, and encompass and contrast different views without taking a hostile stance towards any – and requires editors to edit with this approach.

FT2 20:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Use of Misplaced Pages articles as a vehicle for defamation

8) The wilful use or attempted use of Misplaced Pages articles as a vehicle to publish and distribute professionally or personally defamatory comments worldwide, is a most serious action. Misplaced Pages has an exceptionally wide breadth of usage, such acts can seriously harm Misplaced Pages's reputation as well as that of the intended party.

FT2 20:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
This may be an area where some of the comments by Sarner, Mercer, and ACT fall. RalphLender 20:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:

Sanctions vary according to seriousness

9) Sanction decisions vary case by case. Examples of issues which indicate a more serious case and which attract heavier sanctions or exclusion include amongst others, the duration and wilful nature of misconduct, the use of damage which attempts to conceal itself, the scope and extent of actions, the extent of hostile editing patterns towards other editors, denial and repetition patterns, and the apparent regard or disregard for the basic premises of Misplaced Pages, according to evidence.

(Blindingly obvious? Added this since in view of the case, I think it's worth a formal statement of principle) FT2 20:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Sarner has a conflict of interest

1) Sarner (talk · contribs) has a conflict of interest on the following articles: Attachment Therapy, Reactive attachment disorder, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Theraplay, Attachment disorder, Advocates for Children in Therapy, Attachment Theory, Candace Newmaker, Bowlby.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed by DPeterson 01:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Split into two proposals by me. Picaroon (Talk) 01:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I am very curious to see how the arbitrators handle this issue. Misplaced Pages must have come across this issue before. What rules apply when an expert in a field edits a page using his/her real name? How would Misplaced Pages deal with, say, Alan Greenspan editing a page on monetary policy? If you restrict editing in this way, you simply drive people to edit pseudonymously. Importantly, this is not a situation where a financial interest is involved, as ACT is a non-profit group, which makes it a somewhat easier issue. StokerAce 01:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The conflict is clear from Sarner's website (ACT), and several of his posts, which conform to the ACT positions.
Comment by others:

Jean Mercer has a conflict of interest

2) Jean Mercer (talk · contribs) has a conflict of interest on the following articles: Attachment Therapy, Reactive attachment disorder, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Theraplay, Attachment disorder, Advocates for Children in Therapy, Attachment Theory, Candace Newmaker, Bowlby.DPeterson 01:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed by DPeterson 01:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Split into two proposals by me. Picaroon (Talk) 01:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:

The Advocates for Children in Therapy page was created as part of a personal attack on ACT

3) The Advocates for Children in Therapy page was created by DPeterson as part of a personal attack on ACT, with mis-leading and insulting comments intended to denigrate ACT. The current version of the page continues to cast ACT in a negative light. StokerAce 01:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
the article is supported with verifiable references and citations. It is NPOV and balanced. The leaders of ACT (Sarner and Mercer) have objected to it and filed the original material for speedy deletion. For some reason that group does not wish to have an article about them in wikipedia. RalphLender 13:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
This is a legitimate article about an advocacy group that espouses a specific position on the topic if Candace Newmaker, Attachment Therapy, and related issues. It contains factual and verifiable material. DPeterson 01:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy page was created as an advertisement for DDP

4) The Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy page was created as an advertisement for DDP. It is not neutral or objective. The current version of the page continues to read like marketing material for DDP. StokerAce 01:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
This article describes a treatment that has empirical evidence published in professioal peer reviewed journals, texts, and that is also cited by other sources (Craven & Lee, for example). It is an accurate description of the treatment and it's various elements. DPeterson 01:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
the article is supported with numerous references that meet the Misplaced Pages standard of being verifiable and which are also professional in nature. RalphLender 13:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

FatherTree made false accusations

5) User:FatherTree knowingly made false accusations of several editors being sockpuppets when there was evidence that the question had been researched and was unfounded.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
FatherTree was alerted several times that the accusations had been researched and were unfounded, yet he kept making such accusations, which, therefore, constitute a personal attack on several editors. RalphLender 15:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you please provide diffs or a link to an evidence section with diffs that verifies this? Picaroon (Talk) 15:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
In the section about Lsi john by DPeterson ] there are links and diffs. RalphLender 20:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Sarner banned from certain pages

1) Sarner (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Attachment Therapy, Reactive attachment disorder, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Theraplay, Attachment disorder, Advocates for Children in Therapy, Attachment Theory, Candace Newmaker, and Bowlby permanently.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed by DPeterson 01:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Split into two remedies by me. Please specify a length of time and correct the red links. Picaroon (Talk) 01:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that is reasonable, particularily given Sarner's history of disruptive editing for which he has been sanctioned in the past. RalphLender 13:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:

Jean Mercer banned from certain pages

2) Jean Mercer (talk · contribs) Attachment Therapy, Reactive attachment disorder, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Theraplay, Attachment disorder, Advocates for Children in Therapy, Attachment Theory, Candace Newmaker, and Bowlby permanently.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed by DPeterson 01:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Split into two remedies by me. Please specify a length of time and correct the red links. Picaroon (Talk) 01:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:

Advocates for Children in Therapy is deleted

3) The current Advocates for Children in Therapy page was created as a personal attack on ACT by DPeterson and remains biased against ACT.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I propose that it be deleted. StokerAce 01:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Articles for deletion is the proper place for deletion discussions. But note that it can be rewritten without first deleting. Also, neutrality issues are not grounds for deletion unless the article is inherently POV (e.g. List of terrible bands). shotwell 01:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It was up for deletion and that was denied in part because the article was deemed worthy. DPeterson 02:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It was only created as a personal attack. Under these circumstances, there is no point keeping it. StokerAce 02:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It is supported by verifiable citations and references. It presents facts about the group. For some reason the leaders of ACT want it deleted and filed the original speedy deletion on it. RalphLender 13:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapyis deleted

4) The current Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy page was created as an advertisement for DDP by AWeidman and continues to read like one.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I propose that it be deleted. StokerAce 01:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The article is a factual description of an empirically supported treatment. DPeterson 02:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree with previous commentRalphLender 14:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:

Certain editors banned from editing Advocates for Children in Therapy

5) AWeidman, DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavidson, JohnsonRon, and MarkWood are indefinitely banned from editing Advocates for Children in Therapy, based on their past misconduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed by StokerAce 02:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no basis for such a harsh remedy. These editors have added factual material that the leaders of ACT and supporters object to, but which is supported by verifiable material. RalphLender 14:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:

Certain editors banned from editing Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy

6) AWeidman, DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavidson, JohnsonRon, and MarkWood are indefinitely banned from editing Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy based on their past misconduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed by StokerAce 02:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no basis for such a harsh remedy. These editors have added factual material that the leaders of ACT and supporters object to, but which is supported by verifiable material. RalphLender 14:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:

User:FatherTree and false accusations

7) User:FatherTree be required to:

  1. Apologize for acknowledge knowingly making false accusations of several editors being sockpuppets despite their being evidence to the contrary.
  2. Refrain from making such comments in the future, unless there is a checkuser finding to support the statement; if violated, he should then be banned.
  3. His comments be monitored for a period of six-months.

RalphLender 15:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others: