Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy

I urge the committee to accept this case. I'm not directly involved in this dispute, but I've been watching it for some time, and have made one or two attempts at mediation.

This dispute has been going on for several months. Attempts at WP:DR have been met with extreme resistance, to the point of disruption (supporting claims of WP:COI), and it does not appear that anything short of committee involvement will resolve the issue.

While I can't address the content dispute, I can support the claim that Dpeterson, RalphLender (and others) appear to be working in concert, and are unwilling to move toward compomise. Instead they divert discussions with accusations of WP:NPA, WP:SOCK, etc (example). I believe the mediator had to 'clean up' numerous {{spa}} tags. It appears there may also be some validity to the claim of meat puppets (though I dislike the term) and COI.

Sample of behavior:
After a post on AN/I against FatherTree failed to gain support (here), DPeterson and RalphLender opened 3 virtually identical threads on the admin boards (here, here and here), each falsely claiming 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 another 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 that 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). 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).

When I suggested that the 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..." (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, (team mate), 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 ."

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

Again I encourage the committee to accept this case, as the situation is disrupting the community. Peace.Lsi john 14:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I an uninvolved in any way, but aware of this dispute since it overlaps with another. Information note when assessing the parties involved: Note that Maypole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (referred to above) was a LTA/HeadleyDown reincarnation. A reasonable assessment might be that some sock activity or meat recruitment is more likely to be happening. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update confirming above: Addisababa (talk · contribs) blocked as sock. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Identical mannerisms and styles. This should be apparent to anyone who's "worked" with his accounts. Certain words and abbreviations are favoured by all six members of the pro-DDT group, eg. "stmt."
• Weird, characteristic mistakes across all accounts: for example, [[1]], always using "rrv" instead of "rvv", 'bolding poorly''' etc.
• Occasional account slip-ups. For example, on 1 July DPeterson said:[2]

  "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.[3]

He should have been blocked *long* ago. DopaminergicOverdrive 04:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please present this evidence on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Evidence. Picaroon (Talk) 17:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here by clerk Picaroon for ease of reference on his part.

• Per User:Daniel's request, I redacted a few statements at WP:RFAR#Attachment_Therapy. Please talk to me if there's any questions. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 09:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a fill-in comment here: I posted a request to have a discussion with a clerk via IRC, to which Penwhale kindly honoured. In this discussion, I outlined how there was evidence presented about parties' behaviour on the RfM page. As we quite clearly state here, this is something we quite clearly object to; in fact, it is one of three cornerstones of our existance. So, I had PW remove this, which was using behaviour during RfM as evidence (he later reformatted it here). Although I have deleted Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy and the talk page, the presense of information from a users' behaviour on a mediation page which is being used as evidence is not on, as far as we as a Committee stand on the issue.

If you have any further questions, please don't hesistate to contact me on IRC or email. If any of you see behaviour on the RfM page being used as evidence, with or without diffs, I would be extremely appreciative if you could remove it. Cheers, Daniel 10:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that statements made during the course of an RfM application are subject to the same restrictions as statements made during mediation. (See WP:M#The_privileged_nature_of_mediation.) The reason RfM content is not allowed in arbitration cases is to encourage free and open discussions, so that statements can not later be used against someone. However this was an application for mediation and the case was never accepted or opened, it seems. I had a discussion with Essjay about this possibly in my talk archive somewhere, otherwise you may wish to clarify the matter on the mediation mailing list. Also note that this proscription does not apply to MEDCAB, only MEDCOM. Thatcher131 14:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here and here. Not sure about this one. Was the talk page bickering made "in good faith attempt to resolve the dispute" or was in fact the disputatious talk page the reason the committee closed the case without a hearing, as it was evident the parties were not really mediateable? Thatcher131 14:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was accepted and opened, however no mediator took it in a month, so I closed it. I already have support for what I did on medcom-l, and these guys were making a good-faith effort to resolve their dispute via an accepted RfM, even if no mediator picked it up. Daniel 22:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps to know, the bickering on the talkpage was partly a continuation of bickering on the same issues on all the articles in question but also about the use of SPA tags and allegations of COI on the mediation referral page itself, although these related to allegations previously made. Both of these were removed by mediators from the referral page. I understood from WJBScribe that the reason why we waited so long was because the mediators were shorthanded. Fainites 18:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The facts remain that the discussion on the RfM and its talk page was not privileged at the time, there was no expectation of privilege on that page by any discussant (in fact it could have been assumed — as it was by me, for instance — that the RfM discussion was very public and permanent, i.e., "on the record"), no one was told that the RfM itself would be treated as confidential, the mediation (and so the purpose of confidential discussion) never occurred, and most of us were waiting for a mediator to start the process (not "making a good-faith effort to resolve" the dispute via the RfM). Not only should anyone here be able to refer to the very public RfM for evidence of user misconduct, but I think the blanking of the RfM was unwarranted, destroyed evidence of possible user misconduct, and in all events was a rewriting of history. Larry Sarner 19:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to all parties, (regardless of the very poor conduct within the mediation) if you need the mediation page to establish misconduct (and I do not think you do) then this case should not be at the arbcom level. If you had summarized things for the mediation and you would like a copy of your own contribution, I'm sure it could be arranged. Peace.Lsi john 19:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless. I would think that changing the rules, obstructing justice, and rewriting history, is — or should be — a very un-Wiki thing to do. Larry Sarner 19:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The data is not gone and it may very well be restored, after this arbitration. But there are specific rules that have been set down by the mediation cabal in order to allow people to trust the process. Since mediation is not technically part of wikipedia article editing, then behavior there really isn't relevant to wikipedia article editing and talkpage discussions and socks etc. The fact that no mediator accepted the case, does not mean that the case was not opened. And, as I said before, it's very unlikely that anyone did anything in mediation that they haven't done outside of mediation. Focusing on the mediation is not construtive at this point, and this is not the venue to get that policy changed. Peace.Lsi john 20:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs from the mediation are not acceptable evidence and will be removed. Please stick to behavior outside of the meditaion. Picaroon (Talk) 22:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I declined an unblock request from DPeterson (talk · contribs). He may need a clerk to copy responses from his user talk to /Evidence and/or /Workshop. Thanks! Vassyana 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]