Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07 Advocates for Children in Therapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Advocates for Children in Therapy State: Closed Requested By: shotwell Other Parties: Multiple Mediated By: Nwwaew Comments: Voting on closing the case

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-10-07 Advocates for Children in Therapy 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion 1.5 Bowlby and Candace Newmaker articles

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-10-07 Advocates for Children in Therapy

Mediator Note:Would everyone please sign their comments on here with ~~~~, including their past ones? Thanks! Nwwaew(My talk page) 19:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: shotwell 20:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Advocates for Children in Therapy

Bowlby

Candace Newmaker

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy

Who's involved?

User:Shotwell, User:AWeidman, User:MarkWood, User:DPeterson, and more.

Per a list by Shotwell, these users are included in this case, and have been contacted.

• User:JohnsonRon (Talk)
• User:SamDavidson ( Talk)
• User:JonesRD ( Talk)
• User:RalphLender ( Talk)
• User:StokerAce ( Talk)

If there are any more users involved, please list them below. Nwwaew(My talk page) 19:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What's going on?

The article contains two statements that are not supported by the citations in any sense of the word "support". There is a lengthy talk page and the the most highly relevant parts are Talk:Advocates for Children in Therapy#The Position of Major Organizations on ACT and Talk:Advocates for Children in Therapy#'Describes' vs. 'Defines'. Editing the article almost certainly leads to an edit war.

Several editors, who disagree with User:Shotwell have encouraged him to build consensus by putting specific suggestions on the talk page. I don't believe he's done that...he's only made changes to the article that are objected to by several other editors. The definition of attachment therapy by the group, ACT, is directly from their material.

yes, that is the disagreement. The statements are supported by citations in the article and by references at the article's end. RalphLender^talk 14:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

1. The definition of attachment therapy by ACT is a direct link from their website to the other site and are their exact words. Therefore, it meets the Wikipedia standard of a verifiable fact. If you go to: http://www.childrenintherapy.org/ and then hit the third or fourth button at the bottom of their webpage you get to this definition.
2. Various large professional groups, such as the AMA, APA, APA, NASW, etc. have used material from other advocacy groups (the links are to their websites and also to pages of those sites showing where those groups used materials and accepted influence from various advocacy groups. ACT's purpose is to influence various groups, including those large professional groups (see the ACT mission), but have not been successful in that regard...there is no verifiable evidence that they have been successful.
3. There are many conflicting definitions of the term "attachment therapy." It is not part of the DSM IV, the AMA's CPT code book, or various other texts. If you search the web you will find various definitions for this term. Therefore statement that it is ill defined seems accurate.
4. The Also see section, as MANY other editors have noted, is a convenient place to put links for the reader so that the reader can easily find those links. There is no reason to not make it easier for the reader to find related articles.
5. Again, it is a fact that they do not publish membership stats...as a reader, that is of interest...if Shotwell prefers that that fact be included in another section and not it's own, that would be acceptable to me.

RalphLender^talk 20:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above statements. JonesRD_talk 20:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the previous statement.JohnsonRon 20:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Shotwell has now expanded this dispute from the Advocates for Children in Therapy and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy pages to work with User:Sarner (or so it seems) on the Bowlby article and the Candace Newmaker article. All these issues should now be handled as one given these recent actions by Shotwell.DPeterson^talk 14:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I find the same thing and agree that all these articles, and Shotwell's and Sarner's actions, need to be reviewed. Much of this behavior by Sarner was previously sanctioned. SamDavidson 14:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with the summary by RalphLender.SamDavidson 14:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing each other's mistakes, are we? [1] This action is consistent with the 1.) Uniform syntax and formatting errors you all make 2.)The fact that almost all of you came here around the same time and went immediately to the Bowlby page where a dispute was taking place, 3.) At least one of you appears to have known DPeterson's first name before he posted it anywhere, 4.) Many of you have signed two unlisted RfC's about Sarner and I (and all did it incorrectly). There is no talk page discussion about them and they aren't listed anywhere. 5.) Your completely uniform opinions. I am not the first person to make an informal allegation of sock or meat puppetry. The last person was a highly experienced editor. I do not currently have the time to file a suspected-sock puppet report, but I will do so later unless you can explain to me why I've got it totally wrong. Please also explain the fact that most of your user pages are essentially the same, as are your contrib histories.

1. DPeterson Contribs
2. RalphLender Contribs
3. JonesRD Contribs
4. SamDavidson Contribs
5. MarkWood Contribs
6. AWeidman Contribs
7. JohnsonRon Contribs

Examples of improper syntax/formatting include: Linking to [[verifiable]] constantly when you mean [[WP:V]] (this happens with other policies). You all started doing this immediately after I pointed out to one of you that the templates {{verifiable}} does not exist. Prior to that you had all been repeatedly linking to non-existant templates in an attempt to cite wikipedia policies. Other examples include the consistent use of too many apostrophes when you're bolding text, a previous uniform inability to indent your comments, a complete misunderstanding of how to reference things, similar writing styles, same misunderstanding's about wikipedia policies and layout guidelines, etc... I can supply a bountiful number of diffs for each of these allegations. shotwell 15:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?

I'd like the unsourced claims to be removed, fixed, or sourced. Failing that, I'd like to be assured that I am wrong.

I would like the article to stay as is since that seems to represent a current consensus. Or, shotwell can place his suggestions on the talk page: what specifically would he put where, and indicate what is being added, changed, and deleted, so that a consensus can be achieved.

I agree with the above. I think the material as it is currently in the article is fine. RalphLender^talk 20:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine..the previous suggestion. JonesRD_talk 20:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. JohnsonRon 20:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

My talk page is fine: User_talk:Shotwell

My talk page is fine: User_talk:MarkWood

Talk page is ok RalphLender^talk 14:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

My talk page is fine. JonesRD_talk 20:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

My talk page is OK JohnsonRon 20:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

talk page SamDavidson 14:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

Issue seems to be settled. Closing case. --Ideogram 09:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Accepted. Other mediators: this is my first case; any advice is appreciated. Nwwaew(My talk page) 13:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

All the people listed above have been contacted on their talk page. A message has been left on the article's talk page regarding the case. I have also requested a full list of involved parties from the person who initiated the case. Nwwaew(My talk page) 13:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have recieved a list of other involved people who I will be contacting shortly.

In regards to the "sockpuppet" incident, I think that Sarner has gone too far. I believe the following steps should be taken:

1. Sarner should withdraw his sockpuppet report.
2. The majority of editors on the article should be able to edit it. The material on the article is fine.
3. If Sarner persists, I believe a Request for Arbitration may be in order

Therefore, I am asking for a majority vote to close the case. Please place your vote under here. I will abstain from voting because I am the mediator. Nwwaew(My talk page) 11:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, Sarner did not file the report. Secondly, I would agree that the majority of distinct editors should be allowed to edit the article.

I am strongly concerned with your declaration that the "article is fine". Typically mediators should attempt to be neutral. You have given no rationale for your claim. I made it clear in the medcab request that I am very open to being wrong about the article. I would strongly prefer to be wrong so I could just move on from this mess. The problem, however, is that nobody has given me a logical explanation to that end.

When you began mediating this case you immediately filed sock-puppet reports for Sarner and StokerAce on the evidence that "they use all capital edit summaries". I pointed out to you that those edit summaries were showing up because they were replying in sections with all capital headings. You didn't respond to that or alter the allegation. Now that I file a sock-puppet report with a substantial amount of evidence, you assert the article is fine, suggest elevating this conflict to the point of arbitration, and then move to close the case.

I don't really understand these things. Can you please explain them to me in a logical fashion? I absolutely love the idea of never thinking about this article again. shotwell 17:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Good question. This case is starting to confuse me as well, and I admit I have made several mistakes. If the majority wants, I'll remove myself from the case and turn it over to a senior mediator. Nwwaew(My talk page) 19:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the articles were just fine before Sarner began his disruptive edits. Agreement had been achieved on these pages. Then Sarner and Shotwell began editing. I don't think that the case can be closed as Sarner continues to be disruptive. Furthermore, Shotwell has filed a frivolous sockpuppet claim because it was suggested he and Sarner are closely allied. He began around the time Sarner stopped after his being blocked from the Bowlby page for disruptive behavior. I would like to see you continue...However, if you would prefer to turn it over to another mediator, that is your decision, based on your thoughts about how best to proceed. Moving all pages to arbitration would also be fine with me. MarkWood 19:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is just plain confusing when trying to consider all of the pages, accusations, and circumstances. I don't think it is necessary for you to resign unless that is your desire (and it'd be a perfectly reasonable desire, given the circumstances). There are only two issues in this particular case and each of them are about whether or not claims made in the ACT article are supported by the references. These should be easy things to resolve as I'm only looking to fix the references, rephrase or remove the claims, or get a rational explanation as to why I'm wrong. As I previously said, I am willing to ignore every other disputed issue about the article, so long as the article is factual and properly sourced.

If we all (myself included) stick to exactly those two issues on this mediation page, we can have this particular dispute resolved fairly quickly. We can take all of the other accusations and complaints to each others' talk pages. If you decide to stay on this case, I would ask that, as the mediator, you reorganize all of this unrelated discussion and leave room for discussion about the two issues at hand.shotwell 20:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There are several disputes, all related on the various pages.

1. One is that Sarner wants to delete the See also items; especially the link on the Candace Newmaker article.
2. Another is that several statements in the Candace Newmaker article need to be sourced by something other than the book written by the ACT leaders, Sarner, Mercer, and Rosa...There are many inaccuracies in that book:

Ever since I first read the title of this book I was somewhat concerned. As part of the Newmaker trial coverage for a national news service bureau in Denver, one day during the trial while coming out for lunch I cornered lead prosecutor Steve Jensen and asked him what his prosecution was based on.

Was it going to put "attachment therapy on trial?" Jensen's answer was simple and straight-forward. "No!"

He intended on pursuing a very narrow prosecution to prove that Watkins and Ponder were responsible under the terms of the state's child abuse / homicide statute for the death of Candace Newmaker. Child abuse/homicide is the most serious felony in the Colorado state criminal code.

Thus, with the title, the authors are fraudulenty trying to assert something which simply is not true. The only part of the Newmaker trial that was concerned with the value of Attachment Therapy was the defense. And, unfortunately, that was because of the existence of a videotape which showed Watkins and Ponder "in the act." The defense had no other alternative than to assert that it was simply a mistake of the therapy. Certainly, if the videotape did not exist, the defense would have probably have opted for a different defensive strategy.

And, unfortunately, the book does have several factual errors ... such as the notation by Mr. Patterson. A check with the local Midvale, Utah police department shows Krystal's date of birth as December 7, 1991, and her date of death as July 7, 1995, making her three years, eight months old at her death.

However, Mr. Patterson was incorrect in his statement about the spelling of Newmaker's name. It is correctly spelled J-E-A-N-E.

It was also ironic that when I had lunch with Linda Rosa one day during the trial, that when I asked her about her thoughts on the Jeannie Warren case in Texas with "rage-reduction therapy," she said that she had never heard of it!

Yet, Larry Sarner and his wife / co-author Linda Rosa would leave the courtroom early every day to be ready to give sound bites to the Denver TV news media - about something that they both knew little, if anything about, at that time.

This book seems to reflect the same type of continuing mentality.

Another quote: While the authors arrogantly look down upon "the journalistic practice that has been called pseudosymmetry" (page 6), they have effectively also ignored another journalistic practice: accuracy. It is totally amazing that they contradict themselves on very basic information: page 5: "...Krystal Tibbets, a 4-year-old Utah child..." page 243: "...Krystal Tibbets, who died at the age of 3 in 1996."

What is totally mind-boggling is the arrogant presumption to change or deliberately misspell the name of one of the major historical figures: adoptive mother Jeanne Newmaker.

Apparently the authors did not like the spelling of her name, so they changed it to "Jeane" in the book.

If you can't get even the most minor of facts correct, then most certainly one should not place any credibility in the authors for anything else.

Ignore ... avoid this book, which is riddled with arrogant, ignorant errors and not to be depended upon for any type of credible statement. If in a library, please remove it!

BOTH FROM: http://www.amazon.ca/Attachment-Therapy-Trial-Torture-Newmaker/dp/0275976750/ref=sr_11_1/702-4433484-4142426

So, using this book as a source of reliable information on the ACT page, the Candace Newmaker page, and others, just does not meet the Wikipedia verifiable standard, I think

1. ACT's definition of attachment therapy, quoted from their own site,but objected to by Sarner and Shotwell.
2. The See also section of the Bowlby article that Sarner keeps objecting to.
3. The Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy article

All these articles are under related/coordianted attack and so it is best to manage them all together, otherwise there will just be a series of disputes roaming from one article to the next. JohnsonRon 22:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to move everything to an archive page and revert to an older version. Nwwaew(My talk page) 00:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. shotwell 01:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have closed Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-18 Sarner's reverts-edits of Bowlby and Candace Newmaker and merged it with this case. --Ideogram 10:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to everyone: I think we should start over on this page. Thoughts?Nwwaew(My talk page) 14:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Ъ

I am just wondering about the following. These issues were raised by User:Sarner in the past and seemed to be resolved. I only see User:Shotwell having a problem with the pages (same problem and language used by Sarner) while a large number of other contributors find the articles fine as written (in the case of the DDP article, for instance, the primary consensus is that the statements "questioned" by Shotwell are all very well referenced with reliable sources. How much credance are we supposed to give one editor? JohnsonRon 19:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In regards to starting over on this page, I think that would be a good idea. shotwell 19:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Starting over would be fine with me. I'd suggest archiving this page since it does have some relevant material on it that at least I'd like to be able to access. I'd also like to see Shotwell list each change, edit, deletion he'd like made so we can see that in one place. DPeterson^talk 22:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it needs to be archived. As for listing the proposed changes, I'll wait for this page to clean up. shotwell 22:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

To move things along, if you wanted to post all your suggestions regarding all the pages on your talk page, that would be great. DPeterson^talk 23:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a good idea. I'll make a subpage once I have the time. I have some concerns about what we're supposed to mediate here, but I'll bring those up on your talk page because this is becoming impossible to read. shotwell 00:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is very good. I'll take a look at that page and provide feedback there. RalphLender^talk 14:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If there are no objections in the next few days I will close this case. --Ideogram 21:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

ok with me since the outocme is that the pages are acceptable as is and will remain. DPeterson^talk 02:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

I would like to see the disputes on these pages Advocates for Children in Therapy, Candace Newmaker, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy]] all managed as one large dispute. How can we arrange that? Shotwell is a participant in the dispute on ACT and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. Sarner is the problem on Bowlby and Candace Newmaker. Shotwell and Sarner work closely together as a review of their talk pages shows and their comments on the talk pages of the articles in question.

Also, StokerAce appears to be a party related to User:Sarner or User:Shotwell or a sock puppet or meat puppet...no edit history, except for these disputed pages on these issues. Please let me know how we can manage all this as one larger issue...it would be most economical and we really cannot resolve anything about ACT without resolving the other issues. DPeterson^talk 12:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm comparing edit histories right now, and to me, it looks like Shotwell is unrelated, but I think Sarner and StokerAce may be related. If Sarner and StokerAce agree, I'd like to call for a CheckUser. Nwwaew(My talk page) 13:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost certain now that Sarner and StokerAce are related- both of them have edit histories in all caps regarding talk pages. I'm going to file a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Nwwaew(My talk page) 14:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Request filed here. Nwwaew(My talk page) 14:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you realize that the edit summaries in all caps are the section headings that they were replying under? Neither User:Sarner nor User:StokerAce created those sections. shotwell 17:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, they are both from the Denver area, when I've done and IRC check on those instances where they neglected to sign in. RalphLender^talk 18:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

An "IRC check when they neglected to sign in"? Are you saying you've seen them on IRC? If so, I don't understand the "neglected to sign in" part. Are you trying to say that you've seen comments from both parties on wikipedia made while they weren't signed in and you did an IP check? Can I ask how you know that the IP's were related to either person? shotwell 18:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet of Sarner and in fact have disagreed with him on certain issues on the Candace Newmaker page. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Candace_Newmaker#Was_Candace_killed_by_Watkins_and_Ponder StokerAce 19:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me further add that merging all of these disputed pages together into one mediation case doesn't make any sense. Each dispute has distinct issues. These are disputes about content and don't belong together just because the same parties are involved. shotwell 18:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

As pointed out (with links provided as evidence) here(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy#Edits_to_Page_and_Controversary), users MarkWood and DPeterson have referred to ACT as a "fringe" group elsewhere on Wikipedia, and user AWeidman appears to have a professional disagreement with one of ACT's founders. I think these factors should be taken into account in evaluating their contributions here. StokerAce 19:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Given the overlap in issues and concerns, all the more reason to deal with all together. RalphLender^talk 19:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyone, I have a suggestion: There is a majority that wants the article one way, but I want to see what the minority wants the article to look like. Therefore, I have created a duplicate of the article here. I would like the minority to edit it as they would want the real article to be edited. Nwwaew(My talk page) 13:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I previously did the same exact thing in my userspace: User:Shotwell/Proposed_ACT. Your link isn't working (it is to this page}, but I'd happily take part in what you suggest. Let me clarify, however, that this isn't a matter of what the article "looks like". There are two issues here:

1. The statement about whether or not ACT advises professional groups is both irrelevant and not properly sourced. Following the six inline citations simply brings one to the websites of those major organizations. The argument for this being a proper source is "if you click around, you'll see that they don't mention ACT but they do mention other groups". This does not qualify as a reference. Unless we can find some secondary and reliable source that says "Professional organizations such as the APA do not consult with ACT" then the statement simply must go. This is especially important because the statement is simply there to paint ACT as some sort of fringe group. Moreover, the statement is slightly false given that ACT's work was used in the APSAC task-force report.
2. The current article misrepresents ACT when it gives their definition. The quote used can be found at http://www.childrenintherapy.org/essays/overview.html and is written directly under the section heading "What Attachment Therapy is Like". If I said "Nazism is evil", I am not defining Nazism. We cannot say this is their definition, especially when later in the document they give their actual definition. shotwell 13:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant to say their work was cited or referenced in the task-force report. I am unaware of whether or not their work was actually used. Sorry for the confusion. shotwell 13:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That could work....but as a reader, I am much more concerned with what will be proposesd to be deleted. They (Sarner and Shotwell) want material deleted (on Advocates for Children in Therapy, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Bowlby, and Candace Newmaker that is largely the same or very related. So, my concern is what they want eliminated.

1. The statement about wehter or not ACT advises professioal groups is very relevant. They are an advocacy group and state in their mission that they will be trying to influence various groups, including professioal groups. It is sourced by reference to their mission statement. The the links to the professioal groups are two: one to the group's website and a second to a specific page showing how these groups do accept input from a variety of advocacy groups...but no evidence of ACT, despite ACT's stated purpose of influencing these groups. Is ACT a fringe group? Depends on how you define it. That is an open question and disputable...again, depending on how you define "fringe." ACT was not used in or by the APSAC task force...
2. The definition of attachment therapy quoted is their definition. If you go to the ACT website 'they'take you to this other site, which appears to be either also their site or a related one. The ACT home page is: http://www.childrenintherapy.org/ At the bottom of the page go to the third button, AT Critics and you get taken to their page...or go to: http://www.childrenintherapy.org/essays/index.html for their def.

RalphLender^talk 15:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you say that it is an "open question" and "disputable" whether ACT is a "fringe" group? I have never seen any evidence that they are out of the mainstream. Do you have any evidence you can cite to? They were, in fact, cited in the APSAC task force report (see page 84), and their positions are consistent with mainstream thinking on these issues, from what I can tell. Thus, it seems clear that they are solidly within the mainstream. It seems to me it is really those advocating for coercive restraint therapy that are out of the mainstream. I'd be curious to see where you stand on the issue of coercive therapies. Do you condemn them like ACT does, or do you support them? If you condemn them, what's your beef with ACT? StokerAce 16:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I say that, because what you mean by "fringe" and what I mean may be different things...this is merely a question of the definition...so, depending on how you define fringe, it may or may not apply to ACT. Clearly the leaders of ACT and Mr. Sarner do not feel the group is "fringe," and so I understand your chagrin. APSAC mentions ACT but does not credit ACT with being part of the task force or having influenced their report in any way. As a suspected "Sockpuppet," your questions and concerns are a bit suspect, but I have tried to respond to your comments reasonably. RalphLender^talk 18:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Your response has got me curious: How do you define "fringe"? (As for the sockpuppet issue, I believe you've been accused of that yourself. So since we've both been accused -- wrongly in both of our opinions -- let's put that issue aside). StokerAce 19:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I see not evidence that RalphLender was ever "accused" of being a sockpuppet...but that remains an open question in your case. DPeterson^talk 20:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

see, for example, shotwell's comment in the "what's going on" section of this page. he suggests that a number of users, yourself and RalphLender included, might be "sock" or "meat" puppets. StokerAce 21:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I was not clear, a formal complaint/accusation was made regarding you being a sockpuppet (per Wikipedia policy and definitions). Sarner & Shotwell certainly work closely together and have made such unfounded statements. You case is different. DPeterson^talk 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Turning to substantive issues, I'm glad you've joined the discussion. I wonder if you would be willing to offer your thoughts on the issue of whether ACT is a "fringe" group. I say they are fully part of the mainstream. RalphLender, on the other hand, says it depends on the definition of "fringe." So, I'll ask you as well: How do you define "fringe," and could you give some explanation of why (or why not) ACT falls within that definition? StokerAce 23:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Many of you probably noticed the sock-puppet tags on your user pages. I believe that the evidence had become quite convincing and there is no way I could proceed in any of these debates without settling the issue. I sincerly and deeply apologize if these allegations are wrong. The case can be found at: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/AWeidman shotwell 02:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That was COMPLETELY unjustified. I think this shows that you will do almost anything to keep the article from the majority of editors. Nwwaew(My talk page) 11:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Wasn't it you that filed the report about Sarner and StockerAce on the basis that they had all capital edit summaries? Moreover, the simple action of filing the report does not keep them away from anything. shotwell 12:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused about the status of this mediation case. The mediator seems to have vanished. If the mediator has resigned, I would like to set about getting a new mediator. Is this possible? shotwell 00:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that the mediator is taking a slow and patient appraoch to a very complex set of disputes involving Shotwell, Sarner, and the Bowlby, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Candace Newmaker, and Advocates for Children in Therapy articles. DPeterson^talk 01:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested to know what approach is being used. I'll give it some more time. shotwell 02:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I realize that this is complex with the dispute involving a large number of contributors who agree and then one or two who do not and several pages: Bowlby, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Candace Newmaker, and Advocates for Children in Therapy. Maybe this needs to be sent to Arbitration? If that is not appropriate at this time, then continued mediation with the current mediator would be acceptable to me. SamDavidson 14:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes all of the pages need to be looked at together. Shotwell has created a page to look at ACT and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherpay articles, and the Bowlby and Candace Newmaker pages can be looked at there too...or the mediator can move all that to the Mediation page. RalphLender^talk 15:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at Shotwell's page. It will be very helpful to see all his suggestions in one place regarding all the pages.SamDavidson 18:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the dispute has ended and the four pages will stay as they are, I am fine with the case being closed. JonesRD_talk 21:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if the result is that the disputes are ended and the pages remain as they are and I don't have to fight these same issues again, then let's close the mediation case...otherwise, we should have a formal resolution. I don't want to have to get into these same issues again at some later date. That would be completely unreasonable, and so I'd rather have a formal resolution if needed to avoid that. RalphLender^talk 22:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC) If the dispute has ended and the end result is that the pages stay as the large consensus wanted, I am fine with that. MarkWood 01:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bowlby and Candace Newmaker articles

It appears that Shotwell does not have a problem with those pages...yes? If so, maybe the Mediator can do something to indicate that the results of mediation is that those pages stay as written. RalphLender^talk 15:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine if the mediator would take appropriate action and note somewhere that the issues around these pages have been resolved. SamDavidson 18:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That is good that the dispute on these pages seems to be at an end. JohnsonRon 20:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Great.JonesRD_talk 21:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)