Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggested to DPeterson that cross-posting multiple open threads constituted canvassing (here), and recommended that he close two of the threads (here), DPeterson replied "' ...Since each one gets a variety of comments from a variety of editors it may make sense to keep all open... -DPeterson' (here)."

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

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

RalphLender, copied Shell's AN comment to the article talkpage here and falsely claimed: "'... the administrator did find that the issue of FatherTree knowinlgy making false accusations of sockpuppetry is real and valid .' -RalphLender"

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

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

In spite of his claims, there were THREE simultaneous threads on the noticeboards (two opened under the DPeterson account and one opened under the RalphLender account), in addition to the one he filed that 'rolled off' the board due to lack of interest. He used this same 'it disappeared' excuse to justify opening the multiple threads and subsequently refused to close them or ask that they be closed. Accidental opening could be written off on Good Faith. Refusing to close any of them, shows intention. Peace. Lsi john 18:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Response to DPeterson

Having never edited in any of the articles in question, nor defended any edits to them, his claim that I am a meatpuppet seems to be a last ditch effort to accuse as many people as possible. When combined with the fact that the committee members have access to my real identitiy (and I believe also that of FT2), MarkWood's claims are even further seen for what they are.
 * Response to MarkWood

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

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

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

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

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

"The group is led by Linda Rosa, RN, Executive Director; her spouse Larry Sarner, Administrative Director; and Jean Mercer, Chairman of Professional Board of Advisors, none of whom are licensed mental health providers."

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

The page also says:

"While ACT seeks to "mobilize" various groups, professional medical and psychiatric organizations such as the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers have not taken positions on ACT's work, nor is there any evidence that those groups use ACT's materials; although these groups do seek and use input from various other advocacy groups."

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

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

The Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy page was created as an advertisement by one of its practitioners
The DDP page was created by user AWeidman (here). As far as I know, it is undisputed that user AWeidman is Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidman. See the signature "Dr. Becker-Weidman" here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to JonesRD's QWERTY Keyboard Point
Below, JonesRD says that the spelling errors referred to by FT2 are simply common errors with the QWERTY keyboard. According to Wikipedia, QWERTY "is the most common modern-day keyboard layout on English-language computer and typewriter keyboards." Yet virtually the only people in the world to make these errors are DPeterson and the others mentioned by FT2, and they all make these errors frequently. I think the conclusion here is fairly obvious.

Response to MarkWood's allegations of "Coordinated Efforts"
MarkWood's allegations of "coordinated efforts" are without merit. Just because a few of us have agreed from time to time does not mean we have "coordinated" anything. I agree with some of DPeterson's edits on pages outside of attachment therapy, but that doesn't mean I am engaged in a "coordinated effort" with him.

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

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

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

DPeterson's comments on parent training
It is certainly true that the book "Creating capacity..." contains some parent-training materials. However, no "intervention fidelity" measure could be based on these. Some parent training protocols use videotapes of the parent-child interaction; some use earphones to give instructions to a parent being observed from another room. Are these part of the DDP training? Is there any assessment of the success of the training? How is the participation of the parent scheduled? In the "Book about me and Dr. Art", it was implied that a parent was not present during the session; is this a frequent situation?Jean Mercer 00:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

DPeterson has attacked my publications and ACT
DPeterson has also attacked my publications, stating incorrectly that "Attachment Therapy On Trial" was published by Advocates for Children in Therapy rather than by a legitimate academic press, and claiming that no one cites ACT materials, among which he has included this book; in fact, the book was cited by the Chaffin task force report, as well as receiving discussion and reviews in "Scientific American" and in "Contemporary Psychology" (Vol. 49, Suppl. 14) My later book,also noted on the ACT web site but also not published by the organization, "Understanding Attachment," was reviewed in the "Times Literary Supplement" (Oct. 6, 2006).

Unless an arbitrator specifically asks me to provide information to support my expertise or published work in this area, I do not intend to waste everyone's time doing so. On request, I will provide an up-to-date c.v.The one DPeterson and associates are using is several years old.

It does strike me as paradoxical that I'm said to have been able to build a career from my association with an organization that DPeterson and others claim to be unknown and without merit, and that the organization is said to have benefited from my publications, which are dismissed as trivial.

Response to SamDavidson's comments
Of course, Mercerj was me; I apologize but I must have accidentally used my college library user name. But I find it quite unbelievable that SamDavidson deliberately draws attention to an exchange full of personal attacks on me and my family and with no connection whatever to the substantive issues in the articles.

Response to RonJohnson's comments
RonJohnson seems to have forgotten my contribution to "human bonding", which one of his colleagues pointed out as an exception to my statement that I have not edited articles.

Re request for citations
The Child and Adolescent Mental Health publication reports the same weak study as the others. An interesting point in its abstract is the statement that children in the non-DDP/ alternative treatment group "got worse", which of course has been a common claim of Attachment Therapists.Jean Mercer 20:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Another interesting point is that the author has removed from the bibliography of the CAMH article a couple of references to Attachment Therapy-related authors, Nancy Thomas and Deborah Gray, who were included in the bibliography of the paper in the Sturt book. Same old multiple t-tests, though. I believe there are some other intriguing features of this publication, but I will investigate further before commenting.Jean Mercer 00:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm-- the paper includes the signature misspelling of the name Achenbach, which someone seems to think means a pain in the dorsal region.Jean Mercer 19:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Continued deceptive editing by DPeterson
DPeterson quickly altered my correction of a reference to the Craven & Lee article, with his edit claiming that these authors call DDP "evidence-based", whereas this term is not a part of the taxonomy used in the article. .Jean Mercer 15:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Respnse to Ralph Lender
I removed the reference to the B-W & Shell book because it has nothing to do with attachment theory. It may be suitable to have it in the Attachment therapy article. Actually, I've suggested that a good deal of the material in the "theory" article has nothing to do with the theory and needs to go elsewhere; the same is true for 'attachment measures" and "attachment in children". Speaking of the B-W and Shell book, I wonder whether RL can tell me what this statement on the copyright page means: "Any similarity between persons or places presented in this text and those of any particular reader are purely coincidental." Those what, please? And does this mean that the case vignettes are fictional?Jean Mercer 17:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My point, obviously, is the statement is meaningless. The places of any particular reader? In any case, this type of disclaimer, albeit more clearly constructed, is typical of fiction, not of professional instructional material. I believe the printer may be responsible for this, as there seems to have been no copy-editor.

Now as for the theory aspect: very little of the material in the Becker-Weidman & Shell book involves attachment theory as Bowlby put it together. The theory chapter alludes to attachment, uses some attachment concepts, and only once gives Bowlby more than a passing reference (and for that matter, the more extended reference is about therapy, not about theory). Although plenty of "attachment theorists" (soi-disant) like to bring Erikson into attachment, as the DDP chapter does, you'll notice that in fact Erikson's work has little directly to do with concepts such as the internal working model of social relationships which are the foundation of Bowlby's theory, or to the evolutionary and ethological ideas that are essential to Bowlby. Rather than being based on Bowlby, DDP owes much more theoretically to Daniel Stern, to Tronick, and to various students of intersubjectivity. That is all well and good, I don't criticize, and I thoroughly acknowledge that the chapter discusses the theory of DDP. But it does not have much to do with attachment theory, and that's why i removed it from that article and intend to replace it with other material such as the work of Everett Waters. Jean Mercer 21:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson's correction and other comments
I think the statement about Becker-Weidman's training was simply a mistake someone made, not an attack. I would not have thought Hughes was doing any training at the time when he would seem to have been involved with Evergreen-- I'm guessing the mid-'90s.Jean Mercer 23:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

In another comment, DPeterson states that the "usual care" was defined. A list of possible care approaches was provided, but there is no information about the number of children receiving the various treatments. In addition, one category, "intensive outpatient treatment" is completely undefined, and I have rarely seen this "intensive" term used except by "attachment therapists", making me wonder whether some of the children went to holding therapy. in any case,I am not able to find any statement about the reasons the "usual care group" went elsewhere after being evaluated at Becker-Weidman's office. I would be most interested if DPeterson can indicate where this is mentioned in any of the publications. Note: I refer here to the reasons for the decisions made by parents or others,which would be ascertained only by interviews with the relevant people, not to diagnostic categories or other reported characteristics of the children.This is an important issue, because one of the possible reasons is that Becker-Weidman or his staff decided not to accept certain children into treatment. The lack of transparency in this report makes it impossible to assess the variables confounded with the treatment condition. Jean Mercer 23:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As for DPeterson's belief that leadership in ACT should parallel that in NAMI or ACT-UP-- it would appear from this argument that the group's leaders should be adopted or foster children, not mental health professionals.Mentally handicapped individuals do not run ARC, and children cannot run ACT. As for the need for MHPs, I might point out that if mental health professionals had many years ago taken on the responsibility of outlawing holding therapy, there would never have been any need for us to establish ACT. I personally asked Daniel Hughes to stand up and work against holding, and to explain his rationale for changing his mind; he did not do so, nor has Arthur Becker-Weidman participated in any part of the fight against coercive therapies. As a matter of fact, a mental health professional who was a valued part of ACT was driven out of his profession by lawsuits brought by coercive therapy proponents. Let Hughes and Becker-Weidman offer support to their erstwhile colleague rather than attacking ACT, and we will have the desired mental health professional's input.Jean Mercer 00:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that DPeterson insists once more on his view and declines to answer my questions. I have the articles right in front of me. I don't see the things I want to know. Can DPeterson specify pages where these items appear?Jean Mercer 00:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Further remarks of DPeterson
I have a number of books and peer-reviewed articles too, but that doesn't seem to be a valid argument to the effect that whatever I say is correct, or a reason to link every article on child development to some publication of mine. No doubt DPeterson would object strongly, and with justification, if I went through all those articles and added my book "Understanding Attachment" as a suitable reference.What's sauce for the goose, yes? References and links should have some rational connection to the article.Jean Mercer 00:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Query
Why are we doing this squabbling? Is this part of arbitration? It seems to me it's a complete waste of time, and I'm not doing it any more unless a specific question is put to me.Jean Mercer 14:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson et al. engage in puppetry

 * DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavison, JohnsonRon, and User:MarkWood provide unfailing support for each other. This support extends to inane issues such as redundant see also links. Most importantly, these accounts have uniform opinions regarding Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (DDP). Each account has either inserted or defended claims concerning DDP into a large number of articles. (e.g. Reactive Attachment Disorder, Child welfare, Psychotherapy, Child abuse, Adoption, PTSD, Cognitive behavioral therapy)
 * The accounts of DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavison, JohnsonRon, and User:MarkWood were all created in May-June of 2006.   .  At this time there was mediation concerning John Bowlby between AWeidman and Sarner. This dispute centered around whether or not Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy ought to be mentioned in the article. Each of the accounts named above immediately involved themselves with the dispute and sided with AWeidman.  In the following July, they all participated in this afd, which is demonstrative of their similar editing patterns.
 * Prior to account creation, there had been a handful of ip editors who sided with AWeidman. They made a small number of contributions, but each ip resolves to the the New York area where AWeidman's clinic is based. 68.66.160.22866.238.216.11966.238.222.3866.238.223.245. Both AWeidman and DPeterson have added their signatures to edits by 68.66.160.228. The other ip editors made one or two edits, each a WP:COI allegation against User:Sarner.
 * DPeterson has also added his sig to an edit by 66.238.222.38 (ip mentioned in the above point).
 * The accounts in question make highly similar syntax errors. For example, they very frequently use too many apostrophes when bolding text. Additionally, they have previously shown a uniform inability to properly link to policies. For example, they link to Verifiable instead of Verifiability or Assume good faith instead of WP:AGF. Since the time this has been pointed out, they have varied in their ability to properly link to the wikipedia namespace. See the suspected sock puppet report for some example diffs.
 * This set of accounts uses their large numbers to create false consensus. Note, for example, the astounding number of straw polls set up by DPeterson, et al. Some examples include:

DPeterson et al. will not discuss

 * This set of accounts uses their large numbers to set up echo chambers of irrelevance. This behavior stalls discussion and has been occurring with increasing frequency. See, for example, how this discussion degenerates into repeated WP:COI allegations. The same thing happens here and here.
 * This group of accounts subverts meaningful conversation by parroting each others' arguments and ignoring legitimate concerns. In this discussion, for example, they decide to remove an important source on the basis of an amazon.com user review. Then they refuse to address my primary concern about using an amazon.com user review to remove a source . Another example can be found in this lengthy discussion. I started with points worthy of reasonable responses. Instead, I got responses such as this and this. The entirety of the previous discussions consisted of them repeatedly saying something along the line of "these sources are verifiable, we have already addressed this". This is characteristic of their talk page tactics. Essentially, they all repeat "You're wrong and we've already told you you're wrong". This behavior is seen across the talk pages of Advocates for Children in Therapy, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Attachment disorder, Attachment Therapy, Candace Newmaker, and John Bowlby.
 * Another talk page tactic is to misrepresent sources during discussions. For example, here DPeterson heavily paraphrases a source and dramatically changes the author's intent. (Original source at Sagepub). This has been repeated by the other accounts. This misrepresentation of sources commonly occurs in the article namespace (for example, Advocates for Children in Therapy).
 * These talk page tactics are coupled with the tendency to immediately revert changes they do not like. In reverting, they refuse to address concerns or they make references to WP:OWN and WP:CON. The histories of the relevant articles make this allegation clear; see two characteristic reverts here and here.

Smear campaign
DPeterson has attempted to run a disingenuous smear campaign against FT2 in response to his involvement as an administrator. FT2 has never advanced a position regarding the content of the attachment therapy articles and this should be perfectly obvious to DPeterson. Some examples:
 * Add FT2 to involved parties (NLP is clearly unrelated to this dispute)
 * Submitted evidence below (Note that he "received" the information. The information most likely comes from HeadleyDown, future collusion between these two sock-masters is a scary thought)
 * WP:AN post (same content as above)
 * FT2 is part of a "group"
 * FT2 and others are "involved"...

Response to RalphLender

 * RalphLender states that these issues have been resolved and "re-raised by the same group of editors when the outcome was not to their liking". He uses the following three mediation attempts as supporting evidence.
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-21 John Bowlby: ended because the mediator resinged.
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-18 Sarner's reverts-edits of Bowlby and Candace Newmaker: (initiated by DPeterson) was merged into Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07 Advocates for Children in Therapy.
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07 Advocates for Children in Therapy: ended because I withdrew.
 * DPeterson, JonesRD, JohnsonRon, and MarkWood have drawn similarly erroneous and improbable conclusions from the failed mediation attempts.
 * RalphLender claims that an administrator raised the issue of StokerAce and Sarner being sock-puppets. This allegation was made by non-administrator User:Nwwaew (the mediator in that case). This accusation was made on the basis that Sarner and Stokerace use all capital edit summaries. The edit summaries were merely the section headers to which they were responding --- section headers by DPeterson et al.
 * RalphLender claims that his AN/I post was "different" than DPeterson's. He previously acknowledged that he copy/pasted DPeterson's AN/I post.

Response to MarkWood
MarkWood has copied his evidence section from the other sections and provided arbitrary diffs. (e.g. this diff).

Response to JohnsonRon

 * JohnsonRon provides an edit count tally for each editor and states "For each editor I list the article or talk page and edits to that, along with unrelated edits". His table indicates I have edited 106 articles outside of attachment therapy related pages. I have made roughly 3300 edits. JonesRD has previously supplied a seemingly random edit count assessment. Despite the incomprehensible nature of this table, JonesRD and DPeterson thought the table was informative.

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

AWeidman, the main proponent of Dyadic Develomental Psychotherapy, edited in his own name and as IP 68.66.160.228 from 4.12.05  He and DPeterson, signed in incorrectly by linking their names. DPeterson has also edited as IP 68.66.160.228   Here IP68.66.160.228, supporting DDP, claims to be a ‘disinterested person and licensed therapist providing services for children and adolescents’ 

Methods = reverts, insistence that edits have to be agreed by them, polls, repetition rather than answering points raised, personal attacks and accusations of vandalism and attacks on other editors motivation. Diffs can be provided, but it's evident from talkpages.

Aim = DDP presented as mainstream, evidence based etc. Becker-Weidman presented as mainstream, approved by Taskforce etc. AT and theoretical base misrepresented,obscured and sidelined, undefined. ACT rubbished.

Use of articles to promote DDP
Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy

Started by AWeidman, (who subsequently claimed copyright) 

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

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

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

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

'Reactive Attachment Disorder Article'

Example of effect these editors have on articles they 'own'. Until 4.12.05 the article contained a 'controversy' section dealing with diagnosis and treatments of ‘attachment therapy’ based around the Institute for Attachment and Child Development, well known within the attachment therapy controversy.  4th December 2005, IP 68 removed mention of IACD and inserted DDP in glowing terms as standard, successful and evidence-based. Also that other treatments for Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) are ineffective.  also a link to Becker-Weidmans clinic  Despite efforts of individual editors it looks similar today, defended by the named 6 editors. 

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

DPeterson et al frequently breach rules on sources
Examples of alterations of quotations.
 * Removal of section on age regression from a quote from a source stating age regression is key to AT. (Becker-Weidman was criticised by the Taskforcefor use of age regression).


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


 * Repeated insertion of 'Becker-Weidman' into a paraphrase/quote from the Taskforce by SamDavidson, DPeterson and JohnsonRon. When I complained, the quote was altered, claimed to be not a quote and Becker-Weidman reinserted in two places. Misleading impression created that Becker-Weidman is mainstream/quoted approvingly by the Taskforce. They take turns to revert. I was then warned by DPeterson for 3RR.       Consensus is claimed.


 * Inserting lists of mainstream, evidence based therapy's, with DDP included (against 'consensus')

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


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

cf Taskforce quote "Proponents of controversial attachment therapies commonly assert that their therapies, and their therapies alone, are effective for children with attachment disorders and that more traditional treatments are either ineffective or harmful (see, e.g., Becker-Weidman, n.d.-b; Kirkland, n.d.; Thomas, n.d.-a)."
 * Here IP68 adds material that baldly states a specific criticism by the Taskforce did not refer to Becker-Weidman when it specifically did.

Examples of misrepresentation of other sources.
 * Claiming or implying Craven&Lee said DDP was evidence-based. Removing accurate representations.


 * Resisting accurate representation of Craven&Lee whilst continuing to insist it says DDP is evidence based.


 * Mischaracterisation. Calling Prior and Glaser, published by Royal College of Psychiatrists Research and Training Unit ‘polemic’.JonesRDDPeterson


 * 2006 cites attacked as ‘out of date’.


 * Claiming historical material in history section is 'out of date'. Voting to delete.


 * Claiming Taskforce extracts are slander.


 * Repeatedly arguing AT is synonymous with rebirthing. False claim ACT site states this.. ( scroll past list of AT therapies to explanation).


 * Example insisting ‘evidence-based’ means 'published in a peer reviewed journal'.


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


 * Conducting poll to keep OR, wrong statement about ACT.

Examples of obfuscation of nature of AT


 * clarification of nature of AT and ‘evidence base ‘ of treatments by Aplomado, reverted by DPeterson to repeat claim AT as a term has ‘no utility’ and to position DDP as evidence based/in line with relevant standards.
 * 31st July JohnsonRon reverts edit stating AT is controversial, to version saying it doesn’t really mean anything.RalphLender adds to ‘AT doesn’t mean anything’ approach.Description of AT as 'smoke' supported by insistence on the repetitious inclusion of lists of publications that don't define AT.
 * From 3rd May 2007, DPeterson. "The APSAC report does not describe "Attachment Therapy", it uses the term "attachment therapy" This absurd capital letters argument arises again and again.
 * Here AWeidman copy/pastes DPetersons 'delete' proposal including the claim that AT is different if it doesn't have capital letters.

interfering with talkpage edits and personal attacks

 * Proposed sections of AT article posted at 12.11. Between 00.28 and 00.51 DPeterson rewrote it, removing much of the new material and inserting old material. Then invites other editors to comment on a proposal they now can't see.

 Replacing this with this  running together clearly set out Taskforce citations of Becker-Weidman. (NB including spacing between words)
 * Obscuring editors points by removing spacing.

 repeated ad nauseum. Also constant 'reminders' to others about WP:AGF and personal attack if an editor disagrees with them.
 * Personal attacks.


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

Use of idiosyncratic language by AWeidman, DPeterson and socks
"There you go again"

DPeterson AWeidman JohnsonRon RalphLender (I also found one other user not part of this group using it once)

Use of not for no. DPeterson RalphLenderIP 68.66.160.228 (17th May 2006)

Response DPetersons section on Fainites
DPetersons claim about talkpage edits is misleading. My proposed article paragraphs posted on 13th April were the first such proposals. There was no prior agreement as to how this was to be commented on. DPeterson didn't comment.He almost completely rewrote them overnight. I replaced the original. The suggestion that interspersed comments be done in italics came later as they were rendering proposed edits unreadable. Fainites 22:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, I state that altering another editors proposals in this way is editing in bad faith. Fainites 21:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to FT2
Interference with editors edits is peculiar to this group. Excessive indenting (including proposed article sections) and the removal of spacing put in to highlight quotations or seperate points. RalphLenderJonesRD  JohnsonRon  DPeterson

Response to JonesRD

 * The list of 12 links to odd editors to show 'this dispute is largely driven by ACT and their supports' contains two to Raspors' block, two to talkpage comments by Raspor, two to User:KipMiller who's few talkpage edits on John Bowlby bear no relation to ACT's POV, and two to IP 69.211.150.60 who appears to have had very little involvement and has mostly edited elsewhere.


 * Despite repeated assertions of JeanMercers alleged WP:COI, none of the 6 editors have ever taken it to WP:COI notice board.

Response to RalphLender and others

 * It is disingenuous to say this is a content dispute driven by the advocacy of ACT and its leaders. There's no evidence that other editors here are supporters of ACT or even hold all the same views except insofar as they oppose the activities of the named 6 editors.


 * ACT, Sarner and Mercer have never been in a position to 'own' or 'control' any articles nor prevent the activities of the 6 editors, even when their own reputations are savagely attacked. They are not driving anything. They have always been on the back foot.


 * It is not ACT who started the ACT page, or indeed the DDP page. The ACT page was started by DPeterson and 'owned' by that group and has always denigrated ACT and its 'leaders'. Furthermore AWeidman was involved in total support of that group despite his disputes off Wiki with Jean Mercer.


 * RalphLenders last addition shows fifteen articles in which this minor and controversial therapy was advertised, usually as evidence based, (sometimes the only evidence based treatment)by this group of editors.Fainites barley 21:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to LsiJohn

 * When filing the ANI's, DPeterson also accused Fathertree of WP:CANVASS, a claim found to be unjustified by admin Shell.
 * DPeterson has canvassed himself., ,   Note the request also to take part in an RfC.
 * Three of these editors (including two from paedophile pages on which DPeterson edits) accused the attachment editors opposing DPeterson of being in a coalition with "those who condone paedophilia".
 * Note also this is signed by MarkWood, JonesRD, RalphLender, SamDavidson and JohnsonRon, all of whom must have known that none of the opposing editors on the attachment pages had anything to do with the paedophile pages. This unpleasant and baseless attack may have contributed to the effective stalling of the RfC. Fainites 23:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to SamDavidson
Re accusation of meatpupptry by Sarner. 6 of the 8 diffs are on talkpages and all are plainly continuations of exchanges.
 * This diff from Sarners talkpage says 'this is my talkpage'.
 * This diff says 'see my comments above'.

Forgetting to sign in occasionally is hardly meat or sockpuppetry. This is a patently false allegation.


 * Re most recent diffs claiming I am disruptive, the diffs do not show this. I suppose using the phrase 'intellectual dishonesty' could be so, but it's difficult to know how else to describe inserting a reference (Becker-Weidman) into a quote which wasn't in the original( the Taskforce report) Fainites barley 22:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The diff to show me pushing the ACT POV shows the opposite . I say it's controversial whether DDP is AT. ACT say it's a sure thing. Fainites barley 23:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Re mediation. The discussion round the diff shows the context of discussions about whether to mediate or not. Once mediation was proposed it was the 6 named editors who showed reluctance. Fainites barley 10:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to MarkWood

 * This is an obvious amalgam of other peoples evidence and allegations. The diffs provided do not support the allegations made. cf MarkWoods entries on the workshop page which are also mostly copies of opposing editors proposals.


 * If "we" own and control the pages, why do they stand as adverts for DDP and Becker-Weidman? (The AT page doesn't only because it was accidently blocked by WillBeback at the wrong time.)


 * Raspor made 12 comments on the AT talkpage, Jan. 2007 and two edits to AT, November 2006 (both swiftly reverted by DPeterson). His edits and interests related to the more sensational side of AT and US court cases. He's made about 700 odd re. intelligent design/evolution.

Response to JohnsonRon

 * Statement "These editors edit only or predominantly the articles under ‎dispute" is untrue of myself and Shotwell. cf similar, accusation from MarkWood.
 * Raspor edited on intelligent design/evolution. His contribution to attachment issues was minimal. This is not recorded by JohnsonRon
 * Maypole was a sock of HeadleyDown. His involvement was minimal. I believe he followed me from the NLP pages where I had had several run-ins with him. Initially he supported Dpeterson et al then 'changed sides'. I have since had an e-mail from him saying puppeteering is 'a joy'. DPeterson et al know Maypole is HeadleyDown, not a sock of ACT.
 * KipMiller appears to be Kingsley Miller in real life (liniked website). He's a 'fathers rights' campaigner, author of books and considers Bowlby's theory to be deeply flawed. This has nothing to do with ACT or their 'POV'.
 * IP 206.81.65.148 appears to be Sarner. The bit where he says on Sarners talkpage 'this is my talkpage' is a clue.
 * The involvement of HealthConsumerAdvocate and PsyhcPHd was both short and unsuccessful. If these were socks designed to pack pages and create false consensus etc etc, why aren't they still around?Fainites barley 16:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to RalphLenders Response
This aspect is not a legitimate content dispute but plain misrepresentation of sources. The main Taskforce report came out before Becker-Weidmans 2006 study. It cited 2005 material, contrary to what has been alleged, and cited Becker-Weidman twice from 2004 as follows:

"Becker-Weidman, A. (n.d.-a). Attachment therapy: What it is and what it isn’t. Retrieved June 4, 2004, from www.attachmentdisorder .net/Dr._Art_Treatment.htm Becker-Weidman, A. (n.d.-b). Dyadic developmental psychotherapy: An attachment-based therapy program. Retrieved July 2, 2004, from www.center4familydevelop.com/therapy.htm Berliner, L. (2002, Fall). Why caregivers turn to “Attachment Therapy”.

Becker-Weidman was cited 3 times as an example of what the Taskforce criticise AT for. Claiming to be effective or the only effective therapy and that 'traditional' therapies do not work, use of age regression and claiming to be 'evidence-based'. Following an open letter from Becker-Weidman in 2006 the Taskforce examined his 2006 study in their November 2006 reply. They maintained their criticisms of Becker-Weidman, in particular claiming 'evidence-base'. Those supporting Becker-Weidman ignore or seriously misrepresent this, despite full quotes and references having been supplied on the talkpage. It is amazing that these socks continue to peddle the same misinformation even now at ArbCom. See This is plain misrepresentation of straightforward, notable sources. Fuller quotes can be provided. Fainites barley 22:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(When their claims as to what these sources said were so wide of the mark I offered to e-mail copies of the sources. None of the 6 named editors took this up.) Fainites barley 23:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(Also this is not 'supporting ACT POV'. The Taskforce didn't entirely agree with ACT.) Fainites barley 10:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

All of the 3 points of criticism by the Taskforce are paralleled in the evidence here - interfering with quotes about age regression- claiming to be evidence based - inserting statements in articles that DDP is effective or the only effective therapy and that traditional therapies do not work. Fainites barley 14:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Re request for citations
Re the claim by RalphLender that there are '3 empirical studies' by Becker-Weidman after the APSAC report. DPeterson provided citations. No's 1. and 3. appear to be the same study - his 4 year follow up of the one group of children. This is the study specifically examined by APSAC in their November 2006 follow up. No. 2. is a version in a book by Stanley Sturt. This is a typical piece of misrepresentation by these editors. Fainites barley 17:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to DPetersons paragraph on NLP
A very bizarre, unsubstantiated set of allegations with no diffs that support it. Please ignore this if you're ignoring the allegations.

Fainites barley 16:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never been and still am not 'pro-NLP'.
 * I have not edited in conjunction with FT2 on NLP, other than as disclosed in 'Workshop'
 * The critical science views are not 'obscured', they dominate the middle section of the article.
 * I don't understand where it is alleged I am keen to avoid presentation of NLP as pseudoscientific on AT. This peculiar allegation was recently made by HeadleyDown. Aside from the fact that I am on record in several places as saying NLP is a pseudoscience, what is the connection with AT? Diffs please.
 * The table shown as 'OR' is not and never has been in the article. It was part of a piece of work to ascertain whether NLP had had any original ideas at all or had nicked the whole lot, and how far those parts of NLP that had been disproved by science affected the range of techniques. Only properly sourced sources for copied NLP techniques habe gone in the article.
 * Most recent damage to refs etc was probably done by a madly pro NLP sock of Headleys called SteveB110.
 * This whole paragraph reeks of HeadleyDown as to language, agenda and misinformation. He is still active in canvassing editors behind the scenes and spreading misinformation about myself and other editors.
 * This is an example of unsubstantiated personal attack, trying to deflect attention from issues on attachment.
 * The fact that this is the only substantial edit I'ver ever seen from DPeterson and his socks that doesn't contain distinctive spelling errors and grammar, and is on a subject on which DPeterson et al have shown very little historical interest lends support to the suggestion that it was drafted by somebody else. Surely even DPeterson knows by now 'Ralph' is spelt as such and not 'Ralf"?

Response to DP's 'Further Evidence'
All the matters DPeterson repeatedly reinserts into the two articles have been discussed ad nauseum. They are either in breach of WP:PA, WP:NPOV, 'pointy', misrepresentations of sources, irrelevent and/or misleading or peculiar (like insisting on attachment therapy having capital letters). None of these entries would ever have lasted 5 minutes in these articles over the last year if they had not been supported by a sock army and most of them have been raised in this ArbCom. I have tried incorporating some of the points he wishes to make in an appropriate form to no effect. See also specifically misleading edit summary, after the first block expired.Fainites barley 23:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Re "ACT further vehicle"
The edits removed/reverted were the same misleading and inaccurate edits of using capitals for attachment therapy because ACT do (!), pretending Craven and Lee supercedes the Taskforce, that the Taskforce didn't see Becker-Weidmans 2006 studies, claiming non-existent evidence base etc etc. All inserted without thought for accuracy, sense or grammar. Also a peculiar but persistant edit of misrepresenting the source of Speltz's example despite talkpage posts to say this is what Speltz says. Fainites barley 19:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to DPeterson "Contentious editing"
Re DPetersons link to User:FatherTree, []
 * The correct timetable is APSAC Report, Craven and Lee, Becker-Weidmans last study and then the APSAC Reply. DPeterson et al originally edited as if the Reply did not exist or said the opposite to what it said, and that therefore the Taskforce never saw Becker-Weidmans study. Subsequently he has edited to obscure that fact. My edits make the sources clear. DPetersons obscured them.
 * Repeat of point - Craven and Lee do not call it 'evidence based'.
 * The edit to Speltz was inaccurate, and repeated. Speltz states clearly where the material came from, as set out in my edit to which FatherTree reverted.
 * The inaccurate statement of 'evidence base' was inserted in a passage about whether or not DDP is an attachment therapy and was therefore out of place.
 * Sources were requested for the statement that ACT articles frequently appear on Quackwatch and none was provided.
 * Lists of publications that don't define attachment therapy are irrelevent and tedious. It's outside the mainstream. None of the mainstream publications would define it.
 * It appears to be mainly ACT who use capitals for attachment therapy. It is not a proper noun. For a year the DPeterson group edited and argued to the effect that APSAC and ACT were talking about different phenomena because ACT used capitals and APSAC didn't. To this end the attachment therapy article and others have freqquently had all references to attachment therapy edited with capitals. This was part of the attempt to portray attachment therapy as extreme, limited, or at times not really existing at all.Fainites barley 23:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson now claims I have failed to address his points. I have - see above. Fainites barley 22:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to allegations of misrepresentation

 * I have set out clearly exactly what material the Taskforce had for their report, from their own citation list, relating to Becker-Weidman. This is above in my response to RalphLender. I also made it clear that they only saw Becker-Weidmans 2006 study for their Reply. But they did see it and deal with it in their Reply.
 * DPetersons huge list is disingenuous. There was study in 2004 and a follow up in 2006, published in 2006 in a peer reviewed journal. Publishing the same thing all over the place doesn't increase its validity. It's bizarre to suggest that sight of a proponents book and articles would make any difference to the Taskforce.
 * I have removed inappropriate and inaccurate references advertising DDP as, for example, 'evidence based', the only 'evidence based' therapy etc etc over a range of articles.
 * Here is an example of what articles look like and how they stagnate when owned by this group.Its wrong, seriously misleading, presents a controversial view as if it were mainstream and exists mainly to support the promotion of a highly controversial type of diagnosis and DDP as a treatment for it. DDP is mentioned 6 times in this short article, including in the introduction. It is described as evidence based, based on research, non-controversial and 'endorsed' by various names and in line with APSAC recommendations - all claims which are either plain wrong or at best questionable. A look at the 500 diffs history page will clearly show how the page was dominated by the 6 editors and how other editors gave up and how it stagnated. Their articles were rail-roaded through by weight of numbers, now known to be socks.

Response to DPeterson re Paedophilia
I do not know about the paedophile articles, but in relation to his comments about "paedophiles and their supporters", DPeterson on the attachment pages habitually accused anybody who disagreed with him of being "supporters" of ACT (or indeed meats or socks) regardless of fact, common sense or indeed where the information came from (ie the Taskforce Report). RalphLender also followed this approach. As pointed out above, his socks also accused those who opposed him on attachment of being in a coalition with those who condone paedophilia. He also supported attempts to have the two issues run together. although he knew very well they were unrelated, he having brought an RfC against someone on the paedophile pages.Fainites barley 08:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to RalphLender on FT2
Diffs please for where I have 'worked with FT2' and for how this 'group' is closely allied with an administrator (assuming you meant FT2 and not your 'group'). Also can you clarify please re the 'congruent' statement whether or not you actually calling FT2 and those 'allied' with him (ie me) pro-paedophiles? Straight talking please.89.248.131.4 11:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry, that was me Fainites barley 11:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Diffs please RalphLender of me and FT2 "working together". 89.248.131.4 22:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying there's loads of diffs and it's not 'productive' to keep repeating them is not enough. I can't see loads of diffs showing FT2 and I working together. Given that you're using this 'working together' to imply a pro-paedophile agenda, evidence is quite important. Diffs please. Fainites barley 16:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Diffs please of a) this supposed 'congruency' between Zoophilia edits and anything on the paedophile pages, and b) any involvement by anybody else here on Zoophilia other then FT2. This is an evidence page. Fainites barley 22:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to response to request for diffs showing FT2 and Fainites 'working together'
You say 'here is just one more example'. To date you've provided two. The first is when FT2 came to give editorial advice in response to you and RalphLender arriving on NLP. The second, given now, [] is the substantial editorial note I've already mentioned in workshop, put in by FT2 after the removal of the sock of a long term abuser. The only contribution of any note from FT2 during the period I worked extensively on the NLP article, until DPeterson and RalphLender arrived. Fainites barley 23:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at diffs recently supplied, apart from the two mentioned above, they all show FT2 working on NLP related articles up to July 2006. My first edit was 9th December 2006. QED. I question the motive behind continually repeating this patently false allegation, particularly it being repeated as if it were an accepted fact, 'already' shown previously or elsewhere - an already noted tactic. Fainites barley 13:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to DPetersons latest allegations re NLP

 * the allegation was that FT2 and I 'worked together', 'extensively' on NLP. I see now it is reduced to 'have a common interest' in the rather obvious absence of any co-editing by me and FT2 apart from his already mentioned February RfC comments.
 * The statement that I am an NLP practitoner is not only untrue but it also virtually proves contact between DPeterson and HeadleyDown. Headley Down, in an act of spite following my 'outing' some of his socks, created a fake membership of an NLP site in my name claiming to be an NLP practitoner and appearing to recruit meatpuppets. He then e-mailed various editors with this link. When I had the fake membership closed he then e-mailed various editors saying I had been thrown out for recruiting. As I know the names of a number of those he e-mailed, none of whom believed him for a moment, it seems likely that the source of DPetersons 'information' is Headley Down who is known to carry out vendettas against editors who oppose him. I have already offered to provide proof of identity to the arbitrators which would close this ridiculous issue once and for all. (I also wonder how this silly allegation squares with being on record in several places on wiki as having said NLP is a pseudoscience!) Fainites barley 21:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented under the name "DPeterson"
First, I would like to respond to the accusations by editors User:StokerAce, User:Lsi john, User:Jean Mercer, User:Fainites.

User: StokerAce makes several accusations
Mercer acknowledges that she is not a licensed mental health professional: [] [] The material published about Sarner and Mercer on the ACT site clearly does not say they are licensed and being licensed is a notable credential. [] [], [], [], [], [], [], [], This is a notable fact regarding the credentials of the leaders of Advocates for Children in Therapy and belongs in an article about ACT.
 * 1) . ACT is a fringe group. I believe that may be an accurate characterization.  By fringe I mean a group that is not part of the mainstream mental health professional or advocacy community with a large base of members, such as the American Psychological Association or the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, among others.  In addition, no organization or group cites ACT or uses its materails.  It advocates positions that seem extreme, such as, “ACT works to mobilize parents, professionals, private and governmental regulators, prosecutors, juries, and legislators to end the physical torture and emotional abuse that is AT” [] (retrieved 07 July 2007).  There is no evidence that any mainstream professional body uses or supports ACT’s positions.  This content issue has been raised for quite sometime and since the leaders of ACT (Mercer and Sarner) have not provided any such evidence, I think it may be reasonable to make the statement I did.
 * 2) . ACT is not mainstream. See above comment.
 * 3) . Not licensed mental health professionals.
 * 1) . Various major professional groups use the input of some advocacy groups and not ACT. This is a statement of fact. For example, the American Psychological Associaiton does advocacy and uses materials from various other groups [], as do other groups [].  In addition, ACT does not list any collaborations with any other advocacy groups or professional organizations.  [], yet they do list and describe all their work.

{User:Lsi john makes several accusations}
Accusations: [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FatherTree&diff=prev&oldid=140833107]]
 * 1) .Opened three AN/I. I opened two, if I recall correctly.  One in the wrong location.  Since comments were appearing in both locations I left both up and assumed that an administrator would fix this if it required fixing.  This is precisely what occurred.
 * 2) . FatherTree knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry.  User:FatherTree has made several of my being a sockpuppet, despite knowing that there have been two searches into that “question.”

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

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

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

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

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

Further Evidence of Fainites misrepresentations
[] this data was provided on the evidence page in detail.

Here [] Fainites discusses the deletion of material about Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and Theraplay, from an article Reactive attachment disorder. This is clearly ACT POV. Theraplay is an internationally recognized treatment. []. His deletion is contentious and clearly provocative. DDP has several emprical studies and several books describing the treatment and its efficacy.

in the edit [] Fainites deletes a valid reference by Dr. Becker-Weidman, deletes the statement " Two important studies found that "usual treatments" for RAD are ineffective, while the intervention under investigation, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (10) (11), was effective . (see "Treatment for Children with Trauma-Attachment Disorders: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy", Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. 23(2), April 2006). There is a significant body of literature on the assessment and treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder which apply to the treatment of this condition. " despite its being supported by verifiable citations, and deletes the entire section about DDP, in accord with the ACT POV. This deletion is clearly POV pushing and ignores the strong evidence to support its inclusion in the article.

Fainities misrepresents the order of publication of APSAC and the Becker-Weidman studies. APSAC published its report in 2006 and had no access to the book by Dr. Becker-Weidman or the three empirical studies published by him. The APSAC article was published in 2006 and only cites material frorm 2004 and 2005 and before. It did not review any of the following: 1. Creating Capacity for Attachment: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy in the Treatment of Trauma-Attachment Disorders. Arthur Becker-Weidman, Ph.D., & Debra Shell, (Eds.) Woods N Barnes publishing, Oklahoma City, OK, 2005.

2. “Treatment for Children with Trauma-Attachment Disorders: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy,” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. Vol. 23 #2, April 2006, 147-171.

3. “Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy: A multi-year Follow-up,” in, New Developments In Child Abuse Research, Stanley M. Sturt, Ph.D. (Ed.) Nova Science Publishers, NY, pp. 43 -- 61, 2006.

4. “Activities to Facilitate Attachment,” Attachment and the Adopted Child. #48, p. 7, 2006.

5. “What is Attachment?” In Adoption Now, Adoption UK (Ed.), Adoption UK, Banbury, Oxen, UK, pp. 14-17, 2006.

6. “Who is at risk?” In Adoption Now, Adoption UK (Ed.), Adoption UK, Banbury, Oxen, UK, pp. 17-19, 2006.

7. “Treatment For Children with Reactive Attachment Disorder: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy,” Child and Adolescent Mental Health. Published article online: 21-Nov-2006 doi: 10.1111/j.1475-3588.2006.00428.x (web version of print version).

Fainites misrepresents in his statement the order of publication and implies that APSAC did review these material, when it is impossible for them to have done so.

Additional details
[] here we see his description of the therapy as little known. Yet there are four books on the subject, at least half a dozen peer-reviewed journal articles, and it is a treatment that has invited presentations at various national and international professional conferences as well as brought in for training at many mental health clinics, child welfare agencies, etc. The material is relevant and germain to the subject areas and topics and worthy of mention per wiki policy statements.

In this recent series of edits you can see that Fainites is following the ACT view by deleting all referenes to Dr. Becker-Weidman, while adding and maintaining references to Mercer's book which is not empirical in nature, but is merely a polemic restatement of ACT's views. []

{User:FT2 makes several accusations}
The question of being a sockpuppet was researched twice, with the result being “unfounded” each time [], [].

The comment I removed was done "early" in my experience with Wikipedia, before I understood the proper procedure for addressing what appeared to be WP:Personal attacks and inappropriate comments. That was an error on my part.

[{WP:COI]] regarding Mercer and Sarner
I would have to agree with JonesRD regarding this COI. They are leaders of the advocacy group [{Adovcates for Children in Therapy]{, which has a specific POV that they push, regardless of evidence to the contrary, as Jones RD points out. Their edits to all these pages, Bowlby, Attachment Therapy, Candace Newmaker, etc are driven by their POV and as such they should be sanctioned. DPeterson talk 00:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Material by FT2 regarding SamDavidson
FT2's table shows that nearly all, in some cases all, of the edits of User:Sarner, User:Jean Mercer, User:StokerAce, User:Shotwell, User:FatherTree, User:Fainities, User:HealthConsumerAdvocate, User:PsychPHD, User:Raspor, User:Mercerj, among others, are on the related pages. DPeterson talk 00:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to Sarner
His evidence is helpful in that it demonstrates a broad range of editors (other than my self and the "Buffalo Editors" who have edited these pages and who are not part of that group: KC63201 jamy Jen Amy Beno1000 Sadi_Carnot This demonstrates that the material included has broader acceptance than the he acknowledges. DPeterson talk 00:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Further Response of Sarner
His recent comments regarding Becker-Weidman show how as a leader of ACT he is bringing into Wikipedia their campaign to attack Dr. Becker-Weidman. For example, Wood 'N' Barnes is not a publishing mill as described in the Wikipedia article on the subject. They publish a limited number of books focusing on mental health issues, foster-care, and adoption, among other related subjects.

The book edited by Dr. Becker-Weidman, published by Wood 'N' Barnes is published by a reputable publisher []. They specialize in publishing texts on adoption, foster care, and education. As a specialty and Independent Publisher, they are quite selective in the titles they choose to publish. Sarner's recent comments labeling the publisher a "publishing mill," are yet another example of how he attempts to bring the ACT POV into Wikipedia and attack Dr. Becker-Weidman.

Response to DopaminergicOverdrive
Seems to be an SPA or maybe a meat/sock? []

Comments on Jayjg
There is no evidence presented for those statements.

In addition, I beleive there is an explicit statement that statements during arbitration cannot be used as Jayjg seems to be trying.

Finally, I disagree with that interpretation. The fact is that no evidence, in the form of a check user filing was offered.


 * I made the above comments on the checkuser before the facts were posted regarding the sockpuppetry. Therefore, I would like to retract and redact the first and last lines above.

Further evidence that FT2 and Fainites support each other and edit together
FT2 is not a neutral uninvolved editor as FT2 has presented. See []

More Recent Evidence
More recently, on this page and the workshop page, we find that Fainites rushes to the defense of FT2 and they both edit togther when Ralph Lender notes that FT2 has edited extensively articles about zoophilia and that this may be related to my work on the Pedophilia pages and with PAW, which led to FT2's involvement in the Attachment Therapy articles disputes as an administrator supporting Fainites and others. This could suggest that FT2 is not acting as an uninvolved party.

FT2 abusing admin priv?
The following information was brought to my attention: FT2 appears to be acting unfair to critical editors and biased towards NLP promotion. FT2 also seems to be collaborating with or supporting other pro NLP editors. It looks like the story starts when RalfLender begins to critically edit on the NLP article after communicating with another critical editor. RalfLender was then "warned off" by FT2. Since then FT2 has taken an interest in trying to overrule prior admin checks that say we are not meatpuppets. So after closer investigation of the NLP article it seems that there is a strong pro NLP agenda trying to influence the arbitration on Attachment Therapy. Fainites (who also seems to be working with FT2) seems to be keen on making sure that NLP is not mentioned as a pseudoscientific fringe method of attachment therapy. FT2 seems to be supporting Fainites in this effort. From a look at the state of the NLP article seems clear that FT2 and Fainites (and another editor with a strong and obvious COI - Comaze (AKA Action potential) have been working together to make sure that critical views are not presented clearly. They have been working there consistently and the critical views are still not presented properly, pseudoscience information goes missing and is not replaced, and the article seems to be kept in an ugly state simply to obscure the main science views. The last peer review says criticism is mild . Since then criticism has become milder and more obscured. I suspect FT2 of being highly involved in NLP in terms of history and probably qualifications. Considering FT2's prior attempts at OR; FT2 and other related editors seem to be trying OR at even the article level. Now that it was suggested that more OR (eg, has been presented, FT2 starts to defend NLP yet again by posting extreme warnings on the talkpage . I think this is the most obvious and extensive example of agenda motivated bullying from an admin I have ever seen on Wikipedia.

Further evidence of FT2 abusing admin priv?
FT2's blocking of me appears to be another abuse of his status. 1. He edits closely with Fainites in NLP. 2. Sarner, Fainites, FatherTree, Shotwell, and others revert, without discussion or consideration, any material I or others put in the [Attachment therapy]] article with which they disagree: [], [], [], [], [], [] FT2's action is to block me not the other editors who are clearly continuing the content dispute. When I add material (but not delete their material, they swiftly revert.

3. The same issue is on Advocates for Children in Therapy. They continue to revert the factual statement, supported by verifiable sources, that the leaders of ACT are not mental health professionals (as Mercer has admitted). This is salient. The leaders of ACTUP, the AIDS advocacy group, are/were all people with HIV. The leaders of NAMI are all current/former patients, etc. So the credentials of the leaders of a group are salient to the reader. 4. Their response to the suggestion by another editor that content disputes be settled using wikipedia dispute processes was distain [].

FT2 acted in defense of the ACT group, who are now running rampant over those two articles.

Further Evidence of disruptive editing by FatherTree, et. al.
[] no reason given [] revert a fact. [] reverts by StokerAce and Sarner without discussion. [] by fainites []

Their contentious editing is ignored by FT2, and FT2 appears to be their defender, based, perhaps, on FT2 and Fainites relationships with all the NLP articles.

Attachment Therapy article as an ACT vehicle
Sarner, Fainites, and supporters have essentially turned this article into a replication the the ACT website (of which Mercer and Sarner are leaders and representatives of ACT). They have undertaken to take an article about a fringe therapy and make it a vehicle to attack Dr. Becker-Weidman, which is an ACT POV/agenda. [] shows how they have recently done this...However, a number of previous additions by that group have the same tone and thrust.

More of the same on Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy by stokerace[]

Here Fainites deletes material that is sourced and accurate to put in ACT view []

Here we see FatherTree and StokerAce deleting sourced material that meets wiki standards of verifiability without any justification and acting in tandem. []

Here we see Fainites, Mercer, FatherTree and Shotwell espousing the ACT POV and attacking Dr. Becker-Weidman, thereby bringing the ACT dispute into Wikipedia: []

Within just a few minute of my adding material to clarify a few points, Fainites reverts all the sourced additions []

Here just minutes after an length and careful edit, FatherTree reverts changes in a manner in accord with the ACT POV []

Evidence of Mercer, Sarner, et. al bring ACT material into Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy
The line, "Two studies by Arthur Becker-Weidman, who received training in dyadic developmental psychotherapy from Hughes at the Attachment Center at Evergreen," in the article is false. Dr. Becker-Weidman did not recieve training from Dr. Hughes at the Attachment Center at Evergreen. This statement is not sourced and there is not evidence to support it. It is a slander in accord with the ACT campaign against Dr. Becker-Weidman.

Mercer misrepresents material here []. Specificially, The accurate comment is, "Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is a treatment approach for children diagnosed with attachment disorder, reactive attachment disorder, or complex trauma. It was developed by Daniel Hughes as an alternative to coercive attachment-based therapies. " Her edit is consistent with the ACT POV and what she pushes in her comment pieces on the web and elsewhere. Later, her edit, " however, the published reports on this work do not specify the nature of "usual care" or clarify why the "usual care" group, wwho were assessed at Becker-Weidman's clinic, did not choose to have treatment there." is similiarily biased. The articles describe the nature of the ususal care in a table and why they did not engage in treatment.

Here we see recent edits by Mercer and Sarner to the Bowlby article that are clearly ACT POV pushing. []

Additional Material regarding Mercer
In this edit [] we see Mercer again bringing ACT material and POV into Wikipedia. Specifically, her addition, "Published material about dyadic developmental psychotherapy leaves it unclear how parents are trained to become more attuned to the child's cues or to confront effectively, nor is it clear how the parent's involvement in treatment is scheduled." misrepresents the facts. How parents are involved is clearly delineated in the text, Creating Capacity for Attachment.

Further evidence of contentious editing & Responses
1.	My edits to Attachment Therapy, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, and Advocates for Children in Therapy were factual and sourced with material that meets the Wikipedia standard of WP:Verifiability. Specifically: a.	Attachment Therapy edits: [] i.	The material was from the Attachment Center at Evergreen and I merely clarified that line ii. The Craven & Lee article was published after the APSAC report, so the statement, “In contrast, in a report published after the APBSAC report, Craven & Lee, (2006),” is accurate and allows the reader to understand the sequence of material being presented. iii. The line, “and Craven & Lee(2006) defining it as evidence-based, category 3, was added and follows the Prior & Glass material logically. It is also a factual statement. iv. The added line, “The two empirical studies by Becker-Weidman were published after the APSAC report.” Is factual and true and makes the point that the APSAC report’s statement, quoted immediately before this added line, is based on older information. v.	Within 45 minutes the entire set of edits was reverted by User:FatherTree, [] b.	Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy edits: [] i.	The beginning paragraph is factual. Craven & Lee define DDP as category three in the evidence-based framework they used. ii. Various other citations and sources were provided. iii. Within 4 minutes FatherTree reverted my edit and added the advert tag without explaination or basis. [] c.	Advocates for Children in Therapy edits: [] i.	The term used on the Internet and by the advocacy group is Attachment Therapy, as is the article title. I changed the a to A. ii. Added line, “none of whom are mental health professonals” This is true and Mercer has acknowledged this and this is cited on the evidence page for the ArbCom case. It is very germane that they are leaders of an advocacy group addressing a mental health issue and that they are not mental health professionals. Most advocacy groups are led by those directly affected (NAMI is primarily led by those with “mental illnesses.” The group ACTUP was led by advocates who were HIV positive, etc. This goes directly to their credibility and expertise. iii.	I added the factual statement, with a source, “Both Connell Watkins and Julie Ponder were unlicensed in the state of Colorado  . iv.	In the section on activities, I added, “Articles and reports from ACT also often appear on Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch. ” which is relevant to the section, true, and referenced in accord with Wikipedia policy or standards.  v.	Within 31 minutes User:StokerAce began reverting [] and User:Sarner continued [] 2.	I tried to bring notice of what I thought was disruptive editing to the ArbCom, [], [] 3.	The first two blocks may have been motivated by the alliance between administrator FT2 and editor Fainites, [], [], [].

Further evidence of WP:COI regarding Sarner
Sarner's edits to the article about his group, ACT, shows COI. []. The removal of the factual statment that he, his wife, and Mercer are not mental health professionals is the removal of valid and important factual mateiral. The leaders of such advocacy groups as ACTUP and AARP are those with HIV and retired persons, respectively. That the leaders of an advocacy group have no experience with the subject is of interest to the reader. The removal of the factual statement, "Attachment Therapy" is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual, 2006. It is also not found in Bergin and Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change, fifth edition, edited by Michal J. Lambert, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2004. The term has been applied to a wide array of different therapies by different groups." is another example of problematic editing to push his group's POV. The final example in this series of edits, is the deltion of "Articles and reports from ACT also often appear on Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch. ", which was a fact supported with a verifiable citation. The removal of this can only be some how to avoid the connection between Quackwatch and ACT.

Additional material
In this add edit, Sarner continues the quote regarding the Association for the Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children as "self-described," but puts in a description of his organization, ACT, as a "fact," []. This is another example of POV pushing and of his using Wikipedia to represent the views of his group, Adovcates for Children in Therapy.

Response to Mercer, Fainites, FT2
I note for the record the none of them have dirctly addressed my points that the my addtions were factual and supported by citations that meet the wiki standard of being WP:Verifiability

Response to Fainites response to Lender
This response is off target. The comment, that no other edits have intervened since he deleted all that material can be leveled against him and his group's edits. However, that really is not the point. The point is that, as Lender states, the information deleted was relevant and sourced in accord with wiki policy. There are several books on the subject (Creating Capacity for Attachment, Attachment-based Family Therapy, Building the Bonds of Attachment) as well as a number of empirical and descriptive articles in peer-reviewed professional journals (at least five or six). Calling the material and treatment "highly controversial," and "minor" is a misrepresentation of the type that Sarner, Mercer, and the ACT group present. The approach is presented at a large number of regional, national, and international professional conferences by inviation and used across the US and internationally by child welfare agencies, mental health clinics, etc.

Mercer WP:COI and Advocates for Children in Therapy
Among other edits to many articles, Mercer has clearly violated the Wikipedia COI standard. For example, in her edit to Advocates for Children in Therapy, she makes a statement without any citations or support []. As a leader of ACT her edits to this article and all the others are POV pushing of the ACT view, which is a fringe advocacy group without any real membership.

Related POV pushing on the Bowlby article [] by deleting material that is the ACT POV.

Response to FT2
It seems that an addition being a fact and supported by verifiable citations and being relevant is rejected by FT2, who clearly is an ally of Fainites on the NLP pages and hardly neutral in this dispute.

Response to "There you go again"
It is a good term, used originally by Ronald Regan and popular in usage []

Response and Summary
There are several points I would like to briefly make regarding this dispute and proposed remediation.

First, while I have edited in a contentious manner at times in this dispute I also feel I was provoked. This is not an excuse, merely an explanation of my conduct. At times I felt as if some other editors were purposely baiting me and trying to be provocative. I must acknowledge that I responded badly and wrote things that I regret. There have been a number of instances in which my comments were personal and not directed at content. Several of these comments probably rise to the level of personal attacks. I regret my conduct. It isn’t what I expect of myself or others. I apologize for these lapses.

There are a number of other pages that I regularly edit where I have not acted in a disruptive manner (see comments below). Generally I have accepted advice from neutral parties and acted in accord with that advice, for example, from Addhoc, and some of the group that were advocates.

Second, I have made valuable contributions to Wikipedia in the past in several areas. For example, I have make contributions to Schizophrenia, Adoption, Bipolar Disorder, Pedophilia Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, DSM, and a variety of articles regarding pedophilia. These have been viewed as helpful and adding to Wikipedia. On occasion I use the “random article” option to go to various pages and make minor edits (removing dead links, fixing grammar, etc.). I believe that is a useful contribution since this is how Wikipedia articles improve over time. When there was an advocate group, I participated in that and acted in a collaborative and cooperative manner, aiming to calm tempers and end disputes. I never acted as a “lawyer,” and argued a “client’s” case. I think for these reasons I can be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia in the future. I think that given this history of productive contributions to Wikipedia that rather than being banned or blocked for an extended period of time, it would be more useful for me to be supervised or my edits on certain articles supervised. Related to this is that I have worked hard to keep Pedophilia related pages NPOV and stay vigilent regarding Pro-Pedophilia groups that seem to have a particularly provocative POV regarding sexual activity with children. I think my activities in this regard have been very productive and helpful to Wikipedia.

Third, much of the dispute is a content dispute and some of the edits I have tried to make on the disputed page were consistent with Wikipedia standards of being verifiable, referenced and sourced, true, relevant, and notable. Just a few examples: Attachment Therapy edits: [] i.	The material was from the Attachment Center at Evergreen and I merely clarified that line ii. The Craven & Lee article was published after the APSAC report, so the statement, “In contrast, in a report published after the APBSAC report, Craven & Lee, (2006),” is accurate and allows the reader to understand the sequence of material being presented. iii. The line, “and Craven & Lee(2006) defining it as evidence-based, category 3, was added and follows the Prior & Glass material logically. It is also a factual statement. iv. The added line, “The two empirical studies by Becker-Weidman were published after the APSAC report.” Is factual and true and makes the point that the APSAC report’s statement, quoted immediately before this added line, is based on older information.

Advocates for Children in Therapy edits: [] v.	The term used on the Internet and by the advocacy group is Attachment Therapy, as is the article title. I changed the "a" to "A." vi. Added line, “none of whom are mental health professionals” This is true and Mercer has acknowledged this and this is cited on the evidence page for the ArbCom case. It is very germane that they are leaders of an advocacy group addressing a mental health issue and that they are not mental health professionals. Most advocacy groups are led by those directly affected (NAMI is primarily led by those with “mental illnesses.” The group ACTUP was led by advocates who were HIV positive, etc. This goes directly to their credibility and expertise. vii.	I added the factual statement, with a source, “Both Connell Watkins and Julie Ponder were unlicensed in the state of Colorado  . viii.	In the section on activities, I added, “Articles and reports from ACT also often appear on Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch. ” which is relevant to the section, true, and referenced in accord with Wikipedia policy or standards.  In each of these examples, I complied with the Wikipedia standards that material be verifiable, not original research, relevant, factual and true, and notable.  For example, the statement that Connell Watkins and Julie Ponder were unlicensed was verified with a citation, is relevant to evaluating their conduct, is factual and true, and is notable within the context of the paragraph and article.

I can provide other examples of what I think were content disputes if necessary.

Fourth, I am accused of violating several rules: WP:Canvas WP:Game I responded to this in that the multiple placements were in error.

WP:NPA I have responded at times in a manner that does rise to the level of personal attack. While I felt provoked, that is an explanation, not an excuse. I intend to very carefully monitor my responses in the future and keep the focus on content.

Comments that I “will not discuss.” I do believe I engaged in extended discussion regarding various points, such as why the fact that Ponder and Connell were unlicensed is notable or why the fact that Mercer and Sarner are not licensed mental health professionals is relevant to an article about their group.

Jayjg’s accusation that I engaged in “tendentious argumentation,” I made my comment BEFORE I saw his evidence/comments. That was an error on my part.

Comments that I attempted to “own,” the articles. I tried to engage in lengthy collaborative editing with many suggestions as the talk pages for AT and DDP show. I also know that when the editing became contentious I resorted to merely reverting rather than continuing to dialogue, and that was wrong. I should have continued to discuss and more actively engaged the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes such as requests for a third opinion, mediation, polls, etc.

Articles are merely promotional. The article about DDP is about an empirically based treatment with a number of texts and professional articles to its credit. Calling it promotional would be like calling the articles on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or NLP promotional.

Misrepresentation of sources. I quoted sources and provided page numbers. The APSAC report was published long before several of the other articles I and others cited.

Much of the other accusations are responded to on the Evidence page and I won’t repeat that in this summary.

Much of the other accusations on the evidence page involve content disputes regarding the notability of information or its relevance or whether it is factual or opinion.

If I am requested to respond more specifically to particular Wikipedia rule violations or instances, I will gladly do so, but in the interests of brevity, I will end here.

Additional comment
This may better belong on the workshop page under principles. Regarding outcome, is "punishment and retribution" or "rehabilitation" the guiding principle. I can understand and accept the anger at some of my actions, including my use of "sockpuppets." Does that lead, then, to the application of the American or Western approach of retribution or to the application of rehabilitation? It seems that if Wikipedia is building a community, then the First Nations (Canadian) principle (among other groups) of rehabilitation mayb be more valuable. I pointed out how when given guidance by neutral parties I followed that. I believe I can continue to provide useful contributions to Wikipedia and accept that some guidance may help me with that.

Response to FT2
The POV warnings were from Peophiles and their supporters, many of whom were later banned/blocked. DPeterson talk 21:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Request for a diff showing FT2 and Fainites working together on NLP articles
While these have been provided on this page, here is just one more example: []

[]

[]

[] -- extensive additions.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[] removes merge tag

[]

[] creates NLP related article.

These diffs, and many others could be provided, show that FT2 has a long standing interest in NLP, as does Fainites, and thus have an editorial relationship that calls into question FT2's neutralisty and motives in blocking and in other admin actions.

Response to FT2 and Fainites regarding diffs that they share an interest in NLP
First they claim no evidencd and cry out for "diffs," then when diffs are provided, they trun to another argument. The diffs clearly show a pattern of common involvement in many NLP articles.

The diffs provided are by way of example to show that both FT2 and Fainites have a common close interest in a large number of NLP related articles. They both have extensive interest in the subject and hae a very large number of edits on a significant number of NLP-related articles. This commonality shows a common interest and calls into question FT2's neutrality as an editor. It shows that these two editors are colleagues who work together and support each other (as the edits show a common view) and so their involvement in the AT dispute, coupled with FT2's work on Zoophilia and related articles, is not neutral.

To respond to the statement, which is false, that FT2 stopped editing these pages before Fainites began...see an extensive talk page dialogue between them: []

Here FT2 creates an NLP article: []

It may be that once Fainites, as an NLP practitioner became involved, FT2 began to disengage as they work together...we certainly have no record of their e-mail correspondance.

In any event, what is clear is that FT2 has been heavily involved in nearly all the NLP articles and Fainites is heavily involved as well, making their positions indistinguishable, so that FT2's involvement here cannot be said to be neutral and has all the appearance of not being neutral, which does cast a cloud on the process.

Response to Fainites
I think Fainites is over reacting. He is also making false accusations that somehow I am affiliated with Headley. I merely meant that since he has such a strong interest in NLP artcles and seem so knowledgeable about it and contribute so much and for so long that he has a strong interest in the subject. I don't see how his being a practitioner of NLP can be construed as defamation. How could it damage his credibility? If anything it would strengthen his comments on the subject as an expert. It is clear that Fainites and FT2 have a strong interest in all these articles and share a common view and act as one in that regard, which seems to have carried over into this dispute as they act together; which makes FT2 not a neutral administrator in any way.

Editors work together
Editors User:Shotwell User:FatherTree, User:Maypole User:Jean Mercer, User:Sarner, User:StokerAce, User:Fainites, User:HealthCareConsumer}}, [[User:PsychPHD, User:Raspor, User:Mercerj, User:‎69.170.233.237, User:‎‎70.18.125.6‎, User:‎69.211.150.60‎, User:KipMiller, User:‎206.81.65.148, primarily edit these related articles and take the position of ACT and support ‎each other. Most of these editors only edit the pages that have been discussed as part of this Arbitration.  ‎

For each editor I list the article or talk page and edits to that, along with unrelated edits. ‎The pattern is very clear. These editors edit only or predominantly the articles under ‎dispute and as previous evidence shows, their edits are all related, supportive of each ‎other, and consistent with or identical with the ACT POV.‎

SHOTWELL

Candace Newmaker: 34‎ Talk: 35‎

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy: 27‎ Talk: 82‎

ACT: 6‎ Talk:74‎

Attachment Therapy:0‎ Talk: 41‎

Bowlby:0‎ Talk: 6‎

Other: 106‎ Talk: 87‎

FATHERTREE Attachment Therapy: 13‎ Talk: 50‎

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy:0‎ Talk: 5‎

NO OTHER ARTICLE EDITS

STOKERACE Only Talk page edits, all related:‎

Attachment Therapy: 30‎

Candace Newmaker: 19‎

DDP: 19‎

ACT:18‎

MAYPOLE Attachment Therapy: 8‎ Talk: 32‎

Other:7‎ Talk 2‎

HEALTHCONSUMERADVOCATE

All related to the topic: 4‎

Other:1‎

PSYCHPHD

ACT: 3‎ Talk: 3‎

RASPOR

Attachment Therapy: 2‎ Talk: 14‎

Reactive Attachment Disorder: 2‎

MERCERJ

Reactive Attachment Disorder:0‎ Talk:2‎

FAINITES

Neurolinguisticprograming related: 710‎ Talk: 586‎

Attachment Therapy: 111‎ Talk: 613‎

EMDR:45‎ Talk:32‎

Child Abuse: 5‎

DDP:4‎ Talk:6‎

Child Welfare: 4‎

Large Group related: 5‎ Talk:34‎

Caseworker:3‎

ACT talk: 27‎

Bowlby talk:4‎

Candace Newmaker Talk: 2‎

Other talk:24‎

SARNER

Bowbly: 62‎ TALK: 166‎

Candace Newmaker:37‎ TALK: 55‎

Barrett: 24‎ TALK: 7‎

Attachment Therapy Talk: 12‎

ACT:7‎

Theraplay:3‎

NO OTHER ARTICLE EDITS

JEAN MERCER

Attachment Therapy: 6‎ Talk:42‎

DDP: 2‎ Talk: 21‎

Attachment in Children:2‎ Talk:2‎

Bowlby talk:3‎

Attachment Therapy talk:2‎

Reactive Attachment Disorder talk: 2‎

Attachment Disorder Talk: 2‎

No other article edits

‎69.170.233.237‎

Attachment Disorder:17‎ Talk:13‎

Reactive Attachment Disorder: 16‎ Talk:15‎

Attachment Therapy talk: 25‎

Bowlby talk: 10‎

‎70.18.125.6‎

ACT: 4‎

‎69.211.150.60‎

Candace Newmaker: 2‎ Talk:4‎

KipMiller

Bowlby:3‎ Talk:6‎

Micheal Rutter: 16‎

‎206.81.65.148‎

Candace Newmaker: 2‎ Talk:4‎

{Socks}
Several of these editors only began editing recently and as part of this dispute and might be considered WP:SPA (Sarner, Mercer, Maypole, StokerAce, FatherTree, Note: Maypole has since been banned). It is not clear what is their relationship to the ACT group.

Other editors have come and gone who only edit on this dispute from the ACT point of view: [], [], [], []. [], ([]) [], ([]) [], ([]) [], ([])

This supports the contention that this dispute is primarily a content dispute and it is largely driven by Advocates for Children in Therapy and their supports.

Spelling
The spelling errors cited are common errors with the QWERTY keyboard. I am sure that there are lots of other common spelling errors one could use to "link" any group of editors one wished to link. The salient point is that there have been two investigations into the sock/meat puppet accusations, both unfounded.

Conflict of Interest
There seems to exist a major conflict of interest WP:COI regarding Sarner and Mercer, both of whom are primary leaders of ACT and whose books are publicized on the ACT website and who clearly have a financial interest in this dispute. Mercer's recent career seems to be primarily built on her association with ACT and its position.

Evidence presented under the name "SamDavidson"
There has been a substantial amount of improper talk page conduct by several of the editors involved in this dispute. Personal Attacks, self-promotion, disrutpive editing, among other problems.

Sarner is disruptive
Cites own book (WP:COI) & self-promotional: []

Cites own book without acknowledging (COI) it is his & continues to argue against inclusion of phrase, "Unlicensed therapists", despite evidence provided by an independent Editor (Disruptive): [] His own book supports statement that they were unlicensed: [] Sarner makes several statements to exclude his group from discussion: [] []

Found to be disruptive and told to disengage from DPeterson by an administrator…but does not: [], based on statement: [] “You have been blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks and disruption, including the AfD which in my opinion is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. When you come back, you are to disengage with DPeterson; he has complained to me that he feels harassed and I don't blame him. I have looked through his contributions and I don't see any incivility coming from him. You may contest this block by placing on your user talk page, which you can still edit. Mango juice talk 01:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)”

Showing that Sarner and Mercer have a vested interest in these disputes: []

MORE: Sarner is disruptive
206.81.65.234 who is a Sarner sockpuppet: []

Disruptive editing and personal attacks: [] [] [] [] [] [] (toward MarkWood) [] (toward MarkWood) [] Despite having been resolved in mediation, Sarner starts the entire dispute again several months later. []

In this section we see Sarner refusing to state all his suggested changes to an article and thereby stalling mediation and the building of agreement []

Mercer is disruptive
Financial Interest in her articles/career: []

These disputes are her career and the basis for her publications: []

Advocating ACT’s position and bringing those disputes into Wikipedia: [] In particular a focus on Dr. Becker-Weidman: [] []

More Mercer is disruptive
Personal Attacks, POV advocate for ACT, Disruptive editing, inflammatory. (In the archive of the talk page, the history diffs are not available, so I will use quotes here). States: “In any case, all these issues are simply red herrings to conceal the fact that DPeterson & Co. want to prevent the public from having information about holding therapy,Dyadic Synchronous Bonding, Prolonged Parent-Child Embrace, or any of the flock of names I've categorized as Attachment Therapy, following Foster Cline, and, of course, Daniel Hughes.Jean Mercer 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)” in []

Self-promotion and use of the conflict to advance her career: “It will be interesting when I write an article about what's been said here. This I can do with impunity, because of course I have no idea who you are, so I can't name you-- and my name is already known, so there's no problem about naming myself.Jean Mercer0:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC) “ in []

Personal Attacks: []

Self-promotion and use of conflict for her publications: []

POV: []

Shotwell is disruptive
Based on “bias?” rejects with distain verifiable sources: []

Makes disparaging statements, that are, in fact, false: [] The material is not self-published and was in professional peer-reviewed publications.

More SHOTWELL is disruptive
POV pushing and representing ACT view. [], []

FatherTree is disruptive
Here we see evidence of the ACT positions: []

More FATHERTREE is disruptive
Personal attacks, implications that are clearly provocative and false accusations: [], []

FAINITES is disruptive
Despite given citations of professional publications in peer-reviewed publications and Craven & Lee defining it as evidence-based, Fainities misrepresents material. POV pushing, and disruptive editing: []

Misrepresents Craven & Lee article. POV pushing, represeing ACT and Mercer view. Craven & Lee clearly define Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy as evidence-based. []

Representing ACT view (identifying the professional org. ACT as controversial) []

Personal attacks and distorts article’s purpose [] Distorts purpose of article and tries to broaden it in a manner to attack DDP, etc per ACT. []

ACT POV: []

Additional Socks and Meatpuppets
Mercerj: [], who is Jean Mercer.

[]

comment on ft2
The list of articles that several editors have edited is really irrelevant. The same listing, with some different articles, could be produced with Mercer, Sarner, FatherTree, Shotwell, StokerAce, etc. In fact, one could create a similiar listing focusing on any article with some degree of heat; such as NLP, Child Sexual Abuse, NAZI, etc. It is really an irrelevant listing. SamDavidson 00:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments regarding AWeidman
Dr. Becker-Weidman has seemed to not been a party of this dispute in a very long time, perhaps because of the personal attacks and related misprepresentations of his material. Wisely, he has stayed out of the conflicts so that any appearance of COI is avoided. The same cannot be said for Sarner and Mercer and ACT supporters, who are evident in abundance. Sarner and Mercer continue to edit and represent the ACT POV and the POV in their books and other promotional materials, which is a clear violation of wikipedia COI. Dr. Becker-Weidman has stayed out of this...which is probably a good thing. SamDavidson 01:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The group of editors (Fainities, StokerAce, Maypole, FatherTree
The group of editors (Fainities, Shotwell, StokerAce, Maypole, FatherTree) did not enter Mediation in good faith and with the intention of attempting to resolve the content disputes. They intended to go directly to Arbitration and subvert the Wikipedia process. []

Coordinated efforts Meatpuppet: Same targets and timing
Shotwell, Fainities, FatherTree, Sarner, Mercer, StokerAce, (and the various socks identified in the evidence of JonesRD, RalphLender, and SamDavidson), and more recently Lsi john and FT2 provide unfailing support for each other. This support extends to arcane issues such as what statistical analyses are valid. Each account has either inserted or defended claims that are derogatory concerning Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy into a large number of articles and which are identical to ACT’s positions.

There was mediation concerning John Bowlby involving Sarner: This dispute centered around whether or not Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy ought to be mentioned in the article. Most of the accounts named above immediately involved themselves with the dispute and sided Sarner and the ACT position. In the following July, they many of them participated in this afd, which is demonstrative of their similar editing patterns.

Shotwell, Fainities, FatherTree, Sarner, Mercer, StokerAce, (and the various socks identified in the evidence of JonesRD, RalphLender, and SamDavidson), work together to ‘own’ attachment pages (Attachment Therapy, Attachment disorder, Reactive attachment disorder, Advocates for Children in Therapy, Candace Newmaker, Attachment Theory, Bowlby, among others. They maintain ACT’s views views, edits and assertions in the related articles and are vocal in making their attacks personal attacks against Dr. Becker-Weidman. There is a substantial content dispute, but it is the way they own and control the pages and swamp opposition that is the main problem. In addition, their focusing on Dr. Becker-Weidman appears personal and seems to be the taking into Wikipedia of a dispute Mercer, Sarner, and ACT seem to have with his work. See:

Note the obvious similarities in both target areas, and timing:

Shotwell & Fainities []

FatherTree & Sarner []

FatherTree & Shotwell [] []

FatherTree & Mercer []

Mercer & Fainities []

Fainities & StokerAce []

Additional diffs could be provided, but this provides an initial set of examples.

Further evidence of their working together can be found by the frequent talk-page communications:

[], [] [], [], [], [], [], []

[], [], [], []

[], []

Response To Mercer
Her allegations are without merit and have no evidence to support her allegations.

Response to StokerAce, Shotwell, et. al.'s response to my evidence
Just because a few individuals (such as myself, DPeterson, RDJones, etc) happen to agree at times does not make us socks or meats. One can find many individual small groups at certain articles who regularily agree because of the strength of their feelings. Partly, the consistency is in response to the vehemency of the ACT group's arguments and unwillingness to build agreement.

Request for citation
A request for citations was made and I can provide those: 1.	Becker-Weidman, A., (2006) “Treatment for Children with Trauma-Attachment Disorders: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy,” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. Vol. 23 #2, pp. 147-171 April 2006. 2.	Becker-Weidman, A., (2006b) “Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy: A multi-year Follow-up”, in, New Developments In Child Abuse Research, Stanley M. Sturt, Ph.D. (Ed.) Nova Science Publishers, NY, 2006, pp. 43 – 60. 3.	Becker-Weidman, A., (2006c) “Treatment For Children with Reactive Attachment Disorder: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy,” Child and Adolescent Mental Health. Published article online: 21-Nov-2006 doi: 10.1111/j.1475-3588.2006.00428.x

{Evidence tending to support concerns over puppetry}
Further to evidence by shotwell, commencing:
 * "*DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavison, JohnsonRon, and User:MarkWood provide unfailing support for each other [...] The accounts of DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavison, JohnsonRon, and User:MarkWood were all created in May-June of 2006 [...] At this time there was mediation concerning John Bowlby between AWeidman and Sarner [...]Each of the accounts named above immediately involved themselves with the dispute and sided with AWeidman."

These editors have repeatedly stated that there were two investigations into sock use, "both unfounded" [eg this page, DPeterson "Researched at least twice and resolved ... unfounded each time" JonesRD "Two investigations into the sock/meat puppet accusations, both unfounded" as well as elsewhere]. This isn't quite true. Of the two RFCU's, one (RFCU/AWeidman) was declined and never checked (on grounds of bad timing/questionable motive/faith; a RfM was also underway). The other (RFCU/DPeterson) was considered unconnected at the time, but was very basic and apparently never tied into much significant evidence beyond an IP check; also multiple IPs were in use.

AWeidman, DPeterson and MarkWood evidenced as being puppets of some form
I attach the first few contributions of the editors concerned, which I have checked and which tends to support the above statement by user:Shotwell:

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


 * DP and MW both commence editing under their respective accounts on 20 May 2006, 3/4 hr apart.
 * The next day, both commence the next days editing 2 minutes apart. DP edits twice at 01:21, and MW edits twice at 01:23 and 01:24, neither then edits for the rest of the day. The edited article in each case is Talk:John Bowlby/Archive 1, the target in each case criticisms of user:sarner
 * The next notable event, AWeidman edits on 27 May 2006, and DP and MW both edit several times on 28 May 2006. DP makes a few edits on 1+2 June 2006. All three then fall silent. 2 weeks later, DP returns to editing on 16 June, and AWeidman and MW both return and recommence editing on 17 June 2006. For the record, the comments on return are not prompted by each other: AWeidman posted on Talk:Attachment theory, and MW and DP both posted comments against Sarner (who had stated a view that certain "see also" links were advertizing; DP and MW wrote separately but almost identically against this Talk:John_Bowlby, Talk:John_Bowlby, Talk:John_Bowlby)


 * User:AWeidman, user:MarkWood and user:DPeterson all had a similar learning curve on name signing to talk page posts. For example, on April 27 AWeidman was still not consistently signing talk page posts  or signing them incorrectly, manually . By June 17 he's got the idea . On May 20, first editing, user:MarkWood hasn't got the idea  but he's trying to correct DPetersons signature . On his first edits (May 20), DPeterson is manually typing his signature in, as can be seen by the typos.


 * style="background-color: #69DD80;" |
 * }
 * }


 * There is clear evidence of intent towards puppetry here on 20 May. An IP editor connected geographically and via sign-in with AWeidman (user:68.66.160.228) posts "So I guess you are connected with, or at least sympathetic with, the fringe group ACT. It shows." and leaves it unsigned (see above; at this point DP/MW/AW were also leaving their posts unsigned) ... 2.5 hours later the same IP starts a new section below and in support of this: "Yes, you are right. Sarner is a member of ACT and in league with Mercer and Rosa. Clearly Sarner is biased and acting to implement an agenda rather than the free flow of information". This statement is clearly intended to support the first one, but intended to appear to be from a different person.
 * (Cross ref: This IP was also noted by user:StokerAce above)


 * There's more in this sequence of edits. The second of these statements by user:68.66.160.228 is then signed by DPeterson (incorrectly) who seems to have trouble as he corrects it a second time . The same signature is then corrected almost immediately by the account MarkWood  who also overlooks the same mistake DPeterson didn't notice with curly brackets, until a bare 3 minutes later our original IP editor user:68.66.160.228 returns to correct it. . In the space of 8 minutes (1:19 to 1:27) we see the IP user replying to himself, then signing the reply as DPeterson, then getting the signature format confused as DPeterson, then MarkWood still getting them confused and then as the IP editor again finally correcting.


 * The next edit after this display by any of the three (once the siggy is corrected) is over 20 hours later and it's user:MarkWood giving his own strong support to DPeterson's post attacking Sarner.


 * Ironically, in that edit, MarkWood makes the same typo with curly brackets on his sig yet again that DPeterson made in the previous edits, and then has to re-edit himself again to fix it.


 * Given the above, it is probably significant that user:AWeidman (who also signs his posts "Dr. Art" (ie, Arthur) ), user:DPeterson and user:MarkWood shared typo's in common. This was at the time when Weidman and Sarner were in dispute already. Weidman and Peterson both habitually mis-spell "consensus" as "concensus": DPeterson  , AWeidman   . According to Google (en.wiki search: talk 'consensus'=105000 hits en.wiki search: talk 'concensus'=6650 hits) most references to this word in en.wikipedia.org are spelt correctly (the search is designed to filter out most non-talk pages since these will be corrected by other editors, and avoid google's spelling corrector).


 * I quickly checked user:MarkWood as well. Compare:.


 * Later on I noticed in fact user:JohnsonRon does the same too (see below, this came up when citing DIFFS to back up the WP:LAWYER issues).

In fact he's not the only one. Compare these two edits on Talk:Reactive attachment disorder and Talk:Attachment disorder:, by user:AWeidman and user:DPeterson respectively. DPeterson removes the comment directed at AWeidman, even though DPeterson isn't mentioned in it, nor is it directed at him.
 * See below (sub-section: user:AWeidman removes others talk page comments).


 * As a balancing view I did note that AWeidman on his account has not visibly made the "{{" -> "[[" error that DPeterson and MarkWood made on a few occasions. However, on closer inspection, AWeidman actually didn't make any talk page posts via that account at that time; his last was April 27, his next a brief one on May 27 and then more after June 17; the above error (which MarkWood/DPeterson got wrong) were posted around 20-22 May and the signature issue was visibly sorted out shortly after.


 * It's also worth noting that user:MarkWood posted comments that had the effect on a reader of emphasizing the separation between himself and AWeidman, for example "In fact, if I read Dr. Becker-Weidman's ... website materials correctly, they both fully comply with the recommendations of that report!!" . This is not evidence per se of puppetry, but if puppetry is found it is evidence that it was more deliberate.

RalphLender, JonesRD, and SamDavidson evidenced as being the same person as DPeterson, MarkWood &c
Given that AWeidman, DPeterson and MarkWood have a collective track record of immensely novel spelling, I decided to look at other very unusual spellings errors in the article, to see who shared them, and how common they were in Wikipedia. This would not have worked for most situations, as such a range of notable spelling errors on common talk page words are usually (unhelpfully) quite rare. In this situation that was not the case and this approach was viable.

I searched in four pages: Talk:John Bowlby, Talk:Attachment therapy and their respective sole archive pages, to see which words had been at some time or other mis-spelt in a surprising way. (I did not look at other pages, other articles, talk pages or mediation/project pages.) I then got a rough estimate of how common the given mis-spelling was by counting "hits" for the word and its correct spelling using otherwise identical searches via Google.

Note: Google reports page hits, not word counts. That said, the comparison is probably a valid one for the purpose of comparing orders of magnitude and thus whether the typo is common or uncommon in Wikipedia.

Other highly uncommon/notable typos included:


 * SamDavidson and JonesRD share the same typo for "previouls(y)": SamDavidson JonesRD
 * SamDavidson and DPeterson share the same typo for "Therapuetic": SamDavidson DPeterson
 * DPeterson, RalphLender and the IP user all share the typo of "-ness/-nss": DPeterson RalphLender 68.66.160.228

I gave up searching at this point.

In fact there are so many typos that it is hard not to have a concern that the editor behind all of these is significantly dyslexic. And only the alleged socks, have this trait, and all of those named in the above table do it. Any editor wishing to check this can take the above pages and check them personally.

Examples supporting this include: principel, solicite, condusive, dispell, whould, flexiable, suggesitons, pressented, prominanlty ["prominently"], vanaldism, addtion, etc.

Review of edits of JohnsonRon
Finally I also looked at the edits of user:JohnsonRon who did not feature heavily in the above search, to confirm more fully the extent of evidence and the nature of their edits. user:JohnsonRon was interesting. There were again, also typos of the kind above (mateiral, Wikkipedia, wikipeidis) as well as some AWeidman classics ("concensus") and a heavy involvement in pushing the actual wikilawyering with the others involved (See below).

Comment on question by Jayjg
user:Jayjg notes that four (now five) of the seven accounts are now confirmed socks, and asks of the others in his evidence section: "There are accusations above that these accounts often physically copy comments made by each other and re-post them as their own. If true, this may explain some of the linguistic overlap seen between accounts that do not appear closely related via checkuser."

This is plausible but inaccurate. The words are used in entirely different sentences rather than cut/pastes, and at very different times and contexts. For example, each mis-spells "consensus" incorrectly and it is clear these are not all cut/paste comments from other editors. For example, JohnsonRon uses it once, in an attempt to lawyer, months after it is also visibly an error of DPeterson. JohnsonRon's usage was clearly not a cut/paste of any other editor's comment but his own typing issue. The DIFFs above can be checked to confirm this. In particular, there is much strong evidence across a wide range, to tie DPeterson and Markwood together as the same human being behind the accounts - see. In evidence is provided that DPeterson and RalphLender and so on are the same person as various others as well. If checkuser does not show the same person or similar IP or locations, then the strength of non-IP evidence is such that the limitation is almost certainly in checkuser, not in the DIFF evidence.

Additional to these noted spelling issues in common, each share many other uniform commonalities, for example:
 * Common issue that they all share significant spelling and typing problems at all. Most Wikipedia editors do not have extreme spelling issues. All seven of the noted accounts exhibit a wide range of spelling and typing issues, both individual and in common.
 * Common issues with apostrophes and ":::" and other formatting
 * Common issues of arriving en masse at similar times on a large number of articles.
 * Common issues that it's rather surprising that 7 unique editors (or 4 if the checkuser'ed accounts are ignored) none the less all share commonality of style of English, approach, level of inquiry, and so on. Usually 4 unique and unconnected Wikipedians will differ rather more if selected at random and no connection or commonality exists. Instead reading the Workshop page, all sound like parrots of each other in style and mannerism.
 * Other commonalities related to editing in tight unison, and common POV warring, are a different matter, in that it doesn't matter if they are technically socks or meats, the close unison is self evident in evidence I have supplied, and in the evidence of others. But the probability is they are socks. It would be exceptionally unlikely for 4 unique independent unconnected human beings to be so exceptionally similar, and work so exceptionally closely, without so much as a flicker of difference from arrival to now, in over a year.

By contrast as a comparison, inside one week, Fainites and I (to take an example) have had to correct each other, checked information with each other, have visibly distinct styles and word usage, and so on. (The same is true for shotwell and Mercer, Mercer and Sarner, and so on.) Credibility and good faith only go so far, especially when 4 of 7 are later proven socks, and these are then 1/ virtually indistinguishable by every measure except account name, from the others, and 2/ share every idiosyncrasy noted, with the others. FT2 (Talk 04:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of breach of WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL etc
Given the above, it's a reasonable interpretation that has to be considered, that DPeterson and MarkWood and the others have acted like attack/POV warfare socks run by AWeidman or associates. Even if this isn't the case (or wasn't apparent back then), they really should have been dealt with on the basis of WP:NPA long ago.

Example post by MarkWood, on 22 May 2006, 2 days after the account was created: :
 * "Here is another long winded diatribe by Sarner which shows a lack of understanding and a biased view. Sarner is clearly not open to any information other than what Sarner wants to believe [...] In fact, if I read Dr. Becker-Weidman's and Dr. Hughes' website materials correctly, they both fully comply with the recommendations of that report!!
 * "Yes, the real realotry [sic] and stubborness are apparent in Sarner's repeated reverts and distortions."

Many more similar comments are visible in the above/below DIFFs as well as the article talk pages.

Evidence of AWeidman's inappropriate removal of other editors' comments

 * See for example AWeidman edits, removing comments critical of himself:  , all dated August 2006. At the point the page was archived (March 2007), the removed comments were still deleted. (See last diff before archiving, dated December 2006 )
 * As noted above user:DPeterson removes negative comments aimed at AWeidman too.

Evidence of IP 68.66.160.228 sabotaging links
. Linked to from one of the posts critical of AWeidman, which he deleted (above). This edit is in the nature of sabotaging of links, rather than "simple vandalism", involving replacing "i" by "ii" in the URL, and the like.

Evidence of Wikilawyering with WP:OWN, WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS
The editors named have engaged in a clear pattern of enforcing a preferred viewpoint through wikilawyering. The classic stance taken several times was roughly: "You may certainly comment. But you are in the minority." followed by an accusation or implication that the person is trying to WP:OWN the article and that they will be rebuffed and likely warned or sanctioned for unwiki-ish conduct and tendentious editing, since their view is not WP:CONSENSUS. A 'vote' was then called which was used to creat what was described as 'consensus' and add authority to the rebuff.


 * Five of many example DIFFs of this strategy being used:
 * JohnsonRon (note - relevant paragraph is the 2nd of 2 on the right, the paragraph starting "The materials and statements meet Wikipedia standards...")
 * JohnsonRon again... this time agreeing quite affably that the material can go in... with the twist in the tail "Again, we'll see what other editors have to say and the consensus will determine the outcome.".
 * JohnsonRon again, next edit after the above... this edit shows the curt use of wikilawyering of this kind, to cut off a debate without respect to balance, policy or indeed reason. It also (2nd paragraph) shows how user:JohnsonRon again uses lawyering on WP:OWN, WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS to push a preferred approach. This is then followed immediately (same edit) by a 'vote' to determine "concensus" [sic] -- note JohnsonRon uses AWeidman's mis-spelling of this word.
 * user:JonesRD doing the identical same twist: "We certainly should give others a chance to comment. While you have written the material underdiscussion here, you do not OWN it [emphasis in original] and there must be broad and generally agreement, but no one person has a veto..."
 * user:RalphLender does likewise: "But, in any event, this [giving cite info to allow checking of a paper] is a side issue and not to the point. I support leaving both references in and so do the vast majority of contributors." Allowing concerned others to check the exact cite is a "side issue" to be dismissed?

The fairly short 'vote' visible at Talk:John_Bowlby shows also by example: the various puppets working together to create a "consensus", including user:DPeterson (1) unilaterally overruling a strikeout of new single purpose acccount (and suspected sock ) user:Wallyj (not otherwise mentioned in this RFArb) from the 'vote' on fairly spurious grounds that differ from community consensus, and (2) unquestioning permitting a 2nd supporting vote from then-new editor user:JohnsonRon.

Gaming the WP:CITE and WP:V systems with bad faith
Eg:
 * Refusal to adequately cite beyond vague mention of a publication which others had concerns over, eg.see the two consecutive sections #Question_about_peer-review_support_for_DDP_and_Theraplay and #Evidence_Base_..._Leave_Page_As_Is in which cites are requested, and danced around. ("


 * MarkWood then misrepresents the above debate to slant Sarner as being unreasonable ... several diffs later its still danced around with a claim that he has been given "all he needs" ... until DPeterson states "See, there he goes again with personal attachks and raising irrelvant issues. The references are irrelevant to the fact that consensus has been reached and he apparently will not accept that" (!!) Sarner's request after this comment here.

Refusal to identify claimed evidence being referenced in Workshop discussion
As noted above, the AWeidman connected accounts have a history of gaming by making an asertation (something is "clear" or "shown") with only a vague reference to evidence elsewhere, which they then dance around identifying.

In this context, I would like it noted that various serious allegations and responses claiming evidence backing are still being entered by the AWeidman connected accounts on the Workshop page. When evidence links are requested, none (or at most a vague reference) are provided there, too. Some have been asked for multiple times now.

These allegations include personal attack claims (that I am part of a "group" with any other editor, that a proposal I raised was as "part of the ACT group"). They also include dismissal of others' comments (that evidence is on "the evidence page under one of the editors", that the matter is "clear" or "clear from the evidence" or "evidence has been provided", and so on). Such answers are routinely given in the Workshop. On these and similar occasions requests have been made for specific DIFFs or specific sections of evidence for purposes of checking what exact case is being made. The workshop page itself evidences that the accounts concerned often answer for each other, and seldom provided actual specific DIFFs or evidence sections in respect of these kind of assertations.

This is a further example of the issues noted above, but in the arbcom workshop this time.

Scale of activity elsewhere
If puppetry is deemed to have taken place, then I don't think the potential scale has yet come out in this RFArb. This is only one of over 50 articles where the same group are active. Often several accounts each join an article (or 'vote' mutually endorsing each other's stance in debates) within a very few days of each other. See attached summary:

Quick example evidencing that similar joint action takes place on other articles not connected to Attachment Therapy
 * Child sexual abuse Talk:Child_sexual_abuse (RalphLender, MarkWood, DPeterson, JonesRD, SamDavidson respond to a poll by RL)
 * Background to this: Talk:Child_sexual_abuse where editors complain about DPeterson deleting significant cited material from academic studies, and the ensuing discussion is taken over by DPeterson, JohnsonRon, RalphLender, and SamDavidson, until SamDavidson declares "Yes, RalphLender, it does look like there is a clear agreement or consensus among five or six editors and only one (or two?) who seem to disagree. Deletion is the plan now." and RalphLender declares he sees a clear majority and calls a vote.
 * After a mass flurry of warning templates, some of which are stated to be "red herrings", including threats of "last warning before block", one editor states "When people are trying to remove material that have major impact on the research area while claiming that it is undue weight to even include it, then we have major problem. It doesn't matter if it is ignorance or in bad faith, it just isn't possible to edit this article under such conditions. Let's settle this in ArbCom and get it done already" [The editor concerned was later blocked himself; however this does not invalidate that as expressed, his stated concerns were reasonable.]
 * ... which DPeterson powerfully tries to deter via lawyering again: "Please read the Wikipedia dipute resolution documents. The proper steps would be first to hold an informal poll [!! controlled by the AWeidman connected accounts!], then work toward compromise, then, do an RfC, then, if all else fails, you can file a request for Mediation. AbCom would reject any request at this point as premature."

Comment by IP editor on article talk page
The following serious issue was raised by IP account user:70.156.183.109, regarding user:AWeidman using Wikipedia article pages to publicize serious professional and personal defamation. This allegation should be looked into (if it hasn't been already) as it is rather serious and also supported by DIFFs.

The original post - The main DIFF by AWeidman it cites as an example

Abuse of process when blocked
I note that upon DPeterson being blocked for 24 hours for disruption, user:RalphLender began "forum fishing" for admins to protect the articles, and prevent others editing. At least two admins seem to have been approached - user:Husond who did reprotect them, and User:Will Beback. I propose this as a clear attempt to abuse the protection process. It aims to disrupt editing by editors he opposed by obtaining protection, when he is unable to do so directly, rather than for genuine policy-based reasons.

Evidence: Although stating edit war as the grounds, neither RalphLender nor any other DPeterson-connected account has requested protection for edit warring when the edit war was dominated by the sock army who were 'winning'. It is only upon blocking of his likely sock DPeterson for disruption, that RalphLender (the sole remaining unblocked account other than AWeidman) now cries "foul" and seeks to have editing of the article prevented. It is an attempt to further use process to disrupt, not to protect.

Response - to DPeterson as 'MarkWood'
DPeterson writing as 'MarkWood' states: Coordinated efforts Meatpuppet: Same targets and timing -- Shotwell, Fainities, FatherTree, Sarner, Mercer, StokerAce [...], and more recently Lsi john and FT2 provide unfailing support for each other.

My involvement with this article started with a response on RFC patrol at DPeterson's RFC (21 May). I made two minor article edits, both of an administrative nature (correcting names separated from comments for other RFC readers, and tagging of the DDP article as "fansite/NPOV" with a talk page explanation and followup comment), with no other involvement. My interest on the article is therefore clearly evidenced as being purely of an administrative nature. I have never edited the AT article or its talk page, or pages closely related to it, other than in that role, had literally zero involvement in the article or the dispute, and am here as an outsider presenting evidence of policy breaches and sock use. Even that is almost entirely restricted to the last 4 days since this RFArb was opened. Res ipsa loquiter FT2 (Talk 07:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment re DPeterson as 'SamDavidson', list of "disruptive editors"
It is undenied and common ground that Sarner, JeanMercer and AWeidman all have a real life interest strong viewpoint in the pro/anti-AT debate (WP:COI and WP:NPOV do not preclude strong viewpoints; they rather state that a strong viewpoint is of concern and should be edited with caution or recused). The other allegations by SamDavidson are more dubious. For example he cites diffs to show "disruptive" behavior on the part of various people. But many of those diffs do not seem to support the assertations made, or only slightly do so: cite #1 + full context cite #2 as IP editor + full context Cite #3 + context. Cite #1 + full context doesn't show disruption; may show parties on all sides continued a professional debate here; could include mild OR on both sides, but I'm not expert enough to judge if this is discussion and assessment of published reports or synthesis and personal perspectives/research Cite #2 A "focus" on a given editor is not a "disruptive" act, I'd have "focussed" on editing I considered dubious too, on articles I'm involved in Cite #3 Discussing whether one might write professionally on a debate is not a problem either per se Now, Cite #4 this link does impune a motive to DPeterson et al that they "want to prevent the public" etc. As such it is inappropriate. (Note: this cite is then repeated in SamDavidson's evidence a 2nd time, giving the impression of two diffs, as item: "POV" ) Cite #1 does not show "disruptive" editing, nor is seeking more evidence of a mainstream view "bias", ...
 * Sarner is disruptive:
 * Mercer is disruptive: Financial interest etc, we know about Weidman and Mercer both having real life relationship to the debate, that is not a problem. Improper editing as a result is a problem. The question of COI applies to all 3 parties and itself is accepted as valid. Moving on...
 * Shotwell is disruptive:

And so on.... Most of the claimed "disruptives" are not in fact evidence of disruption. A few show demands for evidence, questions about the debate, possibly some carry-over by all parties (not just one) of the real life debate onto the talk page as OR... and several groundless items. Other cites may show other things, but it seems quite a number don't evidence strong cases of what they are claimed to evidence. Some milkd OR and accusations, perhaps. Which it now seems, were well founded.

Finally, and importantly, proving the other side is not faultless in no way exonerates the other side from its own faults or refutes the other side's own conduct.

Reponse to DPeterson as 'SamDavidson', claim that both sides show a similar pattern if analyzed
SamDavidson states that the same analysis performed on the edits of AWeidman et all "with some different articles, could be produced with Mercer, Sarner, FatherTree, Shotwell, StokerAce, etc. In fact, one could create a similiar listing focusing on any article with some degree of heat"

To test whether this was true or not, I performed an analysis of the articles edited by Mercer, Sarner, FatherTree, Shotwell, and StokerAce, and their first edit dates, which was identical to that performed on AWeidman et al.

Despite having a comparable number of edits when combined (3000 v. 4500), and spreading the net to search for editing in common by all editors named by SamDavidson, there are very few articles edited in common by these editors; additionally all of these few are directly related to this dispute.
 * AWeidman et al frequently have joined the same article on a wide range of topics, often on the same or similar dates, and often with multiple accounts. But beyond a very few articles all directly related to the present dispute, Mercer, Sarner, FatherTree, Shotwell, and StokerAce do not edit articles on other topics in common.
 * Where AWeidfman et al show a pattern that when one joins an article, so do (often multiple) others at a very similar time, this is not the case with Mercer/Sarner et al, even though Mercer and Sarner are stated to have a common editing goal. Specifically, where AWeidman et al frequently join articles with multiple accounts on the same or very similar dates, Mercer and Sarner have only done so on two articles: Advocates for Children in Therapy and Attachment Therapy, and StokerAce/FatherTree and StokerAce/Shotwell only on one article each.

Evidence request: "RalphLender"
"Ralphlender"s evidence states "The Chaffin article came out before three of Dr. Becker-Weidman's published empirical studies ... Since the article came out before those studies were published, some of the article's statements or opinions are based on old and/or incomplete information."

In view of the number of vague comments made, and the risk that vagueness might mean genuine policy-based questions are not addressed (as documented elsewhere in this dispute), I would like RalphLender to add some evidence of what exactly is being referred to:
 * Dates of publication for the 4 sources referenced.
 * Specification of the relevant specific "statements or opinions" relied upon by other editors here, which were in fact (or are claimed to have been) rendered outdated and invalid as a result.
 * Reliable sources evidencing that these statements and opinions are considered "old and/or outdated" by independent sources within the field due to Becker-Weidman's studies, and that this view is not merely that of a tiny minority.
 * The basis of credibility of "Chaffin" vs. "Becker-Weidman" studies, and how they are seen by the field outside their own interested parties. (For information only: eg, if one was a 5 year study, peer reviewed and widely published and seen as significant by the field, and the other a private study of one person's case-book, not widely recognized, that would affect whether information in the former would be reasonably considered "old" or "incomplete")

Long essays not sought, this is purely a request to add information backing this evidence claim, which is not there but is implied to exist. FT2 (Talk 22:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Noted, silence. FT2 (Talk 00:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to DPeterson re above
DPeterson states: "FT2's table shows that nearly all, in some cases all, of the edits of Sarner, Jean Mercer, StokerAce, Shotwell, FatherTree, Fainities, HealthConsumerAdvocate, PsychPHD, Raspor, Mercerj, among others, are on the related pages".

I find this a remarkable statement. It shows nothing of the kind. For one thing, the edits of most of these are not included (!!) as they were not brought into question by SamDavidson's comment. This is stated clearly. Secondly, the analysis is identical to that of AWeidman et al; it shows only articles where two or more of the named editors both edited. It does not show what articles each of them they may have edited in addition. This is also clearly stated. FT2 (Talk 07:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to DPeterson allegation of collusion
DPeterson comments: "Further evidence that FT2 and Fainites support each other and edit together: FT2 is not a neutral uninvolved editor as FT2 has presented. See []"

I invite arbitrators to see the edit cited as evidence of 'collusion' with user:Fainites for themselves (direct context link), and judge what exactly it says. It's nothing about fainites, and contains a warning to DPeterson, RalphLender and others related to newly begun abusive editing and WP:BITE on another article (NLP) which the two accounts commenced near-simultaneously mid-arb. The warning isn't about, or in common with, or even related to or referencing or touching upon Fainites in any way. It's an admin post warning the AWeidman editors such as DPeterson and RalphLender to abide by policy, given their present editing indications. Please read for yourself, in full, and in the context of DPeterson's accusation above.

I submit this as evidence of the kind of spurious inane bad-faith accusation based upon nothing, noted elsewhere and in the Workshop. My non-involvement on that article is also documented at Workshop/Remedies #9 (Probation) where similar accusations are made and are very clearly seen to be untruthful. FT2 (Talk 05:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to DPeterson further allegation of 'abuse'
This is predominantly instantly verifiable falsehoods again. I've put detailed evidence in response to the same material mirrored on WP:AN. It's a game. More to the point, it appears to be intended to stir up mud, and to enable DP to claim COI (as done elsewhere) if he is in fact deprived of editing privileges for a period due to misconduct. I don't buy it, nor is 'gaming' acceptable. The involvement (other than as an admin specifically) is near-zero, the relevant co-editing is zero, the allegations contain multiple rather obvious misleading or outright untruthful statements, the "threats" alleged in fact bend over backwards to ask that DP not abuse policy or bite newcomers, and to explain and offer support if he has any doubts -- and DP has tried this line before on others.

As a general principle, if any editor with an evidenced history of abusive policy could avoid admin action just by disputing involvement, making a bogus claim of abuse, and then using that as a basis in future to claim admin action is personal/COI, then Wikipedia would soon have a severe problem.

In short, the warnings that policy based editing is expected of all editors, stand. Admins are given their access to protect the project and enforce policies when action finally becomes unavoidable, and attempts to push bad faith allegations are just a "job risk" and a given. If after investigation, any Arbcom member or genuine good-faith editor has a genuine question about any of these cites or allegations, then please add them to this page or ask me on my talk page, I will address and evidence those gladly.

Otherwise...

DP, this seems like an attempt to abuse process and waste my time. I don't feel inclined to play this one. You know what policy states, what conduct standards you are expected to follow, and what is and isn't endorsed as acceptable by the community. You also know that the balance of fair and supportive, but drawing a line, doesn't waiver for games. I have drawn a line so far, and offered open support and firm warning equally. It is, always has been, and remains, in your hands to choose as you see fit, knowing the position you put yourself in if you abuse the site invitation. It's that simple. FT2 (Talk 13:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to "further allegations":

DP - Further allegations comprise 5 points. Let's start with the first. You've been asked before, for actual, specific examples and evidence (diffs) to back the comment "He edits closely with Fainites in NLP", which seems untruthful and irrelevant. So far the evidence presented kind of tries to hide that not one diff of this is presented, by adding lots of wordage. Can you list specifically and unambiguously, the exact diffs that you feel show "He edits closely with Fainites in NLP"? Note that "edits closely" means more than just "left an admin comment at a time fainites was active on the article".....

Thanks.

On a side, diff (4) seems to show shotwell saying "Honestly?". I am sure this in some arcane way proves admin abuse, but it may also show that Elvis shot John F. Kennedy too.


 * {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | What shotwell's comment actually seems to be responding to.....
 * style="font-size:125%" | The actual context of this comment is not as described by DPeterson. It's a response to RalphLender's comment in which RL tries again to game WP:CONSENSUS, WP:V and WP:CITE as documented here and here in the above evidence. The relevant comment of RalphLender's being responded to, reads:
 * "The fact is clearly stated and referenced (WP:V) with evidence that those groups solicit and use evidence of advocacy groups (WP:CITE)...but not ACT (assumption of interpretation). And, of course, the APSAC omission of any and all ACT material is most telling (WP:OR concerns previously expressed on this synthesis). Therefore the statement should stay (WP:NPOV concerns previously expressed regarding weight, balance and neutrality). If there is real disagreement, maybe you will want to file a RfC to get wider comment...or follow some other Wikipedia approved dispute resolution process (WP:GAME)"
 * "The fact is clearly stated and referenced (WP:V) with evidence that those groups solicit and use evidence of advocacy groups (WP:CITE)...but not ACT (assumption of interpretation). And, of course, the APSAC omission of any and all ACT material is most telling (WP:OR concerns previously expressed on this synthesis). Therefore the statement should stay (WP:NPOV concerns previously expressed regarding weight, balance and neutrality). If there is real disagreement, maybe you will want to file a RfC to get wider comment...or follow some other Wikipedia approved dispute resolution process (WP:GAME)"

RalphLender/DPeterson and puppets have repeatedly used this exact game in two parts: Shotwell has probably seen this tactic used by the sock owner a hundred times or so over the past year (I haven't counted exactly). And of course, it's also documented by myself (on this page) prior to this, which documents the game more formally. It is in this context that the reply is made.
 * 1) Gaming based on high emphasis of V and CITE with low regard for NPOV and OR, to impose their view backed up by
 * 2) Demands that others who disagree have to follow full dispute processes ... starting with a poll or RFC ... which it's well known is a stonewalling tactic with DPeterson/RalphLender by puppetry then proceeding to dominate and claim false consensus (documented above and visible many times in the articles they POV war on).
 * }

And response to further allegations
I don't plan to respond much to the further allegations, which are known to DP to be false and spurious.

It's enough to note that I've never co-edited with Fainites on any article, never co-edited with him/her at any time on NLP, not at any time worked "with him/her" on this or any other page, that DPeterson reports basing his spurious complaints upon "information received" (almost certainly banned user HeadleyDown, who has a bee in the bonnet about NLP having been removed from it by me, and who I also removed from Attachment Therapy in June), that the DPeterson and RalphLender accounts both near-simultaneously tried to commence POV warring on NLP during this arbitration (never having visited it before), .....

It's also relevant that DPeterson surely knows these are false and untrue. He's responded to many comments on this 'arb page and workshop, but the requests for specific, actual diff's showing actual, serious, "working together" (eg, as above and in the workshop) have been ignored or bluffed with wordage. As indeed they would have to be, since they're spurious and no such diffs exist. DPeterson's ability to pick an untruth and try tosupport it through brute force repetition, is already noted -- not least the repeated dozens of denials of sock puppetry for example.

DPeterson's final point, that the matters were factual and cited, are noted. Despite being factual and cited, they were also rejected numerous times by all other editors for a combination of being in fact intended to make a point, causing a weight or neutrality issue in the article, or being disruptive by reason of ignoring consensus. Verifiability is necessary but not sufficient; it does not trump neutrality, nor does it override communal norms on "disruptive editing" vs. "dispute resolution process" if there is disagreement. All of this has been explained repeatedly and by several editors as well as by myself. A sample of the times I alone have patiently and carefully explained these things to help him find better ways of approaching these specific edits, is listed at: Talk page#DPeterson (1). Not one of these suggestions or observations on policy, was ever followed up by DPeterson, who continued to edit in the identical pattern.

Update: Several days later (Aug 9), DPeterson has added nothing more than merely repeating the existing assertion that that WP:V and WP:CITE are enough to marginalize concerns of all other editors on WP:POINT, WP:NPOV etc (explained many times not so), and constant repeating of the spurious claim that I'm apparently "clearly" an "ally" of Fainites on the NLP article. DPeterson also appears to be under the impression that some exception exists in WP:DISRUPT that is applicable to himself, which is strange given his repeated statements that all other editors disagreeing with his view should follow dispute resolution and his consensus.

I think I've noted the diffs for all these above. I'll try to make time to refactor these various responses, later this evening.

Update: DPeterson adds that "If I am requested to respond more specifically to particular Wikipedia rule violations or instances, I will gladly do so, but in the interests of brevity, I will end here". My comment on this (which is not evidence) is on the talk page. FT2 (Talk 20:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

POV warring elsewhere
DPeterson states above that:


 * "I have worked hard to keep Pedophilia related pages NPOV and stay vigilent regarding Pro-Pedophilia groups that seem to have a particularly provocative POV regarding sexual activity with children. I think my activities in this regard have been very productive and helpful to Wikipedia.".

I find a large incongruity between this claim, and the evidence presented which suggests that in fact far from being "productive and helpful", DPeterson POV and sock warred on pedophilia, exactly as he did on Attachment Therapy... (See: for examples).

POV warring with socks, gaming processes, and edit warring, are not "very productive and helpful". Not ever.

DPeterson's last stand
DPeterson makes one last try to show "working together". He presents 11 diffs. Predictably starting at the beginning they prove... nothing. I gave up checking half way, having hoped he'd at least find something interesting. In the order he presents them we have:

And so on. All old, all non-controversial. Notably what DPeterson has made eminently clear is three things: As mentioned elsewhere: red herring.
 * An RFC from February 2007 as admin not editor, noting that the NLP article is below par following the edit war the previous year, and there are policy concerns. WP:RFC requires a statement on the talk page explaining what is sought, DPeterson links to this statement.
 * Minor NPOV corrections to remove edit war residues from an NLP related article. Date back over a year to June 2006 reblocking of a reincarnation.
 * the next three date from 2004/2005.
 * Again dates from the June 2006 cleanup following the then-recent removal of the edit warrior. Edit of introduction to match rest of article.
 * Not one diff can be found showing any improper action or "heavy working together". No surprise really. Any competent checker of edit history could have spotted that.
 * To try and show a COI based on supposed "heavy involvement together" on NLP, where Fainites edited, DPeterson has had to go back around 2 to 3 years, to 2004/2005. Unfortunately since Fainites has only edited on that article since December 2006 (7 months prior to arb case), this doesn't show "working together" either.
 * The statements I've made are accurate, insofar as the above bear them out well.

RalphLender/DPeterson latest & zoophilia
I think this diff of HeadleyDown's from July 2006 (reverted within the day by Tony Sidaway under WP:RPA) says it all. My comment at the time stated:


 * "I think WP:RFArb/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans and WP:RFCU/Case/HeadleyDown together with personal attacks against both user:Woohookitty and myself (  and ) for blocking this vandal from his chosen targets of neuro-linguistic programming, zoophilia, paraphilia and psychology might explain the above attack."

In June 2007 I re-removed Headley (under his user:Maypole reincarnation) from intervening on his target of zoophilia yet again.

As regards the diffs "RalphLender" provides, the first of these (the one he calls (DPeterson's link) is actually a part-unarchive of the talk page. The second and third are equally irrelevant. I almost didn't bother to check the last one. Another red herring. A week after DPeterson/Ralphlender's phony 'apologies', the two accounts are right back in there repeating old games ad nauseum, as seen in Workshop, in articles, and on various other attack pages. It's enough already.

Evidence presented by RalphLender
Overall, I agree with the material presented by DPeterson and JonesRD.

WP:COI regarding [[User:Jean Mercer and User:Sarner
User:Sarner and User:Jean Mercer having a WP:COI regarding these various articles and the content disputes. The dispute initially was driven in part by the unique positions of two leaders of the advocacy group, Advocates for Children in Therapy (Sarner and Mercer) and their supporters. Their advocacy is the basis for this content dispute. The conflict of interest involves the following #. They are leaders of the advocacy group Advocates for Children in Therapy, [] #. They have published books and so have a financial interest in the dispute. [], []. # Mercer’s recent career involves advocating the positions of this advocacy group. [], [], [], [], [], []

Additional examples regarding Mercer
[]. Mercer's removal of the becker-weidman/shell text is another example of Mercer's COI by bringing her ACT-based conflict with Dr. Becker-Weidman into the Wikipedia forum.

Mercer's recent response to my citing her disruptive and POV editing further supports my statement. What is stated is ACT POV pushing. For example, the book's disclaimer is not unusual in texts that use case histories...The text is quite relevant to attachment theory as there is at least one chapter in the text that describes attachment theory and implications for treatment; in particular the treatment of maltreated children.

Additional Material regarding Serner
[] Sarner's removal the the link to Quackwatch came after his colleagues deleted the refernece in the article to ACT's material being on Quackwatch. Quackwatch has material on AT that is from ACT. It appears Sarner wanted to "improve" the image of the article and ACT by distancing himself from Quackwatch, for whatever reason.

Forum Shopping
Several disputes were mediated and resolved, only to be re-raised by the same group of editors when the outcome was not to their liking. See:
 * 1) Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07 Advocates for Children in Therapy
 * 2) Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-21 John Bowlby
 * 3) Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-18 Sarner's reverts-edits of Bowlby and Candace Newmaker

Sarner and StokerAce being Meatpuppets
An administrator raised this issue a while ago: []

Response to Lis john and shotwell
My AN/I on FatherTree was different that DPeterson's. The sockpuppet issues was raised and addressed on two occassions.

Partial response to Fainites
So much of what is listed there is really a content dispute. The sources and disputes about what was said are disputes of interpretation.

On the other hand, Fainies seems to continue to make false statements regarding several sources. For example, the Chaffin article came out before three of Dr. Becker-Weidman's published empirical studies, yet Fainites at times ignores that or disputes that. Since the article came out before those studies were published, some of the article's statements or opinions are based on old and/or incomplete information.

Evidence that Fainites, FatherTree, Mercer, et. al. work as one
See [] as one recent example.

Evidence of Fainites enacting ACT agenda by removing any reference to Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy
Fainites has been working with Sarner and Mercer and FatherTree, the ACT group, to enact their agenda of removing all references to Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, which has a legitimate place in these articles: [] Child Abuse

[]

[] Child Welfare

[] Attachment in Children

[] Reactive attachment disorder

[]

[] Attachment disorder

[] emotional dysregulation

[] bowlby

[] PTSD

[] foster care

[] CBT

[]

[]

[] Adoption

In each instance, the citation was supported by a reference and fit into the article. The relevance in each instance is that DDP is a treatment with an empirical basis for the treatment of adopted and foster children with the DX of RAD.

In this example, Fainites removes a statement citing material by C. Zeanah, again showing the ACT bias against DDP and Dr. Becker-Weidman. []

Shotwell represents ACT view by misrepresenting material
Shotwell removes the word "significant" from the description of the findings and replaces it with "Becker-Weidman" concluded. This is a sneaky misrepresentation. The findings were statistically significant as reported in the peer reviewed professional journal articles. The word significant was accurate. The replacement by Shotwell is a sneaky POV insertion. []

FT2 and related issues
I notice that FT2 has taken some unusual positions regarding zoophilia [], suggesting it is not a mental health disorder. I wonder if that has any bearing on FT2's involvement in this dispute vis-a-vis involvement of DPeterson and others on the Pedophilia articles. Pedophilia and FT2's positions seem congruent. Since Fainites has worked with FT2 and that group has an administrator closely allied with it, I have some concerns about how balanced is the view being presented to the Administrators. []

[]

[]

[]

I could add more, but I think the administrators can read these and the related pages and reach their own conclusions regarding these questions.

Partial response to Fainites & FT2
There are a number of diffs on the evidence page suggesting/alleging that Fainites and FT2 have worked together on the NLP articles and related articles. Here is just one diff from the evidence page as one example from the several on this page: [] If you want more, I'd suggest reading the page. I don't think it is productive to continue to re state what is already on this page. That only serves to make this more complex. I'd suggest reading the evidence page and the appropriate diffs.

My point is that there may be some relationship between zoophilia articles contributors and pedophile articles contributors and that this would call into question FT2's neutrality and that FT2 may be using this dispute in that manner. There is also evidence of FT2 abusing his administrative status. All together, this raises questions that the Arbitrators should consider, look into, and address.

I am not making any personal attack as HD seems to have done. I am noting a possible relationship between FT2's involvement here and his interests in several articles that may call into question his neutrality. The over-reaction is curious.

Ralph Lender: My Summary and Concluding Remarks
It seems that now is a good time to provide a concluding statement. It appears that all the evidence to be presented has largely been listed and responded to.

WP:Game. I opened an ANI in good faith. I admit that I do not fully understand all the intricacies of filing ANI and related conflict resolution procedures. I thought what I did was the correct step to resolve an festering content dispute. If that was wrong, I apologize.

I added materials that I considered useful for articles. The book, Creating Capacity for Attachment seemed to present a reasonably complete picture of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and it’s roots in Attachment Theory. There is an entire chapter in the book about the theory basis for DDP and it seemed to me based in attachment theory.

I don’t think it is useful at this stage for me to comment on other editors responses to my material on the evidence page, so I will not do that unless requested to by the reviewers of this dispute.

When I made citations I did so in good faith. I think that the references I used to support my suggested inclusions were valid and consistent with Wikipedia policies.

The comments regarding my work on the Child sexual abuse article do require some response. The material I supported being deleted was not very relevant and was being pushed by an editor who was later banned as part of a pedophile group. in fact, to some extent, I have been targeted by pro-pedophilia groups for my work. See: [].

I added material by DDP to articles about Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and related subjects, because the treatment is relevant to that topic. As the [] National Child Traumatic Stress Network discusses in their seminal White Paper [] “Complex Trauma in Children and Adolescents,” attachment is one of the critical domains of impairment of early chronic maltreatment within a care-giving relationship. DDP address these issues directly, according to several articles and books. It is on this basis that I added this material. To date there are at least thee books and six articles on the subject.

Finally, I would agree with some of DPeterson’s comments. I know that I have edited in a provocative manner and made some personal attacks and whether I was provoked or not is beside the point. What I did was wrong and I am sorry about that.

In many instances I have been a positive contributor to Wikipedia and a helpful member of the community. I think my work on Child Sexual Abuse, Adopted Child Syndrome, Cognitive Behavior Therapy, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Domestic Violence, Child Abuse, and a number of other articles has been helpful.

If there is to be the application of some sanctions, then I agree with the principle of rehabilitation and would suggest the mentoring of my work, particularity or exclusively, on the disputed pages.

Evidence presented by Sarner
(Note: For convenience of reference, I refer collectively to Becker-Weidman and the original six editors at issue as the "Buffalo Editors".)

Evidence of an Advertising Campaign on Behalf of Becker-Weidman and DDP


Buffalo Editors' involvement with DDP article
Becker-Weidman creates DDP, and the other Buffalo Editors edit, "improve," or defend the article:  

Inserting links with commercial advantage
Insertion of DDP, reference to Becker-Weidman's publications, and links to his commercial website, into Wikipedia articles in the mainspace:  

Attachment theory template
On 28 Jan 2007, Beno1000 creates an | "Attachment theory" template which has the DDP and Theraplay articles as entries. Over the next 45 minutes, Beno1000 | adds it to the following articles, thereby giving a hyperlink to the DDP article in each and every one of them: On 29 May 2007, Sadi_Carnot, who earlier edited the template slightly, added it to a new article she created: Attachment (psychology).  
 * 1) Attachment in children
 * 2) Attachment theory
 * 3) Attachment in adults
 * 4) Attachment measures
 * 5) Attachment disorder
 * 6) Reactive attachment disorder
 * 7) Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy
 * 8) Theraplay
 * 9) Object relations theory
 * 10) Affectional bond
 * 11) Human bonding
 * 12) Mary Ainsworth
 * 13) John Bowlby
 * 14) Erik Erikson
 * 15) Jerome Kagan
 * 16) Melanie Klein
 * 17) Jean Piaget

Categorization of DDP
Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is listed in the following categories of Wikipedia, so that anyone investigating the broader subject automatically will be exposed to the article:  

There is self-promotion on the part of Becker-Weidman
User page advertising: Arthur Becker-Weidman has used his user page to tout his non-Wikipedia activities and status, including prominently displaying the following claims:


 * "I am also known as Dr. Art on the internet and by the families and children I work with."
 * "Effective treatment for children and teens with complex trauma who have histories of chronic maltreatment"

Precocious signatures: He has crafted an account signature that it is bold, colorful, and extraordinarily large so it stands out prominently on a talk page (|for example).

Presumptuous nomenclature: He is not notable as Dr. Art (results of a Google search on "Dr. Art" +"Weidman", 152 hits on 23 July 2007). The only non-commercial places on the internet where he has been known as "Dr. Art" has been Wikipedia and a prominent adoption website, Adoption.com &mdash; where he was banned. His stated reason for joining the latter community was as "Director of the [Buffalo NY] region's only attachment center specializing in evaluating and treating adopted and foster children. Treating children with Reactive Attachment Disorder and other conditions." His last posts before being banned were on 26 Dec 2005 &mdash; the same month he created his Wikipedia account and the DDP article. 

Authored milled book: His only book, Creating Capacity for Attachment, cited or linked in many Wikipedia articles (by him or by the DPeterson socks), was published by Wood 'n' Barnes, an author mill. The publisher has a thin booklist, with fewer than 50 titles. The book doesn't have an index, which is normally expected of a book with notable editorial content. The book does not appear in the Library of Congress catalog (the US copyright depository). A search for the book in the online database of the Copyright Clearance Center likewise yields no results. A search for the book in the online WorldCat yields the book's presence in only seven libraries: three in the US, three in Canada, and one in Ireland.

Vanity boards: He has user boxes listing professional "boards" to which he purports to belong. These organizations are not widely recognized professionally. A Google search on the "American Board of Psychological Specialities in Child Psychology" yields but one hit: AWeidman's user page on Wikipedia. A similar search on the "American Board of Psychological Specialities in Forensic Psychology" yields only two hits: AWeidman's user pages on Wikipedia and the Psychology Wiki. Even after allowing for possible misspellings in the Board names, Google searches on both Boards yield only 7 and 6 hits, respectively, 5 of the former and 4 of the latter being notices of Becker-Weidman. By contrast, a search on "American Board of Forensic Psychology" yields 735 hits, including a website for the Board itself; the website of the "American Academy of Forensic Psychology" has a listing of 239 diplomates. Since 2003, after application by Division 53 of the American Psychological Association, board certification in "clinical child psychology and adolescent psychology" has been provided by the American Board of Professional Psychology. (, et seq.)  

Evidence that DDP article, et al., are advertising


The Aboriginal DDP Article
The aboriginal DDP article, drafted by AWeidman, contained these statements:
 * "Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is the [sic] one of the only forms of treatment that is effective with trauma-attachment disordered children."
 * "It is the only 'evidence-based' treatment, meaning that there has been research published in peer-reviewed journals."
 * "Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is primarily an experiential-based treatment, designed to facilitate experiences of safety and security so that a secure attachment may grow."
 * "Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is the name for an approach and a set of principals [sic] that have proven to be effective in helping trauma-attachment disordered children heal; that is, develop healthy, trusting, and secure relationships with caregivers."
 * "Treatment is based on five central principals [sic]. These principals [sic] are based on the causes and courses of disorders of attachment."
 * "Effective therapy uses experiences to help a child experience safety, security, acceptance, empathy, and emotional attunement. A number of techniques and methods are used including psychodrama, interventions congruent with Theraplay, and other exercises."
 * "'Compression-wraps,' invasive and intrusive stimulation designed to evoke rage, 're-birthing,' and other provocative techniques are not part of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. These intrusive and invasive techniques are not therapy, not therapeutic, and have no place in a reputable treatment program."
 * "The therapist must be well trained, licensed, and have significant experience in treating trauma-attachment disordered children. A good resource to locate such therapists is the Association for the Treatment and Training in the Attachment of Children, ATTACh. In selecting a therapist you should look for the following: ... Ø Licensure in the state in a recognized mental health discipline. Ø Membership in ATTACh." [Note: As it happens, Becker-Weidman is licensed as a social worker in New York state, is on the Board of Directors of ATTACh , and can be located as a therapist on the ATTACh website .]
 * An External Link to AWeidman's commercial website, with the display phrase: "Source for information on treatment".
 * An External Link to the ATTACh website.

No reliable secondary sources are cited for the material in the article. The only References given were two of AWeidman's own publications: a demonstrably unreliable journal article (as noted by others), and an author-milled book (see above).  

The Present-Day DDP Article
After months of attempted editing to change its nature, the article's lead paragraph of the |most recent DPeterson-edited version reads as follows: "Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is an evidence-based treatment (Category 3) approach [1], found by two studies and several empirical articles to be effective for the treatment of attachment disorder, reactive attachment disorder, and complex trauma.[2][3][4][5] Children who have experienced pervasive and extensive trauma, neglect, loss, and/or other dysregulating experiences may benefit from this treatment. Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is based on principles derived from Attachment theory[6] and research, grounded in the work of Bowlby.[7] The treatment meets the standards for non-coerciveness of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, The American Academy of Child Psychiatry, American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, and various other groups concerned with treatment of children and adolescents.[3] This is a non-coercive treatment. The principles and methodology of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy are based on long-standing treatment principles."
 * [Note: Fn 1 refers to an article which does not say DDP is "evidence-based". Fns 2-5 refer to AWeidman's disputed articles and author-milled book.  Fns 6-7 refer to general works on attachment theory published in the early 1990s and do not mention DDP.]

A sampling of statements in the body of the current version:
 * "Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is a treatment with empirical support developed by Daniel Hughes, Ph.D."
 * "Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy interventions flow from several theoretical and empirical lines. … It relies on sound treatment principles based on empirical evidence, such as the importance of empathy, reflective function, and other general treatment principles."
 * "In that study it was found that other forms of treatment, such as individual therapy or play therapy did not produce any improvement; thus indicating that Dyadic Developmental Psychotheray [sic] may be effective."
 * "Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy meets the standards and is incompliance [sic] with the American Association for the Abuse of Children's [sic] (APSAC) Task Force's recommendations[28] and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry practice parameters.[29][4] In addition, the practice of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is consistent with the practice standards of the American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers.[3]"
 * [Note: Fn 28 refers to the published report of the task force, which specifically cited DDP as a counter-example of what it was recommending. Fn 29 refers only to the AACAP practice parameters themselves; fn 4 to a book chapter by AWeidman himself (no page reference provided for any discussion of adherence to practice parameters).  Fn 3 refers to the author-milled book by AWeidman (likewise no page reference to a discussion of adherence to practice parameters).]


 * An External Reference to AWeidman's commercial website, with the display label, "Center For Family Development. Information for therapists and parents on effective treatment methods and research."
 * An External Reference labeled "Info and support regarding Reactive Attachment Disorder and DDP", pointing to a webpage which has no mention of DDP.
 * An External Reference labeled "Website about Dyadic Developmental psychotherapy" which is nothing more than a mirror of the DDP article on Wikipedia (including even the Reference to itself!).
 * An External Reference labeled "Article about DDP" is in reality a link to a promotional piece on the commercial website of a Kansas provider of DDP.

Much of the body of the present article directly comes from the aforementioned book chapter by Becker-Weidman, copyrighted by the book's publisher. ("Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy: a multi year follow-up." In Sturt, Stanley M., ed., New Developments in Child Abuse Research. NY: Nova Science Publishers, 2006. pp.43-61.)  

Notability of DDP and Theraplay in the field
On 15 May 2006, a list of researched, evidence-based therapies was included in the article on John Bowlby, reading as follows: "Following Bowlby's leads, a few established child-development researchers suggested developmentally appropriate mental health interventions to sensitively foster emotional relationships between young children and adults. These approaches used tested techniques which were congruent with Attachment theory and other established principles of child development. Among such researchers contemporarily are Alicia Lieberman (parent education), Stanley Greenspan ('Floor Time'), Mary Dozier (autonomous states of mind), Robert Marvin ('Circle of Security'), Daniel Schechter (intergenerational communication of trauma), and Joy Osofsky ('Safe Start Initiative')." This led to an edit war, which eventually led to AWeidman, DPeterson and IPs 66.238.218.83 (NYC) and 68.66.160.228 (Buffalo) insisting upon the insertion of Daniel Hughes ("Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy") and Phyllis [sic] Jernberg ("Theraplay") into the middle of this list. Eventually, the talk page raised the issue of the notability of Hughes and Jernberg compared with the others; this was not refuted directly by the Buffalo Editors, but argued solely on the basis of "consensus" (established by sock-puppets, as it turned out), and ad hominem attacks alleging "disruptive" editing (for trying to remove just two entries from a list). The data for notability, relied upon at the time, were publication counts in the professional literature, to wit:
 * {| class="wikitable" align="center" border="1"

! style="background:silver" | Author ! style="background:silver" | PsycInfo count (as of June 2006)
 * Lieberman, A.
 * align="center" | 53
 * Greenspan, S.
 * align="center" | 113
 * Dozier, M.
 * align="center" | 43
 * Marvin, R. S.
 * align="center" | 34
 * Schechter, D.
 * align="center" | 13
 * Osofsky, J. D.
 * align="center" | 80
 * Hughes, D. A.
 * align="center" | 3
 * Jernberg, A.
 * align="center" | 0
 * }
 * align="center" | 80
 * Hughes, D. A.
 * align="center" | 3
 * Jernberg, A.
 * align="center" | 0
 * }
 * align="center" | 0
 * }

Publication counts for other persons of interest to this dispute were:
 * {| class="wikitable" align="center" border="1"

! style="background:silver" | Author ! style="background:silver" | PsycInfo count (as of June 2006) </li> </ol>
 * Zeanah, C. H.
 * align="center" | 98
 * O'Connor, T. G.
 * align="center" | 98
 * Mercer, J.
 * align="center" | 29
 * Weidman, A.
 * align="center" | 7
 * }
 * Weidman, A.
 * align="center" | 7
 * }
 * }

DPeterson et al. are one person
In addition to FT2's evidence,
 * Instead of "rvv" ("revert vandalism"), DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, and MarkWood all use "rrv." (dyslexic for "revert vandalism"). None of the accounts seem to have ever used "rvv." Evidence:
 * DPeterson:                     etc
 * RalphLender:
 * JonesRD:
 * MarkWood:
 * All of the accounts in question habitually link like this: []. Evidence:
 * DPeterson:      etc.
 * RalphLender:      etc.
 * JonesRD:     etc.
 * SamDavidson:     etc.
 * MarkWood:     etc.
 * JohnsonRon: (i'm tired of this)


 * They appear to have trouble bolding correctly. Talk:Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy is one striking example. For more, see Suspected sock puppets/AWeidman.
 * Some of the content on User:DPeterson is pasted from User:AWeidman. eg., "My areas of expertise and my areas of interest are: Psychotherapy with children and adolescents; Attachment theory, Sir John Bowlby, the application of attachment theory [...] If you want to contact me you can just leave a message on my talk page."
 * On 1 July DPeterson said:
 * "I was merely suggesting that what you wrote read more like a talk page comment than an addition to the article. If you want to edit the article, with citations, you are certainly welcome to do so."
 * Yet before this he had not been involved in any discussion or action relating to the issue (addition of an addendum to the Bowlby article) at all. His sockpuppet, JonesRD, was the one who made the suggestion DPeterson claims to have made.


 * DPeterson used his sandbox at User:DPeterson/MyList to prepare the evidence presented as JohnsonRon above.

Evidence of sockpuppetry
Checkuser indicates that User:JonesRD, User:SamDavidson, User:MarkWood, and User:JohnsonRon are all accounts of one individual. User:DPeterson and User:RalphLender seem unrelated. There are accusations above that these accounts often physically copy comments made by each other and re-post them as their own. If true, this may explain some of the linguistic overlap seen between accounts that do not appear closely related via checkuser. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: I've gone over the evidence, and Jpgordon is correct, DPeterson also shared an IP with MarkWood within an hour of each other, on the same day. Other technical evidence indicates that the accounts are run by the same person. It appears that the puppetmaster has attempted to keep the accounts segregated, but has occasionally slipped up. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of tendentious argumentation
Within 4 minutes of my posting the checkuser results above, User:DPeterson had posted a "Comment" claiming there was "no evidence presented" for my statements. I submit that that is prima facie evidence of the style of tendentious argumentation of which DPeterson is accused. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson is also the same editor as MarkWood
Checkuser evidence shows that MarkWood and DPeterson edited from the same IP within an hour of each other on July 12. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocks issued pending arbitration decisions

 * Full details and basis of block recorded in full on evidence talk page. This section is just a summary record.


 * blocked for for 24 hours, for tendentiously repeatedly inserting this edit, which breaches WP:POINT, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, probably WP:DISRUPT, probably WP:OR, WP:CONSENSUS, and a few others. DP is well aware these are disputed edits with concerns over neutrality, synthesis, or other concerns, and that appropriate action is to discuss, not repeatedly reinsert, and has also had given numerous explanations, requests and clarifications. In light of allegations of abuse, 3rd party review of the rationale and proposal to block and extended discussion was also requested, which took place in the presence of some 45 admins and two Arbcom clerks. None dissented. (Newyorkbrad and Thatcher131 can confirm.) FT2 (Talk 18:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 25 mins after DPeterson block (above), (who has read the identical concerns and warnings and is a behaviorally evidenced sock of DPeterson) reinserts the identical text instead. Blocked in a context of untenable WP:AGF, for identical reasons as DPeterson's block, plus also additionally 1/ behavioral evidence of puppetry in general and in this instance, plus 2/ concerns over evidence of WP:GAME. FT2 (Talk 20:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Within hours of first block expiry, DPeterson had not only returned to re-insert the same edits, but done so twice for one of them. Further 24 hour block, plus heads up that a third incident of problematic editing could lead to a 48 hour block. FT2 (Talk 02:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

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

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