This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MarkWood (talk | contribs) at 20:42, 12 July 2007 (→Certain editors banned from editing any articles relating to attachment: add). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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)

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

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

Temporary injunction

1) For the duration of this arbitration, the person(s) operating the accounts AWeidman, DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavison, JohnsonRon, and User:MarkWood, 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)

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)

I do not think WP:COI covers the example given above, ie 'articles about medical treatments where you hold an opinion on the merits of the treatment'. Surely here interest is used in the sense of financial, personal or other stakeholder interest rather than in the sense of 'being interested in'. Fainites 22:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And both Sarner and Mercer have a financial interest in this dispute given the books they have published and careers they advance. DPeterson 22:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is undisputed that ACT is a non-profit group and thus financial interest is not an issue. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, they should feel free to present it. StokerAce 01:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of interest, I don't quite buy that financial interest is the most general test for COI anyway (although it's a fairly substantial one if present). One can profit from fame, even if not directly profiting from the issue one is famous for. The relevant test is probably more like, is there evidence of a strongly held and publicly evidenced position that is likely to bias an individual's editing, and create concerns over advocacy, unless they take especial care to edit from a neutral point of view. That's just an "in principle" general observation though, not a comment on this case. I agree that this is a fair statement of my understanding of Misplaced Pages's stance on COI though. The question is, when does "holding an opinion" become "having a conflict of interest", and for that, you're looking at some kind of position, employment (in the broad sense), significant publicly held stance, or potential profit, sufficient to suggest that some given view is likely to be difficult for them to view neutrally. FT2 08:47, 11 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:

...and viewed neutrally, meet Misplaced Pages inclusion criteria (notability, verifiability). FT2 21:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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:

It's not quite an ideological struggle. More of an advertising campaign. Under Wiki policies, if editors abide by the rules, it should be possible to fairly present an ideological struggle.Fainites 22:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And in Sarner, Mercer, and other supporter's of ACT, we clearly see an ideological struggle and disruption occuring. As cited on the evidence page, Sarner has been held accountable for harrassment. DPeterson 00:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As best I can tell, Sarner, Mercer and ACT are trying to stop what they consider to be child abuse. Even if you disagree with their views, I don't think their position qualifies as an "ideological struggle." StokerAce 01:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The fight to promote ones perceptions of good ideas and ones good intentions is capable of being an ideological struggle. It's more down to how blinkered or single-focussed one is, and where one goes with it. Splitting hairs isn't needed, this seems fine to me as a principle, even if perhaps not perfect. FT2 09:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Sarner and Mercer neither started the ACT page, nor have been allowed to edit it to remove personal attacks on themselves, an exception to COI. The six editors claim COI prevents Sarner and Mercer from editing any pages relating to attachment. This cannot be the case. It is asserted by DPeterson et al that having published books on attachment issues means you have a financial interest in the dispute. I do not understand this point. Fainites 21:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

They both have an activist agenda that they push on many pages of Misplaced Pages. Reading their website supports this statement. DPeterson 00:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of what Sarner and Mercer have done on Misplaced Pages is defend themselves against false personal attacks and try to make these articles NPOV. As for the "agenda" they supposedly push, you have provided no evidence of this. StokerAce 01:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There are two points in this proposal, one on NPOV/activism, one on COI/directness. Both seem flawed to me:

• It is not my understanding that there is a general rule or principle in Misplaced Pages that asserts what is and isn't possible, on this. Policy states what is expected, and leaves it to editors to find ways to achieve that, or recuse themselves from the debate. I would accept a change that replaced "It is not possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda" with "Editors who are unable to write from a neutral point of view are expected to recuse themselves from editing on that subject."
• WP:COI does not limit primarily upon whether a relationship is direct or indirect; it limits based upon "an incompatibility between the aim of Misplaced Pages ... and the aims of an individual editor" "contributing ... in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups" and situations "where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages in order to advance outside interests". None of these are limited by the nature or directness of the interest. Examples include financial, legal antagonism, self promotion, close relationship, and campaigning, but are not limited to these. FT2 09:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Sarner benefit from this conflict in several ways. First, by pushing the position of their group, they advance their group's interests and seem to want to eliminate any evidence to the contrary. Second, helps their book sales and their invitations to present their views to others, and seems to be the basis for Mercer's recent career focus. MarkWood 20:13, 12 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". Corollary #1: Editing decisions are not based upon "vote counts". Corollary #2: Opinions expressed in polls do not usually override policy related matters. Corollary #3: 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:

I agree. 'Consensus' as in 'a majority on a vote' cannot and should not override policies on sources, NPOV or accuracy of meaning. By the latter I am referring to examples such as the insistence by consensus that 'evidence-based' means 'published in a peer reviewed journal'.Fainites 21:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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:

Agree. Fainites 22:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sockpuppetry

8) For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

FT2 21:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

That doesn't make any sense. Using that argument, then there are only two editors here. Or, if we look at other disputed pages, such as the NLP article, there are only two or three editors...or if we look at the articles related to Pedohilia, there are only two "sides," and maybe two to four editors...This is not the Misplaced Pages definition of Sockpuppetry...It is that definition that should be applied. DPeterson 00:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a long-standing arbcom approach and policy, often applied in disputes where a group of editors edit in tight unison, and with similar other characteristics, making it impossible to tell if they are best friends or the same person, for example. FT2 01:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Edit warring

9) Users who disrupt using aggressive biased editing may be banned from affected articles, in extreme cases from the site.

(Direct lift from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors) FT2 21:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Use of Misplaced Pages articles as a vehicle for defamation

10) 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)

There is no evidence that comments by Sarner, Mercer, and ACT fall in this category. StokerAce 01:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sanctions vary according to seriousness

11) 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 more damaging forms of "sneaky" vandalism 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

(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)

Cumulative personal attack

12) Constant 'reminders' to editors who dispute a point, to avoid personal attack, or assume good faith, or giving advice to calm down or let hurt feelings subside instead of answering issues raised, is a form of personal attack in itself.

Fainites 22:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It's a form of something, but I'm not sure if it's exactly a personal attack (or should be classed as one in the Misplaced Pages sense). Gaming, lawyering, bad faith, incivility, and dodging the issue, yes. Personal attack... not sure. It's intended as a debate tactic against someone, or to smear them. But I see where you're getting at, and it's probably a "something". Just can't think what, right now. FT2 00:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Its a way of a) avoiding addressing factual issues, b) making the recipient look at first glance like the problem. Particularly if accompanied by false statements like 'I have already answered this point'. Very effective for fooling passing, overworked admins who don't have time to wade through pages of similar stuff. Its effectively a constant drip of minor false allegations that have a cumulative effect. How about a new form called WP:PPPA. (Persistent, Petty, Personal Attack). Fainites 22:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think it's valuable, perhaps consider working it out more fully, and then suggesting it on Wikipedia_talk:No personal attacks? You're right that it's not an altogether uncommon technique in POV warring. FT2 23:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

NPOV is for articles, not editors

13) All editors, as human beings, have a POV. The policy requirement is to fairly create articles that do not.

Fainites 22:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Checkuser

14) Although checkuser reports may be concluded as "unconnected", this conclusion is based only upon visible IP evidence, and may need to be reconsidered in light of other information and later events. Checkuser cannot prove two accounts are unconnected, it can only succeded or fail in finding evidence they are. There are many ways to show evidence of sock and meat puppetry. Checkuser is just one of those and "unconnected" means that that particular form of evidence, at that particular time, failed to show clear evidence. It does not mean that no evidence exists in other forms, or none will ever exist.

(Relates to repeated comments that "this has been investigated twice and both times unfounded") FT2 01:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No attempt has ever been made to explain the diffs showing DPeterson and AWeidman editing from the same IP number.Fainites 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

IP addresses come and go and vary...they can also be the same if users have the same provider and don't sign in...MarkWood 20:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Citing oneself

15) If an editor has published the results of their research in a reliable publication, they may cite that source so long as they are doing so neutrally. Editors may not, however, draw on their personal knowledge without accurately citing their sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed (and mainly lifted from WP:COS). We actually have a great need for specialists who are willing to cite their sources and write neutral articles. DPeterson et al. have been pushing the false notion that any expert should avoid editing in their field. shotwell 03:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I prefer "...may not, however, assert personal knowledge, unless it has been verifiably published by a reliable source", which is the specific criterion. The comment however, I agree with. FT2 08:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A related question that has not been addressed involves the citation of in-press publications, which are of course not accessible unless supplied by the author. I would suggest that sourcing to in-press and self-published materials should be prohibited. This would prevent problems like the changing dates on one of Becker-Weidman's references, cited some months before publication actually occurred. A paper is not effectively public knowledge until it is published.Jean Mercer 20:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In this day and age, may journals publish their articles online before the print edition appears. MarkWood 20:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Editors should not be allowed to publicize their own books and materials...this comes too close to violating COI. MarkWood 20:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground

16) Misplaced Pages is not a venue to carry on professional disputes. Importing professional disputes into Misplaced Pages is highly disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Short and to the point? shotwell 04:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Crossref with (4) "Misplaced Pages is a reference work. Use of the site for ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive." This one is accurate, but I prefer (4). FT2 08:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The use of sock-puppets

17) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, create false consensus, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Lifted from past decisions and added "false consensus" part. shotwell 05:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree, and note that false consensus is specifically forbidden by WP:SOCK. FT2 08:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

x) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

x) {text of proposed principle}

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)

I can see why there would be a WP:COI on the ACT article (unless removing or correcting misleading and defamatory remarks) but it is nonsense to suggest there is a WP:COI in relation to any attachment articles. Fainites 22:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

They have a financial interest in this dispute, which ranges across all those pages, as seen by their participation and representatio of the ACT view on those pages. DPeterson 22:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

ACT is a non-profit group, so there is no, or extremely minimal anyway, financial interest here. StokerAce 01:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Book royalties, speaker fees, a benefit to career, etc. DPeterson 13:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence of editing attachment pages to promote book sales etc. The odd mention of a relevent peer reviewed article or book on talkpages to make a point does not count as this. I didn't even know she'd written a book called 'Understanding Attachment' until you provided a link. On career, Mercer seems to have been a Professor for decades. She's had a big career. And how would representing the ACT viewpoint on Wiki promote her career? Surely the opposite. Fainites 22:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

May I point out that this is not an experimentum crucis? To claim that Sarner and I have conflicts of interest does not negate the possibility of claiming that DPeterson et al. have one, or however many would be needed for one apiece. Applying the COI rule equitably would require that DP & Co. provide to the arbitrators the type of information that Sarner and I have voluntarily disclosed. This could be done confidentially. I do not see how the arbitrators can make a decision about this issue with respect to some contributors, without considering everyone's position. Jean Mercer 14:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yet another paradox: any person who has been sufficiently professionally involved to publish on a topic appears to be defined as having a conflict of interest that prohibits him or her from contributing to Misplaced Pages on the topic. This seems to lead to the conclusion that only non-experts can contribute to Wiki articles, which may be a reduction to the absurd, but would explain certain content problems in the articles under discussion.Jean Mercer 02:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

It is plainly biased and insulting and has been since it's inception. Much of it's most offensive material was supported by Dr Becker-Weidman himself on the talkpage, until it was ascertained that he had professional disputes with JeanMercer outside of Wiki. The 6 editors have since maintained the early denigrating and insulting tone.Fainites 21:51, 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)

For completeness, of course, the article about ACT should include items such as the Federal budget earmark . Other activities of ACT, such as work with prosecutors, are confidential matters. Our concern (I believe I speak also for Larry Sarner, who is occupied with a family emergency)is once again with the absence of appropriate information in this article. Few small non-profits are thought to merit an article in Misplaced Pages, and since ACT has the honor of such public discussion, we would like to be able to add news of some of our achievements. Further links to comments praising "Attachment Therapy on Trial", as provided by one of the contributors to this discussion, would of course be most welcome.Jean Mercer 02:28, 11 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:

I agree. It is also inaccurate, misleading and contains serious misrepresentations of sources. Fainites 22:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence to support this statement. MarkWood 20:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

See Undue weight (a section within WP:NPOV). The fact that something is verifiable and professional in nature, supported by many cites, does not mean it is not represented neutrally, cited selectively, painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate, made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present it, described in terms which favor or weaken it, and so on. Verifiability is only one criterion. neutral point of view (including undue weight) is a core policy of Misplaced Pages, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. The concerns above related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and promotion, are not addressed even slightly by a response that the cites are verifiable and "professional in nature" (whatever exactly that signifies). FT2 10:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering the present concern in mental health circles with the nature of acceptable evidence and with design weaknesses such as nonrandomization, this article would be expected to explain why a nonrandomized design can be claimed to show a treatment's efficacy. As I recently pointed out in an open letter to ATTACh, practitioners who favor these weakly-supported treatments also need to present a rationale connecting infant mental health concepts like attunement to methods used with older children. It is the absence of these expectable features that marks the DDP article as advertising rather than as a straightforward, factual report of a neutral nature. It is surprising that practitioners who claim to use a new and efficacious intervention do not want to participate in efforts to pose and answers necessary questions about the treatment.Jean Mercer 02:13, 11 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)

The question was not deemed "unfounded." Rather, the checkuser request simply did not prove they were sockpuppets. This does not mean they were not sockpuppets, however. FT2's evidence is pretty convincing in this regard. StokerAce 01:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

All of the diffs provided show FatherTree asking DPeterson if he is Becker, or saying he thinks he is. Mostly these are in response to attacks by DPeterson et al on Mercer, Sarner and their 'group'. Given not only DPetersons actions, but also the fact that he has claimed to be a mental health professional but won't allow his credentials to be checked, it is a not unreasonable question. Surely WP:AGF has limits when the editors are plainly editing in bad faith. Fainites 19:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Puppetry

6) DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavidson, JohnsonRon, and MarkWood are all sock or meat puppets of AWeidman, AKA Dr Becker-Weidman or Dr Art, and have used such sock or meat puppetry to WP:OWN articles and create false consensus.

Fainites 23:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Examined on two occassions and was unfounded. DPeterson 01:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not considered "unfounded". Rather, the checkuser simply did not prove sockpuppetry. FT2's evidence is pretty convincing that there was sock or meat puppetry. StokerAce 01:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Identity of users

7) user:AWeidman, User:Jean Mercer and user:Sarner have allowed to stand (and not denied) identification or self-identification as Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidman, head of the Center for Family Development, Professor Jean Mercer, a professor of Psychology and President of the New Jersey Infant Mental Health Association, and Larry Sarner of the American Association for the Humane Treatment of Children in Therapy, respectively. All have strong professional and personal positions related to the issue of Attachment Therapy. Notably, each is a senior figure in (or founder of) organizations with opposing stances on Attachment Therapy, with A. Weidman on one side ("Center for Family Development", pro-AT) and J. Mercer and L. Sarner on another ("Advocates for Children in Therapy", anti-AT), outside Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think it's ok as well as relevant to this dispute. Larry and Prof. Mercer have been very open, as has Becker-Weidman. shotwell 10:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I hope to hell this is okay to add. I think it's accurate, relevant, and I believe the three parties have indeed identified or self-identified as stated and allowed the identification(s) to stand. That said, if there is any doubt at all, then please strike out any offending points immediately. If COI or external disputes are at issue then identification of the basis for asserting this is a relevant finding of fact. Also these are findings relevant to allegations of non-neutral editing and using Misplaced Pages to make a point. FT2 09:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is such in-depth identification needed? I'd think that merely saying they have a real-world interest in this subject is enough. Picaroon (Talk) 17:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think that asserting (stating) the fact "they have a real world interest" without recording any evidence backing that (even if the evidence can be found elsewhere), would be sufficient. if it is, then fine :) The fact is, they not only have a real world interest. They also have a real world dispute, and head up organizations that are fundamentally in opposition on the subject, is crucial. That finding probably needs to be noted in the suggested statement. FT2 23:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

AWeidman uses numerous sock-puppets

8) AWeidman has used numerous sock-puppets in order to create the appearance of consensus during content disputes, vote-stack on project related pages, and harass his opponents.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Same as above, but without the meat-puppetry part. The analysis by FT2 seems to indicate that, if puppetry is taking place, then a single person is operating these accounts. shotwell 05:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Short, sharp, to the point. Well worded. FT2 08:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

AWeidman

9) Aweidman has edited disruptively with numerous sock-puppets. This was done in an effort to promote Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy across a wide variety of articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. shotwell 05:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This was done for many reasons, probably... but I'm not a mindreader and this is too much like mindreading. And it has 2 parts, related to sock use finding (see 8) and COI/benefit. A more sharpened or unquestionable version of this one, please? (I might try writing one.) FT2 08:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Misrepresentation

8) AWeidman and connected accounts have knowingly on many occasions practised deception and attempted to mislead other editors and readers of Misplaced Pages, including false representations of events, of historical and scientific facts, and of Misplaced Pages policy, both for personal gain and in order to professionally harm others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strongly worded, but appropriate. The account under discussion is operated by a professional, a doctor who runs his own Center, and knew precisely what he was doing. In this item I am thinking of examples including (but not limited to):

• "practised deception and attempted to mislead
• "other editors
• "and readers of Misplaced Pages ,
• "including false representations of events ,
• "of historical and scientific facts ,
• "and of Misplaced Pages policy ,
• "both for personal gain
• "and in order to professionally harm others ." FT2 08:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd also accept a more tactful wording if appropriate, "have knowingly on many occasions made false representions to other editors and to readers of Misplaced Pages, including..." Deception is stronger than mere misrepresentation, and several actions are clearly closer to wilful deception with the intent to mislead, rather than 'mere' misrepresentation. FT2 08:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of accuracy: Becker-Weidman is not a doctor of medicine. He is licensed as a clinical social worker and has a doctorate in human development. His dissertation involved adolescent drug and alcohol use. These facts don't abrogate his responsibility as a professional, of course, but since "a doctor" is usually understood as "a physician or surgeon", I think it might be well to be more specific.Jean Mercer 13:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It includes mischaracterisation of sources, including interfering with direct quotes, misrepresenting scientific findings in peer reviewed articles, misrepresenting major and notable reports and commentary and misrepresenting important underlying theories. (See some examples in my evidence section). I appreciate this may seem somewhat arcane for those not interested in the subject, but it is actually the prime method by which the subject matter of articles is perverted, and the end towards which all other violations are undertaken.Fainites 19:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Puppets

8) User:Sarner, User:Jean Mercer, User:StokerAce, User:Fainities, User:Shotwell, User:FatherTree User:HealthConsumerAdvocate, User:PsychPHD, User:Raspor, User:Mercerj are all sock or meat puppets of ACT to WP:OWN articles and create false agreement. MarkWood 20:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

ACT (Sarner and Mercer) uses various sock and meat puppets

9) Sarner and Mercer have used numerous sock-puppets and meat puppets in order to create the appearance of consensus during content disputes, vote-stack on project related pages, and harass their opponents MarkWood 20:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sarner and ACT

10) Sarner and ACT have edited disruptively with numerous sock-puppets. This was done in an effort to disparage Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy across a wide variety of articles. MarkWood 20:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Misrepresentations

11) Sarner, Mercer and connected accounts have knowingly on many occasions practised deception and attempted to mislead other editors and readers of Misplaced Pages, including false representations of events, of historical and scientific facts, and of Misplaced Pages policy, both for personal gain and in order to professionally harm others. MarkWood 20:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Sarner appears to have been blocked once for 48 hours in July 2006. I understand he was also 'soft-blocked' from editing the Steven Barrett article at about the same time. On what basis do these past minor sanctions, on which sentence has been served, justify a permanent ban now? Does the same apply to DPeterson who was once banned for breaching 3RR? Fainites 22:27, 11 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:

