Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/DPeterson

Relatively recent examples have been provided, but it is important to note that the behavior described in this RfC has been sustained since DPeterson first began editing. shotwell 01:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The charges of sock-puppetry apparently weren't pursued, but are being repeated. Is there a reason there hasn't been an RfCU to settle the matter? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 10:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The RFCU was declined. All of the accounts had rather long edit histories when I requested it, perhaps this is the reason. There is, at the very least, a very clear pattern that emerges from their edit histories. The similarities are especially striking in their earliest edits. An alternative explanation is that they have all learned mediawiki markup by watching each other edit and recreated each other's mistakes. Even if this is the case, they have shown a willingness to engage in what amounts to meat-puppetry. shotwell 10:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As described below, you were aware of the facts but continue to raise issues that have already been settled in the past. The sockpuppetry issue was resolved as unfounded. The Sockpuppetry issue as raised and found to be 'UNFOUNDED' [[1]]. RalphLender^talk 15:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

We see a very clear pattern of edit histories among User:Shotwell, User:StokerAce, User:FatherTree, User:Fainites, User:Sarner, among others, either being single purpose accounts or accounts of very recent creation with one primary focus. MarkWood 14:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I would agree that you've been around five months and have edited a few other pages...very true. Also true seems to be the coalition among User:Fainites, User:Shotwell, User:StokerAce, User:FatherTree as evidenced by their planning strategy on each other's talk pages and via e-mails mentioned on talk pages. RalphLender^talk 15:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I offered to e-mail everyone my copies of the sources, including you! Fainites 23:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Coalition"

I was completely unaware of the pedophilia disputes and I think it is rather glib to describe this RfC as a "coalition". If DPeterson has prevented proponents of pedophilia from inserting their nonsense, then kudos to him. I limited the dispute statement to his behavior on the attachment therapy articles. shotwell 10:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's slander, no one here "condones pedophilia" and there is no conspiracy of any kind going on. There are however lots of people from various places on this wiki who have noticed DPetersens behavior and found it disruptive. V.☢.B 11:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What paedophilia disputes? The only thing I've seen is a discussion about whether self-confessed paedophiles should be banned. I think its on Jimbo Wales talkpage. What has that to do with this RfC? This is about attachment therapy and related sites on attachment issues. Fainites 11:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This 'paedophilia coaltion' is just typical of the type of tactics that DPeterson has been using. FatherTree 12:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

As far as I can see (from just having had a look), JimBurton, WillBeback, VOB and Squeakbox are all editors on the paedophilia page. There is an ANI about Addhoc saying that JB and VOB condone paedophilia on this RfC. It looks like a dispute from another page has spilled onto this one. Can I urge you gentlemen to look at the AT talkpage and the RfC for this dispute, if you haven't already done so. I couldn't see anyone from the AT page involved in the paedophilia dispute, apart from WillBeback and Herostratus who are very recent arrivals on the AT page. Fainites 17:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Some Comments

I have no idea what the paedophilia disputes are about. My involvement is with attachment therpay/ACT/DDP etc.

I have tried to bring the two sides (ACT/Sarner/Mercer and DPeterson/RalphLender et al.) together. Sarner has effectively abandoned Wikipedia, it seems, so really all that's left is the DPeterson group. They consistently try to put down ACT and promote DDP in a way that is clearly POV. Underlying it all seems to be a non-Wikipedia dispute between Dr. Becker-Weidman and ACT. According to a note someone left on my talk page, Dpeterson and Dr. Becker-Weidman are closely linked, which explains a lot. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:StokerAce#DPeterson_and_Dr._Becker-Weidman

Furthermore, none of us represent any particular view on attachment therapy. We just want the page to be NPOV, instead of a mechanism for criticizing ACT and promoting DDP/Becker-Weidman.

