Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/DPeterson

Wikipedian filing request:



Other Wikipedians this pertains to:



Wikipedia pages this pertains to:



Questions:
Have you read the AMA FAQ?
 * Answer: Yes

'''How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)'''
 * Answer: There is a content dispute. Shotwell and StokerAce are also following in the "footsteps" of User:Sarner, who is a leader of the group, Advocates for Children in Therapy and with whom I have had disputes with in the past on these same pages.  Personal attack in that Shotwell continues to allude to me and several other editors who disagree with him as all being sock-puppets of user AWeidman.

'''What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.'''
 * Answer: I have engaged in extensive discussions on all the talk pages involved. There is an active mediation case.  I have either conducted or participated in several polls to get a consensus.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: Either resolution of the conflict and an end to the repititious discussions. Shotwell disagrees with me and many other editors, but appears unwilling to accept that his view is just not part of the consensus.  Maybe Arbitration is the only way to end this, but if we can avoid that I'd prefer that.  If we can compromise, that would be best.

Summary:
will list each of the disputes and give a brief summary below. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dyadic_Developmental_Psychotherapy&action=edit&section=18 and in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dyadic_Developmental_Psychotherapy&action=edit&section=19 he makes statements such as, "but I have serious issues with Hughes' previous abusive tendencies and I wonder if his child abuse has truly stopped." Furthermore, he continues to state there is only one reference and other such untrue statements.
 * 1) On the Advocates for Children in Therapy (ACT) article, Shotwell, Sarner, and StokerAce object to the statement that "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, although these groups do seek and use input from various other advocacy groups." Six references are provided, one to each prof. org website and one to a page of that org showing that they do accept input from other advocacy groups. The statement is factual and verifiable...but Shotwell objects, as did Sarner. Shotwell, continues to state, "Those on the other side of the dispute have said that this counts as a source because "if you click around on those websites, you'll see it is true"." but the second set of links go to specific pages.
 * 2) Also in the ACT article the groups defines Attachment therapy and a quote from their website is provided as a reference. He wants to change defines to describes...but the groups is defining the term.
 * 3) In Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (DDP), Shotwell disputes the statements concerning efficacy, evidential basis, and compliance with therapeutic guidelines. The article cites several publications by various authors in peer-reviewed professional publications to support those statements, including two empirical studies.   Shotwell's reasoning flawed and misleading, he states that his reasoning "is based on the fact that a single study does not reflect wide scientific consensus. The others claim that these claims are referenced by more than the single study, and I claim that the other references do not satisfy WP:RS or are not relevant to the specific claims."  He ignores the fact that there are several sources provided.
 * 4) In all articles, Shotwell misquotes and misrepresents the facts. In
 * 1) In the Candace Newmaker article there are various disputes. I believe that we're making uneasy progress on this article and slowly starting to work together. There are several paragraphs that have unsourced statements that Shotwell believes should be kept.
 * 2) Despite the mediator's strong statement to Shotwell and the results of an IP search finding no sock/meat puppetry, he continues to state, "I strongly suspect that these users are sock or meat puppets of AWeidman." Despite the fact that a rather detailed sock-puppet report was made. The recommendation was that I bring it to WP:RFCU and the RFCU was declined comment.
 * 3) Shotwell's actions, arguments, and even some phrases are identical with those of Sarner, who was blocked for a while from the Bowlby page, and StokerAce, who only came on the sceen while Sarner was away (after his being blocked) and only edits these pages.
 * 4) It feels to me like the articles are being held hostage by one editor, despite several (four or five) others who strongly disagree with Shotwell. He has not shown a willingness to consider that his opinions, while valid as his view, may just be either wrong, misguided, or just not accepted by the consensus of other editors.

Followup:
When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
 * Answer: Yes. It kept me on track and led to and end to the dispute.

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
 * Answer: Yes. The comments/suggestions were very helpful

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?
 * Answer: 5

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?
 * Answer: 5

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?
 * Answer: 5

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
 * Answer: I really cannot think of anything.

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
 * Answer: Watch my temper and control my reactivity more than I did.

AMA Information
Case Status: closed

Advocate Status:
 * Accept... Addhoc 21:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)