Why would an expert in the field of child development be banned from editing attachment articles because she disputes the current presentation of Dyadic Developmental psychotherapy? Fainites 23:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

On what basis? I don't see any evidence that she has edited in a way that is POV. StokerAce 22:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Once created, an article takes on its own life. It survives or is deleted (so to speak) according to normal article criteria - notability, suitability (WP:NOT), verifiable reliable sources, etc. There's a warning to this effect on WP:COI for what its worth. AFD is always available if it's likely that non-notability can be established. But "It wasn't created for genuine reasons" isn't a valid deletion argument. FT2 00:28, 11 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)

A small, accurate article instead perhaps? They are sufficiently notable to have given evidence to some Senate committee, been mentioned by the Taskforce, and some of its members give expert evidence at trials. Fainites 23:08, 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)

It could be completely rewritten as a small, accurate article. After all, Hughes, its progenitor, is mentioned by Prior in the 'non-evidence-based' chapter of her book, and Becker-Weidman is cited by name 3 times by the Taskforce. Fainites 22:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a treatment with a number of publications in professional peer-reviewed publications and which was labled evidence-based by Craven & Lee. It is used by a large number of practitioners. DPeterson 01:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not labeled "evidence-based" by Craven & Lee. Please provide a direct quote and cite to back that up, if you can. If you cannot, the comment should be disregarded. StokerAce 01:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

StokerAce is quite correct. Craven & Lee did not categorize DDP as evidence-based, but as belonging to a less stringent category. No nonrandomized study could be considered evidence-based according to the SRS guidelines used by Craven & Lee. However, Craven & Lee erred in assigning DDP even to a lower category, as Pignotti & Mercer (2007) noted. When Lee & Craven responded to Pignotti & Mercer's comments, by the way, they did not attempt to argue the point about DDP, but concentrated on attempting to support their previous claims about holding therapy. Jean Mercer 01:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

N.B. Craven & Lee do not use a category "evidence-based" at all, but follow the model of Saunders, Berliner, & Hanson (2004). They do have an equivalent category, but it's not the one they assign DDP to.Jean Mercer 00:25, 12 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)

I agree with the proposed ban. These articles have been perverted and distorted. Wiki has unwittingly played host to an 18 month mass advertising campaign for a relatively obscure and as yet unvalidated therapy in the area of children's mental health. No argument, provision of sound sources, compromise, mediation or minor sanctions have any effect on the hard and fast agenda pursued by these editors. Fainites 21:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no basis for this. The supporters of ACT and it's position may be the more appropriate group to ban from editing the articles that are part of their advocacy, in accordance with the above principle regarding COI. DPeterson 01:05, 11 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:

Father Tree has on the diffs provided asked DPeterson if he is Becker-Weidman on a number of occasions. In view of the fact that AWeidman and DPeterson have shared an IP, promote and maintain the same edits in relation to Becker-Weidmans therapy in the teeth of Wiki policies, and personally attacked the credentials of editors who do edit in their own names, it may seem like a not unreasonable question.Fainites 21:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue was researched twice and the checkuser finding in each instance was that the accusation was unfounded and FatherTree knows this as the diffs show. DPeterson 22:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Certain editors banned from editing any articles relating to attachment

8) AWeidman, DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavidson, JohnsonRon, and MarkWood are indefinitely banned from editing any articles or parts of articles relating to attachment, it's history, theory, diagnosis, disorders or treatments.Fainites 22:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No Basis for this. The group of ACT and it's supporters may be the appropriate ones to be banned, based on COI criteria stated above. DPeterson 01:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Certain editors banned from editing any articles relating to attachment

9) User:Sarner, User:Jean Mercer, User:StokerAce, User:Shotwell, User:FatherTree, User:Fainities, User:HealthConsumerAdvocate, User:PsychPHD, User:Raspor, User:Mercerj are indefinitely banned from editing any articles or parts of articles relating to attachment, it's history, theory, diagnosis, disorders or treatments. MarkWood 20:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {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:

Template

9) {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:

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: