Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FT2 (talk | contribs) at 02:09, 9 July 2007 (→{Evidence tending to support concerns over puppetry}: minor reword to own edit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs; a shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues. If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the Arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-consciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey, use this form: .

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to re-factor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the Arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Lsi john

DPeterson & RalphLender - WP:CANVAS & WP:GAME & puppetry

Sample of behavior:

After their post on AN/I against FatherTree failed to garner support (here), DPeterson and RalphLender opened 3 virtually identical threads on the admin boards at the same time (here, here and here). Each falsely claimed prior 'admin support' (from a non-admin), in an apparent effort to 'kick start' their threads. Ironically these 3 noticeboard posts claim WP:CANVAS against FatherTree, and actually appear to be an attempt to canvass support and game the system. And by acting in concert it appears to be a form of puppetry.

When I realized they had failed to notify FatherTree about any of the posts, I notified FatherTree (here). DPeterson's responsed by attempting to involve another admin, claiming that I was 'unhelpful' (here).

I suggested to DPeterson that cross-posting multiple open threads constituted canvassing (here), and recommended that he close two of the threads (here), DPeterson replied

" ...Since each one gets a variety of comments from a variety of editors it may make sense to keep all open... -DPeterson" (here).

Shell (admin) ultimately realized that multiple threads were open, and closed one on AN (here), and later also closed the other two.

DPeterson copied Shell's AN comment to both AN/I threads, and misrepresented her as supporting his charges (here and here).

RalphLender, copied Shell's AN comment to the article talkpage here and falsely claimed:

"... the administrator did find that the issue of FatherTree knowinlgy making false accusations of sockpuppetry is real and valid ." -RalphLender

Shell responded with a categorical denial (here):

"Whoa - I did not support your accusation; I said if he was doing it to warn him and then let me know if he continues. You would need to provide some kind of proof to back up those accusations and his continuing after your warning. That in no way was a finding that FatherTree had done anything improper. Also, I specifically noted that the accusations of canvassing against FatherTree were false"-Shell

Another time, when I was attempting mediation on Shell's page, SamDavidson attempted to involve yet another outside party, with whom he presumably thought I was in conflict (here).

Evidence presented by StokerAce

There Have Been Repeated Personal Attacks on ACT and its Members

There is an apparent effort by DPeterson and a number of other editors to denigrate Advocates for Children in Therapy (ACT). In an early example, user AWeidman made a number of allegations against Jean Mercer, one of ACT's leaders, calling her, among other things, a "fringe advocate." here AWeidman was criticized by an admin for his remarks, which the admin referred to as "disturbing." here

The admin's criticism occurred on April 27, 2006. Soon after, on May 20, 2006, user DPeterson opened an account. here (With regard to the relationship between DPeterson and AWeidman, I will discuss this as part of a separate assertion).

DPeterson also had nasty things to say about ACT. For example, on June 30, 2006, a little over a month after he created the account, DPeterson also called ACT a "fringe group" here

Then, on July 21, 2006, DPeterson created a Misplaced Pages page about ACT, in which he said ACT was "not part of the mainstream" here

The current Misplaced Pages page for ACT continues to have disparaging statements about the group, which seem designed to impugn ACT's reputation. For example, the page says:

"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, none of whom are licensed mental health providers."

This statement tries to undermine ACT by suggesting that its leaders are unqualified because they are not "licensed mental health providers." However, there are obviously other ways to have expertise in this area besides being a "licensed mental health provider." According to her resume, one of the ACT leaders, Jean Mercer, is an academic who has published many, many papers in this and other fields. here Thus, it is not appropriate to make deceptive statements like this on the ACT page.

The page also says:

"While ACT seeks to "mobilize" various groups, professional medical and psychiatric organizations such as the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers 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."

This statement seems designed to imply that the major organizations listed have a negative opinion of ACT. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this is in fact the case. The idea that any of the listed organizations should "take positions" on ACT's work is not a sensible one. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of non-profit advocacy groups like ACT around the country. The organizations in question cannot possibly be aware of, and "take positions" on, all of the groups. To single out ACT as a group for which these organizations have not "taken a position" (assuming this is even true, which has not been demonstrated) seems to be an attempt put ACT in a bad light. Furthermore, there is no evidence that ACT has ever tried to influence the listed organizations. Attempts to discuss this with Dpeterson and others (such as RalphLender and Dr. Becker-Weidman) on the talk page have been met with unreasonable, cryptic and stonewalling responses. (See, e.g. here and here)

Despite the fairly clear bias in these descriptions of ACT, Dpeterson and others immediately restore them whenever they are deleted. See, e.g., deleted here and restored here.

The Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy page was created as an advertisement by one of its practitioners

The DDP page was created by user AWeidman (here). As far as I know, it is undisputed that user AWeidman is Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidman. See the signature "Dr. Becker-Weidman" here

Dr. Becker-Weidman is the head of the Center for Family Development, which runs a commercial therapy practice using DDP. (here)

Thus, Dr. Becker-Weidman runs a commercial therapy practice involving DDP and created a Misplaced Pages page for DDP touting its benefits. Note that the bottom of the original DDP page has a link titled "Source for information on treatment," with a link to the Center for Family Development web site.

There is some evidence that Dr. Becker-Weidman is somehow related to user DPeterson. DPeterson once had a sign in error, which gave the IP address as 68.66.160.228. (here) IP 68.66.160.228 checks out to Buffalo, NY. Dr. Becker-Weidman's center is just outside of Buffalo, NY. See bottom of this page Also, user AWeidman has edited IP 68.66.160.228's contributions (related to ACT and Dr. Becker-Weidman's Center for Family Development) within seven minutes of their original posting (see here)

Since the original creation of the DDP page, DPeterson and others have resisted any effort to present DDP in a neutral way.

As seen on the talk page, attempts to make the page more neutral have been completely rejected by DPeterson and several others. See(here)

One neutral editor tagged DDP page as a fansite (here). Within 15 minutes, MarkWood reverted (here)

Another editor tagged it as an advert (here). Within 33 minutes, DPeterson reverted. (here)

As a result, the DDP page continues to makes claims that are completely unsupported. The entire introduction reads like a marketing piece. If there is to be a page, it should be based on references to neutral, credible articles. Dr. Becker-Weidman has published several pieces on the topic. If they are used ,it should be noted that he is a commercial practitioner of the therapy, not an objective observer.

Response to DPeterson

Below, DPeterson asserts that ACT "may be" a fringe group due to their opposition to physical torture and abuse resulting from attachment therapy. He claims that no mainstream body supports ACT's view. This has been discussed on the talk pages, and DPeterson's claim is clearly false. To cite just one example, the U.S. Senate has passed a resolution stating, among other things: "between 1995 and 2005, at least four children in the United States have died from ... forms of attachment therapy." (here) This statement was made in the context of condemning rebirthing therapy, which was described as a "form" of attachment therapy. Based on this, it seems clear that ACT is very much in the mainstream.

Evidence presented by Jean Mercer

Refusal of discussion and ill effects on article

About a year ago,DPeterson and associates edited my contributions to such an extent that I stopped attempting to edit the articles and confined my participation to Talk. I thought some discussion might encourage compromise, and that I could present queries that would lead to a more productive approach. However, my requests for a rationale for claims were never answered except by repetition of the original statement.The group of editors in question practices proof by assertion and perseveration rather than by reasoning and analysis of evidence.

The deleterious effects of this approach have been 1) to insert Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (DDP) into a number of articles about childhood mental health issues, giving the naive reader the impression that DDP is a leading form of treatment, whereas it is in fact little-known, poorly documented as to details, and weakly substantiated, and 2) to include statements insisting that DDP is an evidence-based practice (EBP), an evaluation not congruent with the nature of published reports about its efficacy.

DPeterson and his associates have persistently refused to discuss either the status of DDP or the reasoning behind their claims of an evidentiary foundation, going so far at one point as to declare, quite incorrectly, that publication in a peer-reviewed journal indicates the EBP categorization. I am at a loss as to whether they are actually unaware of the issues here, or whether they find it convenient to cloud the discussion by incorrect statements.

DPeterson and associates have repeatedly attacked me personally

It would be excessively time-consuming for everyone for me to list the personal attacks I have experienced when trying to edit the articles in question. These began in 2006 with a misstatement about my sexual identity and the birth of my children, made by an individual who may or may not be among the parties to this discussion (this was in fact my introduction to Misplaced Pages). On many later occasions, and culminating with a statement by Ralph Lender on 22 May 2007 , this group has stated that I am unqualified to contribute to the topic. A particular issue has been the propriety of my citation of my own articles and books, published in professional journals and by legitimate academic presses. For example, on 20 July 2006, Ralph Lender referred to "your own book, which is merely a bit of broadside and polemic for the fringe group", and advised me that "citing your own book" is equivalent to NPOV.

DPeterson has attacked my publications and ACT

DPeterson has also attacked my publications, stating incorrectly that "Attachment Therapy On Trial" was published by Advocates for Children in Therapy rather than by a legitimate academic press, and claiming that no one cites ACT materials, among which he has included this book; in fact, the book was cited by the Chaffin task force report, as well as receiving reviews in "Scientific American" and in "Contemporary Psychology." My later book,also noted on the ACT web site but not published by the organization, "Understanding Attachment," was reviewed in the "Times Literary Supplement."

N.B. cites will follow

Unless an arbitrator specifically asks me to provide information to support my expertise or published work in this area, I do not intend to waste everyone's time doing so. On request, I will provide an up-to-date c.v.

Evidence presented by Shotwell

DPeterson et al. engage in meat-puppetry

• DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavison, JohnsonRon, and User:MarkWood provide unfailing support for each other. This support extends to arcane issues such as redundant see also links. Most importantly, these accounts have uniform opinions regarding Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (DDP). Each account has either inserted or defended claims concerning DDP into a large number of articles. (e.g. Reactive Attachment Disorder, Child welfare, Psychotherapy, Child abuse, Adoption, PTSD, Cognitive behavioral therapy)
• The accounts of DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavison, JohnsonRon, and User:MarkWood were all created in May-June of 2006. . At this time there was mediation concerning John Bowlby between AWeidman and Sarner. This dispute centered around whether or not Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy ought to be mentioned in the article. Each of the accounts named above immediately involved themselves with the dispute and sided with AWeidman. (AWeidman's account has been inactive since his off-wiki dispute with Jean Mercer was pointed out ) In the following July, they all participated in this afd, which is demonstrative of their similar editing patterns.
• Prior to account creation, there had been a handful of ip editors who sided with AWeidman in this dispute. They only made a small number of contributions, but each ip resolves to the the New York area where AWeidman's clinic is based. 68.66.160.22866.238.216.11966.238.222.3866.238.223.245. Both AWeidman and DPeterson have added their signatures to edits by 68.66.160.228. The other ip editors made one or two edits, each a WP:COI allegation against User:Sarner.
• The accounts in question make highly similar formatting errors. For example, they very frequently (or almost always) use too many apostrophes when bolding text. Additionally, they have previously shown a uniform inability to properly link to pages in the wikipedia namespace. For example, they link to Verifiable instead of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability or Assume good faith instead of WP:AGF. Since the time this has been pointed out, they have varied in their ability to properly link to the wikipedia namespace. See the suspected sock puppet report for some example diffs.
• This set of accounts makes use of their large numbers to give the false appearance of consensus. This is made perfectly clear in day to day talk page discussions. Note, for example, the astounding number of straw polls set up by members of this group. Some examples include:

DPeterson et al. will not discuss

• This set of accounts also uses their large numbers to set up echo chambers of irrelevance. This behavior completely stalls meaningful discussion and has been occurring with increasing frequency. See, for example, how this discussion degenerates into repeated WP:COI allegations. The same thing happens here and here.
• Additionally, this group of accounts subverts meaningful conversation by simply parroting each others' vacuous arguments and refusing to address legitimate concerns. In this discussion, for example, they decide to remove a critical source on the basis of an amazon.com user review. Note how they refuse to address my primary concern about using an amazon.com user review to remove a source . Another example can be found in this lengthy discussion. I started with what I consider to be legitimate points worthy of reasonable responses. Instead, I got shallow responses such as this and this. It is important to note that the entirety of the previous discussions consisted of them repeatedly saying something along the line of "these sources are verifiable, we have already addressed this". This example is characteristic of their talk page tactics. Essentially, they all repeat "Nope, you're wrong and we've already told you you're wrong". This behavior is easily seen across the talk pages of Advocates for Children in Therapy, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Attachment disorder, Attachment Therapy, Candace Newmaker, and John Bowlby. It would not be so disruptive if it were not parroted by so many accounts.
• These talk page tactics are coupled with the strong tendency to immediately revert changes they do not like. In reverting, they refuse to address concerns or make references to WP:OWN and WP:CON. The contribution histories of the relevant articles make this allegation very clear; see two characteristic reverts here and here. The large number of accounts involved means that they need not worry about 3RR violations. Their willingness to revert has kept the attachment therapy related pages static for the last year.
• Another talk page tactic is to severely misrepresent sources during discussions. For example, here DPeterson heavily paraphrases a source and dramatically changes the author's intent. (Original source at Sagepub). Again, this would not be too disruptive but they all repeat this behavior. This misrepresentation of sources commonly occurs in the article namespace (for example, Advocates for Children in Therapy). This behavior obviously makes meaningful discussion quite difficult.

Evidence presented by Fainites

DPeterson et al own articles to control their content

DPeterson, MarkWood,SamDavidson, RalphLender, JohnsonRon and JonesRD work together to ‘own’ attachment pages. They maintain Dr Becker-Weidmans views, edits and assertions in the related articles. There is a substantial content dispute, but it is the way they own and control the pages and swamp opposition that is the main problem.

AWeidman, AKA Dr Becker-Weidman and Dr Art, the main proponent of Dyadic Develomental Psychotherapy, edited in his own name and as IP 68.66.160.228 from 4th December 2005 Neither he nor DPeterson, knew how to sign in and added and linked their names. DPeterson has also edited as the same IP Here that same IP, writing in support of DDP, claims to be a ‘disinterested person and licensed therapist providing services for children and adolescents’

The methods used are reverts, insistence that any edit has to be agreed (despite their overwhelming consensus), polls, repetition rather than answering points raised, personal attacks and accusations of vandalism and attacks on other editors motivation. Numerous diffs can be provided, but it is evident from the talkpages.

• Ignoring ‘consensus’ when it suits. The 'consensus' version excluded this list wherein DDP is listed amongst some evidence based therapies. It was subsequently added.
• Here a 'consensus' version which included this passage from the Taskforce had Becker-Weidman added into the cites very shortly after it was posted. ]

Use of articles to promote DDP

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy

Started by AWeidman, (who subsequently claimed copyright)

Here IP 68 and AWeidman work together to remove criticism from the talkpage

DPeterson arrives June 2006. Adds claims re DDP and removes critical edits as does RalphLender when he arrives in July 2006. SamDavidson and MarkWood arrive on 21st and 22nd July adding links

DPeterson adds a statement that DDP is in compliance with the Taskforce report (Chaffin/APSAC) and more claims On 17th October 2006,

The article then stagnates until 10th May 2007 when DPeterson puts in Craven & Lee in support of the statement that DDP is evidence based (which this study does not claim).

The way this is achieved is by the concerted control of the article by the use of reverts, polls and ‘consensus'. The 6 editors all act in total support and agreement. This can all be clearly seen on the talkpage.

'Reactive Attachment Disorder Article'

This is cited as another example of the effect these editors have on articles they 'own'. Until the 4th December 2005 the article contained a 'controversy' section that dealt with the controversial diagnosis and treatments of ‘attachment therapy’ based around the Institute for Attachment and Child Development. This is a centre whose name is well known to those who take an interest in the attachment therapy controversy. On the 4th December 2005 IP 68 put in a series of edits that removed mention of this centre and inserted DDP in glowing terms as standard, successful and evidence based. It is also stated that other treatments for Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) are ineffective. also a link to Becker-Weidmans clinic Despite the efforts of individual editors it looks similar today, defended by the 6 editors who succeeded Becker-Weidman.

Attachment disorder, Attachment Therapy, Advocates for Children in Therapy, John Bowlby, Candace Newmaker etc. show very similar talkpage and editing patterns. Diffs can be supplied if required.

DPeterson et al frequently breach the rules on sources

Examples of alterations of quotations.

• Removal of a section on age regression from a quote given by a source stating age regression is key to AT, and for which Becker-Weidman was by the Taskforce.

• At 23.32 (last edit) a sentence is removed by DPeterson from another editors proposed article edit, without comment, making it look as if the study (on holding therapy) was quoted approvingly rather than criticised. At 23.34 he votes on it.

• The repeated insertion of Becker-Weidman into an extensive paraphrase/quote from the Taskforce by SamDavidson, DPeterson and JohnsonRon. When I complained, the quote was altered, claimed to be not a quote and Becker-Weidman reinserted in two places. This creates a misleading impression that Becker-Weidman is mainstream and quoted approvingly by the Taskforce. As they take turns to revert there is not much one opposing editor can do. I was then warned by DPeterson for 3RR.Consensus is claimed.

Examples of misrepresentation of Taskforce report

• DPeterson adds statement that DDP is in compliance with the Taskforce report (Chaffin/APSAC) Here DPeterson and JonesRD totally misrepresent Taskforces citations of Becker-Weidman

• Repeat unsourced claim, that the Taskforce report was written far earlier than its publication in December 2005, did not have materials from 2004, and that the follow up response of November 2006 did not see Becker-Weidmans 2006 study despite full quotes being provided to the contrary.(at the bottom) (quote provided)(at the bottom)

Examples of misrepresentation of other sources.

• Claiming or implying Craven & Lee said DDP was evidence based and repeatedly removing accurate representations.

• Resisting accurate insertion of Craven and Lee whilst continuing to insist it says DDP is evidence based.

• Mischaracterisation of sources (right at the bottom), calling Prior and Glaser, published by the Royal College of Psychiatrists Research and Training Unit ‘polemic’.JonesRDDPeterson

• Cites from 2006 attacked as ‘out of date’.

• Claiming historical material in a section on history is out of date and voting to delete it.

• Claiming citations from the Taskforce report are slander.

• Repeatedly arguing attachment therapy is synonymous with rebirthing, that ACT claims when they don't, even on the cites provided in support..( scroll down past list of AT therapies to explanation).

• An example insisting that ‘evidence-based’ means published in a peer reviewed journal.

• When asked for sources to support claims for DDP, DPeterson adds 'Becker-Weidman' to every unsourced claim.

• Conducting a poll to keep an OR and wrong statement about ACT.

Examples of the obfuscation of the nature of attachment therapy

• Two edits to clarify nature of AT and ‘evidence base ‘ of treatments by Aplomado, reverted by DPeterson to repeat claim that AT as a term has ‘no utility’ and to position DDP as evidence based and in line with relevant standards.

• 31st July JohnsonRon reverts edit stating AT is controversial, to a version saying it doesn’t really mean anything.RalphLender adding to the ‘AT doesn’t mean anything’ approach.This carries on throughout the Attachemnt therapy article aswell wherein it is described as 'smoke'. This is 'supported' by insistence on the repetitious inclusion of lists of publications that don't define AT.
• From 3rd May 2007, DPeterson. "The APSAC report does not describe "Attachment Therapy", it uses the term "attachment therapy" (no caps or quotation marks)." This capital letters argument arises again and again.

interfering with talkpage edits and personal attacks

• Proposed sections of AT article posted on the talkpage at 12.11 for consideration. Between 00.28 and 00.51 DPeterson rewrote it, removing most of the new material and inserting old material from the article. He then invited other editors to comment although they would not have been able to see the proposal.

• Here RalphLender interposed a paragraph.When it was put back in thread and date order it was reverted by Jones RD and RalphLender. RalphLender and DPeterson attacked me on my talkpage.

• Removing other editors spacing of points making contributions difficult to read.

Replacing this with this

• Personal attacks.

repeated ad nauseum across many talkpages. Also constant 'reminders' to others about WP:AGF and personal attack if an editor disagrees with them.

Comment on DPetersons section on Fainites

DPetersons claim about talkpage edits is misleading. My proposed article paragraphs posted on 13th April were the first such proposals. There was no prior agreement as to how this was to be commented on. They weren't commented on then. DPeterson almost completely rewrote it late that night. I replaced the original. I later suggested that interspersed comments all be done in italics so as not to render proposed edits unreadable. Fainites 22:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {DPeterson}

First, I would like to respond to the accusations by editors User:StokerAce, User:Lsi john, User:Jean Mercer, User:Fainites.

{User: StokerAce makes several accusations}

1. . ACT is a fringe group. I believe that may be an accurate characterization. By fringe I mean a group that is not part of the mainstream mental health professional or advocacy community with a large base of members, such as the American Psychological Association or the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, among others. In addition, no organization or group cites ACT or uses its materails. It advocates positions that seem extreme, such as, “ACT works to mobilize parents, professionals, private and governmental regulators, prosecutors, juries, and legislators to end the physical torture and emotional abuse that is AT” ] (retrieved 07 July 2007). There is no evidence that any mainstream professional body uses or supports ACT’s positions. This content issue has been raised for quite sometime and since the leaders of ACT (Mercer and Sarner) have not provided any such evidence, I think it may be reasonable to make the statement I did.
2. . ACT is not mainstream. See above comment.
3. . Not licensed mental health professionals.

Mercer acknowledges that she is not a licensed mental health professional: ] ] The material published about Sarner and Mercer on the ACT site clearly does not say they are licensed and being licensed is a notable credential. ] ], ], ], ], ], ], ], This is a notable fact regarding the credentials of the leaders of Advocates for Children in Therapy and belongs in an article about ACT.

1. . Various major professional groups use the input of some advocacy groups and not ACT. This is a statement of fact. For example, the American Psychological Associaiton does advocacy and uses materials from various other groups ], as do other groups ]. In addition, ACT does not list any collaborations with any other advocacy groups or professional organizations. ], yet they do list and describe all their work.

{User:Lsi john makes several accusations}

1. .Opened three AN/I. I opened two, if I recall correctly. One in the wrong location. Since comments were appearing in both locations I left both up and assumed that an administrator would fix this if it required fixing. This is precisely what occurred.
2. . FatherTree knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry. User:FatherTree has made several of my being a sockpuppet, despite knowing that there have been two searches into that “question.”

Accusations: ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:FatherTree&diff=prev&oldid=140833107]]

He was informed that his accusations were untrue, yet kept making them: ] ] ]

The question of being a sockpuppet was researched twice, with the result being “unfounded” each time ], ].

{User:Jean Mercer makes several accusations}

User:Jean Mercer makes several comments without any evidence. However, Mercer makes several statements that she considers it a personal attack that questions were raised about the propriety of her citing her own material. Mercer’s WP:COI here is evident in pushing her own materials, career, and financial advancement as well as that of her group, Advocates for Children in Therapy. Her two books are largely position papers of her group, ACT: ], ], which descrbes them as, "An Expose by ACT authors."

{User:Shotwell makes several accusations}

User:Shotwell raises the issue of sock and meat puppetry. This has been researched at least twice and resolved (see above). The IP addresses questioned were Adelphia IP's, if I beleive, which is a provider of internet services in NY, PA, and surrounding areas. Many of the comments Shotwell makes about unfailing support can also be made about the group of Shotwell, et. al. The fact that several editors have a similar point of view should not be surprising, on either side. These are complex issues and there is a long history of dispute on these issues (See the ACT website for material going back a number of years). The rest of the accusations seem to be more about the content dispute and that we do not agree, which is true.

{User:Fainites makes several accusations}

User:Fainites raises issues similar to that raised by the previous editors in their material. It seems in one instance (Shotwell) I am accussed of not debating, while Fainites accuses me and others of over-debating. In such a complex content dispute ranging over many articles with many contributors, it is not surprising that there is a lot of discussion at times. Most of the rest of her comments regarding “frequently breach the rules on sources,” are content disputes and many of the diffs relate to my trying to reach consensus with Fainites regarding edits to the articles. She mentions that I interfered with talk page edits, yet she was the one that invited me to edit her suggestions on the talk page as a method of building consensus. Proposals were posted on the talk page and then various editors made changes there to further discussion and build agreement. The following diffs show that it was her idea and that she participated in this methodology: ] ] ] ] ] ]

Evidence presented by {FT2}

{Evidence tending to support concerns over puppetry}

Further to evidence by shotwell, commencing:

"*DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavison, JohnsonRon, and User:MarkWood provide unfailing support for each other The accounts of DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavison, JohnsonRon, and User:MarkWood were all created in May-June of 2006 At this time there was mediation concerning John Bowlby between AWeidman and Sarner Each of the accounts named above immediately involved themselves with the dispute and sided with AWeidman."

I attach the first few contributions of the editors concerned, which I have checked and which tends to support the above:

Note the obvious similarities in both target areas, and timings.

• DP and MW both commence editing under their respective accounts on 20 May 2006, 3/4 hr apart.
• The next day, both commence the next days editing 2 minutes apart. DP edits twice at 01:21, and MW edits twice at 01:23 and 01:24, neither then edits for the rest of the day. The edited article in each case is Talk:John Bowlby/Archive 1, the target in each case criticisms of user:sarner ( )
• The next notable event, AWeidman edits on 27 May 2006, and DP and MW both edit several times on 28 May 2006. DP makes a few edits on 1+2 June 2006. All three then fall silent. 2 weeks later on 16 June, DP returns to editing, and MW and DP both return and recommence editing on 17 June 2006.

• partial update only - postings review continuing FT2 01:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC) *

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.