Here is DPeterson calling ACT a "fringe" group: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F2006-05-21_John_Bowlby&diff=61294566&oldid=60110817

He also created the ACT page, and in it called them "not part of the mainstream mental health professional community." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy&oldid=65117165

Finally, he consistenty refers to DDP as "evidence-based" (see eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADPeterson&diff=131438417&oldid=131436661 ) when it is clearly not. It is a new therapy with a couple journal articles supporting it, but that does not make it "evidence-based."

It's fine if he doesn't like ACT and does support DDP, but Wikipedia should not be a forum for pushing viewpoints. StokerAce 12:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The talkpage speaks for itself. Fainites 15:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

This is content dispute and should be managed via Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures: Mediation. User:StokerAce, User:Shotwell, and the very recentor new "single-purpose" user accounts that have only edited this article, User:FatherTree for example, among others, all seem to act in concert, raising questions in my mind about their independence. Regardless, Shotwell has a long standing dispute with these articles. These were resolved at one point, and now have been reinvoked. There have been several RfC's and other administrative actions pursued regarding several of these pages that Shotwell initiated or was a party to that raised these very same issues and which were put to rest as resolved or unfounded accusations. MarkWood 14:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Disingenious and false statements

I won't bother responding to all the issues raised by User:Shotwell, but merely point out at least one that the user clearly knows is false and so the RfC is a disingenious attempt by that group. The Sockpuppetry issue as raised and found to be 'UNFOUNDED' [[2]]. They were and are aware of this. There clearly is a group working in concert and in a coordinated manner see [[3]] for just one example. I won't clutter up this page with a point by point description comment on their issues, unless an admistrator wishes some response. The material and it's clear agenda lack of cred. speak for themselves. RalphLender^talk 14:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of a rhetoric attack, attack any weak link to cast doubt on the whole subject. The technique is over 2000 years old. However, if 1 out of lots of points are weak (which is doubtful), there still remain enough issues with DPetersens behavior for it to be a serious cause for concern. V.☢.B 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The accusation that DPeterson is a sockpuppet is a major part of this RFC, and those who certified the RFC knew that the accusation was false. It's not rhetoric to call into question the entire RFC based on only that.--Dcooper 18:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of the previous checkuser. The one I requested was rejected without comment.[4] At any rate, I left the RfC open to the possibility that they are simply meat puppets. shotwell 21:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I belive you were aware of it. RalphLender^talk 21:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether This is a Content Dispute

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

'The Group is now extending the conflict'

Apparently, the group of User:StokerAce et. al. are now extending the dispute here to other articles Advocates for Children in Therapy, and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. RalphLender^talk 18:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see it as extending the conflict. I saw it as engaging in substantive discussion of the issues. This could be a good test of whether calm discussion can achieve anything here. I invite all who are interested to join in. StokerAce 18:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a digging up of what the User:Shotwell, StokerAce, etc. group has already raised, discussed, RfC'ed, Mediated, etc. Same questions, same issues all over again by the same group. RalphLender^talk 19:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, I've never been able to get a substantive response to the issues I've raised. I thought I'd try one more time to have a civil discussion about it. Again, I ask all who are interested to participate. StokerAce 19:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the RfC mentions a variety of articles at the outset. I don't see digging up old RfC's etc is particularly relevent. Also, just because a point wasn't proved once before, doesn't mean it isn't right. Can we discuss the issues?Fainites 20:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this group that has included Sarner, and Shotwell and others, and now has several new editors and one-focus editors, has focused on several articles and raised the same issues despite resolution via RfC's, mediation, and other dispute resolution processes. The issues have been repeatedly discussed and resolved. Talk pages and archives have all the substantive responses necessary to respond. Its not worth while rehasing the same ground with the same group.RalphLender^talk 21:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I've never gotten a substantive response to any of the points I just raised. I'm making a good faith effort to try one more time. Let's talk! StokerAce 21:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The issues have never be resolved. Lets resolve them now.Fainites 23:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they have been, repatedly...just one example: [[5]]. The group of Shotwell, Fainites, Sarner, et. al. raise and re-raise the same issues. DPeterson^talk 00:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There have been debates, but never any resolution. Let's try to hash this out now and we can be done with it. There are really only a handful of issues. I've started the ball rolling with 3. StokerAce 00:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The group is continuing to extend this conflict to other pages...see the section below.DPeterson^talk 12:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

How exactly am I in a 'group' with Sarner, who stopped editing long before I arrived on the scene? If I was one of a group, why was the talkpage just me and you lot for so long?Fainites 11:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now the group of users affiliated (described below) are moving the dispute into other articles as they have done in the past. It gets so tiresome. SamDavidson 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Substance? Anyone?

Nobody has actually responded to the content of this RfC. It is fallacious to be dismissive on the basis of having attracted some ostensibly strange people. It is furthermore unreasonable to disregard StokerAce's opinion due to his low edit count. Yes, there is a content dispute. Everyone would seem to agree that the content dispute is legitimate. This RfC, however, is about how DPeterson has completely stalled progress on these content disputes for nearly a year.

I think that some larger context is necessary. The disputes over attachment therapy started back in July. At that time, the leaders of Advocates for Children in Therapy were quite active on wikipedia. ACT is a small advocacy group that dedicates itself to fighting attachment therapy. ACT was founded as a response to the highly abusive techniques (forcefully restraining children and licking them is an example) employed by "attachment therapists". After some key deaths raised public and academic awareness, many of these therapists changed course, sought out less intrusive methods, and set about legitimizing their techniques through traditional scientific methods. To further complicate the matter, many highly respectable researchers have done very good research into attachment theory and attachment-based therapies. In this sense, there are two sorts of "attachment therapy". The situation is not unlike many topics in medicine, say herbal supplements.

ACT has interacted with Becker-Weidman in the past because the group has unfairly put DDP into the same category of many abusive techniques. Jean Mercer and Becker-Weidman have had a few back-and-forths in letters to editors. This dispute spilled into wikipedia last July. Shortly thereafter, FCYTravis found the attachment-therapy articles in disarray. He has had disputes with this group ever since. I stumbled into the mess after FCYTravis and argued for quite some time, only to drop out of mediation because I'm a graduate student with very little time and mediation is impossible when one of the parties refuses to comply with wikipedia guidelines. We now find ourselves in this present situation -- the attachment therapy articles have changed very little since FCYTravis first tried to fix them and the articles are horrendously bad. This is the direct result of DPeterson et al.

The point of this RfC is that DPeterson has consistently edited here with the intent of promoting DDP. He has done so by abusing sources, badgering editors, and employing a large group of editors that share his exact opinions. There is a strong financial incentive to portray DDP in a positive light and distance it from the controversy generated by abusive techniques. (This is easily verified: google the topic and read the sagepub article linked to in the RfC). The RFCU linked to above shows that they are not all sock-puppets, but they certainly act as one voice. A group of editors that acts uniformly is to be treated as a single voice in content disputes.

DPeterson has clearly done good work elsewhere, but there is no conflict of interest there. Moreover, any sensible person would resist pro-pedophilia propaganda. It is intellectually lazy to presume that this RfC lacks merit because DPeterson took the only sane position available in one particular dispute. shotwell 00:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Have a look at the attachment therapy page before some recent editing. It had been stagnant for months [6] and simply does not deal with the subject fully or accurately. Have a look at Attachment Disorder [7]. Reactive attachment Disorder [8].

Dyadic developmental Psychotherapy is extensively advertised as evidence-based or sometimes the only effective treatment on dozens of sites . Here is just a sample. Emotional Dysregulation [9], Attachment in Children [10] [11] Child Welfare [12] John Bowlby {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bowlby]Attachment Theory [13] Complex Post traumatic Stress disorder [14]Child Abuse [15]. In all of these, and many more, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is inserted as effective or evidence based etc etc, by the same group of editors or one AWeidman. [User:Fainites|Fainites]] 08:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As described below, this is clearly a specious argument. DPeterson^talk 18:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Group continues to try to expand the dispute to other articles

The group is continuing to extend this conflict to other pages as the above comment indicates.DPeterson^talk 12:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they've done this before. These very same issues were resolved previously and then raised again. See, for example, [[16]], [[17]], [[18]], [[19]] JonesRD_talk 16:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

'SPECIOUS ARGUMENT'

This is a specious argument. Linking topics with articles where there is clear relevance, as is the case here, is not "advertising." Taking this group's argument would mean that the various pages on which Cognitive Behavior Therapy and Aaron Beck are listed must have those materials removed since this "promotes" Dr. Beck: Cognitive Therapy, Cognitive-shifting, etc. That is just plain silly. JonesRD_talk 16:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this statement. JohnsonRon 16:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of the Rfc?

Can someone tell my why we are doing this at all. Seems like the argument just continued here instead of other pages. Will this lead to something or is it just a beurocratic step that is needed to be taken before taking it to arbCom? V.☢.B 08:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably. Its really a difficulty that needs some kind of adjudication. As far as I can see nothing much has been resolved in the past. People just gave up. In a nutshell the allegation is that there is an organised group of people/meats/socks pursuing a specific agenda on matters to do with attachment. Any attempt by other editors to introduce information, verified and credible sources or indeed common sense into these articles is doomed to failure as they are swamped by this group. All suggestions as to how to deal with this gratefully recieved!Fainites 10:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also at a loss. Perhaps we should request formal mediation (or find a cabalist with a penchant for tightly organized mediation). shotwell 11:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it would have to an experienced and tough mediator, but it may be worth a go. I'm concerned that there is no attempt being made here to deal with the issues. Just allegations that everyone who opposes these editors are all somehow linked to Sarner and that this has all been resolved before. This really illustrates the difficulty there has been in trying to get the articles away from the old feud.Fainites 11:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the response has consisted of vacuous talking points that lack any rational merits. A good mediator and rigid mediation structure, however, would help to cut through this sort of bullshit. If not, then all I'll have to say is "so long and thanks for all the fish". shotwell 12:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the advanced nature of this dispute, I would suggest you consider formal mediation. Then, if that doesn't work, you could request arbitration. Addhoc 12:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm willing to try structured mediation with an experienced mediator. It may at least enable people to edit in accordance with Wiki policies, but I suspect it will end up in arbtration.Fainites 15:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If this goes to arbcom it might be an idea to combine it with the Rfc against Voice of Britain, and that could equally apply to mediation, SqueakBox 16:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to try mediation. I've tried over the past few days to raise some of the ACT/DDP issues on those talk pages, but have made little progress. Maybe a mediator could help. I don't think the ACT/DDP/AT issues should be combined with the Voice of Britain issues, though. I'm completely unfamiliar with those issues, and I don't want to take sides there. I think ACT/DDP/AT should raised as a separate mediation issue. StokerAce 16:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I will keep out. Good luck everyone. V.☢.B 16:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

These very same issues were previously raised by this group, some of whom are leaders of ACT and do have a financial stake in their position, resolved previously and then raised again. See, for example, [[20]], [[21]], [[22]], [[23]] JonesRD_talk 16:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather puzzled by the suggestion to include Voice of Britain. Does he have anything to do with any of the attachment related pages? It seems to be an RfC brought by DPeterson against VOB for disruptive editing on a completely unrelated page. I've never understood why unrelated arguments on the paedophilia page and Child Abuse page and all the editors therein have spilled over here Fainites 17:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone actually has suggested that. But the reason me and some others ended up here was because DPetersons behavior was happening in other articles aswell (distoring information is so forth). You can never win in arbitration though since he is longtimer here, but good luck anyway. V.☢.B 18:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Whenever a case involving multiple users comes in front of arbcom all the users involved are potentially subject to arbcom bans and/or restrictions. I am not entirely convinced the Voice of Britain and DPetersen issues are unrelated, SqueakBox 18:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I filed the RfC because I felt harrassed and felt there were other difficulties. I thought the appropriate Wikipedia process would be, as a first step, the RfC. Yes, I see these as related issues. DPeterson^talk 18:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

None of the editors involved in the attachment therapy RfC are remotely involved in whatever disputes are going on on the paedophilia page or wherever. Surely the editors from the paedophilia page know this! They would have recognised names otherwise! Thats why its so odd that they've all signed to a statement saying there's a coalition. The conjunction has occured I suspect partly because DP asked a variety of editors, also on the paedophilia or related pages, for help,[24], [25]' [26]and partly because DPeterson happened to have filed an RfC against VOB shortly before Shotwell filed one on AT so I suppose they may have thought this AT RfC had something to do with Jim Burton and VOB. They probably just saw it because it's two down from the RfC on DPeterson on the list of RfC's. If the AT editors were involved in the paedophilia dispute you may have a point, but as none of them are other than DP, what is the point of running the two together? I have no knowledge of, nor interest in disputes between unrelated editors on the paedophilia page.Fainites 10:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Formal Mediation

Per Addhoc's suggestion above, I'm going to file a formal mediation request. I've written more about this at [[REDIRECT Talk:Attachment Therapy archive 1#Formal_Mediation. Essentially I've asked for a list of the issues to be mediated. shotwell 00:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The issues you are raising are the same ones your group has raised in the past:

These very same issues were resolved previously and then raised again. See, for example, [[27]], [[28]], [[29]], [[30]] DPeterson^talk 01:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You said you wanted mediation. Is this no longer the case? shotwell 01:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I will agree to formal mediation, but not if it runs together an entirely unrelated dispute on a different page on different subjects. Fainites 10:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The outside view of Hipocrite are strongly supported by a broad and uninvolved group of editors...suggesting that this is not a "real" dispute, but is driven by an advocacy POV postion shared by a group (some of whom are leaders of ACT) JonesRD_talk 18:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I suggest we keep the mediation separate from the VoB case, SqueakBox 18:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur with SqueakBox; you'll be making life easier for the mediator if you keep the cases separate. Addhoc 18:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. DPeterson^talk 19:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but you (and now JonesRD above) have made comments here and elsewhere that seem to indicate you do not think mediation is appropriate. At this point I'm really only interested in knowing whether or not you'll agree to mediation, if you'll participate with an open mind, and if there are issues you'd like listed on the request. If you have a complaint about my conduct, think I'm part of a cabal, or anything of this nature, then just update and list the RfC you all wrote and signed about me a few months ago. In the meantime, it would be most effective to determine if you'll even agree to mediation. shotwell 21:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what the real point is of mediation since these issues have repeatedly been addressed, mediated and resolved in the past only the be raised again by the same group, loosly related the the ACT group and positions. As the following table shows, most of this group is only focused on this one article and a few related articles, raising the same issues repeatedly.

USER NAME:	% MAINSPACE article edits (Attachment Therapy, DDP, ACT, related):	% ARTICLE TALK PAGE EDITS (AT, DDP, ACT, related):	% EDITS TO RELATED USERS:
MAYPOLE	66% (8 of 12)	100% (30)	100% (8)
STOKERACE	NO MAINSPACE EDITS SINCE 9/06	100% (83)	100% (33)
MERCER	100% (8)	100% (61)	100% (33)
FATHERTREE	100% (13)	100% (31)	100% (18)
SHOTWELL	40% (67/168)	74% (222/300)	74% (93/125)
FAINITES	15% (124/826) (85% related to NLP 700/826)	44% (509/1150) (52% related to NLP)	54% (62/114)

JonesRD_talk 14:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So what??? This an article where I have knowledge about the subject and I can see that is is erroneous. Res ipsa loquitor. Is there a rule about single page editing? If I see another article as POV as this one and I have the knowledge I will edit it. FatherTree 15:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What an amazing waste of time! Have I come first or last? Whats the prize? I presume now from these results you're going to have to stop calling me a single issue editor or part of a group who only edits related pages? If it wasn't such a ridiculously hard struggle to try and get basic factual information from verified and credible sources into these articles against the dominant group I suspect our edit counts would be significantly lower! Fainites 16:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If they would put as much time into researching that facts as this bickering the article would improve. Fain, these 2 sides will never agree. What happens now. In really life it would go to court where an unbiased judge would make a decision. Can that happen here? FatherTree 18:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I find JonesRD and DPeterson notably absent from the above graph/chart. Lsi john 18:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

JonesRD, I don't know where you got those numbers.[31] At any rate, this is absolutely unrelated to mediation. shotwell 21:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The numbers are very revealing and do show that a number of editors have no history and that the group is clearly related and communicates with each other....important information. DPeterson^talk 22:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, based on the chart, DPeterson you haven't contributed anything at all. I can only imagine the things that a good psychologist could make of that. At the least, it shows that the chart is defective. Lsi john 22:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson, the table can't be revealing if it has come out of nowhere. I haven't looked at the other editors contribution histories, but I have made 3055 edits, approximately 300 of which are related to attachment therapy. Even if the numbers above made sense, I don't see why it's relevant. Some editors stick to a single set of articles -- it's no big surprise. In fact, some of the people named in this RfC have exclusively edited attachment therapy articles. This doesn't indicate anything other than the fact that they're interested in those topics. shotwell 22:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to appeal the examiners decision on my measly 15%. I'd have made alot more edits to all the articles if it wasn't for the fact that you revert everything unapproved by you. Can we have one of your lovely tables on the voting in your straw polls? Or how about which 'group' has made the most and quickest reverts to anybody elses edits?Fainites 23:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but I think your mainspace edits on the attachment therapy articles are much lower than 15%. [32] Perhaps the research methods used to make this table suffer from some sort of selection bias. shotwell 23:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a headache, the dog ate my homework and I had to go to my grandmothers funeral. have I passed now? Fainites 06:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Formal Mediation x 2

Can involved editors please indicate here whether or not they are prepared to go to formal mediation. Fainites 19:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The same old arguments keep being raised by the same related group of old and "new" users...they then bring in lots of other pages, mediation occurs, issues are ended, and then that group begins again. It is really tiresome. Can this related group continue to hold these pages hostage? SamDavidson 19:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that as a 'no' then shall I? Fainites 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• I support mediation. Just a quick note to say that previous mediations petered out after people were exhausted. Nothing was ever resolved. StokerAce 19:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes I am in favor. But can limit the time so we can move on to the next stage if there is one? Is there any authority here? FatherTree 19:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If mediation worked, there wouldn't be a next stage. shotwell 21:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• I am willing to give mediation a try, but I see FatherTrees point. If the mediation just stalls or is filibustered to the nth degree, there needs to be some kind of adjudication.Fainites 22:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it help to lay out the terms of adjudication as she is on wikipedia WP:ArbReq and WP:AE so the fall back position is clear? Adjudication is still voluntary (all parties would have to agree that all further disputes will be handled by arbitration) with an independent 'judge' who imposes a solution based on determination of the rights and obligations between the parties involved. Some WP:COI/N, rights and obligations could be pre-determined collaboratively between the parties to mediation at the moment - I read the lack of it in FatherTree's 'is there any authority here' and the pattern of recycling issues.--Ziji (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I think this belongs here. Clearly Mercer, and now Sarner, have a conflict of interest. The facts are:

1. Mercer and Sarner are leaders of ACT, which promites their books and materials and so
2. They have a vested financial intererst in this dispute here and on several other articles.

Their "careers" in this area are built on the advocacy work of ACT, which actively pursues and fans this dispute for it's own purposes. They benefit from this. RalphLender^talk 13:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Can any editor reading the above personal attack who might be remotely interested (unlikely but possible!) please go to the talkpage of attachment therapy where the matter is discussed in some detail, mainly from 'disingenuousness' onwards. [33] Fainites 15:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am remotely interested and I have done so. Deep democracy subsiding, ArbCom rising--Ziji (talk email) 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)