Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Arbitrators active on this case

  • Blnguyen
  • Charles Matthews
  • FloNight
  • Fred Bauder
  • Jdforrester
  • Jpgordon
  • Kirill Lokshin
  • Mackensen
  • Matthew Brown (Morven)
  • Paul August
  • Raul654
  • SimonP
  • UninvitedCompany

Away/inactive:

  • Flcelloguy
  • Neutrality (Ben)

[edit] RalphLender and Aweidman

What of these two accounts? There is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence linking them to the DPeterson sock farm. Is it too ambiguous to make a formal finding regarding these accounts? shotwell 00:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Comment: Matching concern to the above: if such strong behavioral evidence, combined with
  1. Existance of 4 known socks (denied)
  2. Apparent deliberate attempts to separate at least some of the proven socks to different IPs by using different computers for different socks ("It appears that the puppetmaster has attempted to keep the accounts segregated, but has occasionally slipped up.") [1]
  3. Continuation of DPeterson/RalphLender editing as identical editors even during arb
does not establish puppet status beyond reasonable doubt to an actionable level, then that's almost rewriting WP:SOCK to state that behaviorally evidenced socks cannot be actioned without IP evidence. It's an extreme take on the appropriate evidence level. A principle that strong enough behavioral evidence alone can be enough to demonstrate puppetry (or likely puppetry), would be useful to establish. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


NB - Often, behavioral match is the most reliable formal evidence that will exist, as DPeterson appears to have attempted in this case. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

For anybody bright enough to use two computers, behavioural evidence is the only evidence that ever will exist. Fainites barley 21:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also possible to check the location of the IPs, right? If the IPs are different, but from the same place (here, the Buffalo area, where Dr. Becker-Weidman is based), that seems like good evidence. Of course, that won't be the only relevant consideration, because it would be easy enough to use a friend or colleague from a different city as a meatpuppet. StokerAce 23:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RalphLender

I note with great concern that no sanction is yet proposed for "RalphLender".

To recap, the "RalphLender" account has co-warred indistinguishably from DPeterson and his other 4 socks, has engaged in the same smears and rhetoric, has moved to the same articles at the same time to co-war with DPeterson against the same "opponents" on many (not just a few) articles and occasions, and is very strongly linked by behavior as the same person.

Checkuser matching is almost superfluous to ID these accounts as either the same user, or at least as indistinguishable POV-war accounts. Their behavior and behavioral evidence, along with the known mass creation of socks already, with the checkuser's comment that there have already been persistent attempts visible in the existing socks to keep them segregated, is sufficient to evidence this, and in the past users have been identified as socks and indef removed on similar or less behavioral evidence.

With all respect to the private discussions of the committee, it would presently be incomprehensible to me if these two accounts were not treated, as they have warred, the same.

FT2. 17:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closing would be premature

As I see it, it would be a mistake for the Committee to close this case without addressing three very important items:

  1. The fate of "RalphLender".
  2. The role of AWeidman.
  3. The disposition of the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy article.

Each of these issues have been raised as fundamental to the dispute, and leaving them unaddressed is, in my opinion, disrespectful to those who have taken much time and effort to bring them forth. (Note that I said, "leaving them unaddressed" as opposed to decided in a certain way.)

While a parsimonious approach to arbitration is desirable, it is hardly the primum mobile of dispute resolution. The community needs to know that not only is there a resolution process for disputes, but it is one that is reasonable, accessible, understandable, and not arbitrary. Can any of the arbitrators presently voting to close this case honestly say that such standards have been met by the totality of the remedies presently adopted?

Anyone attempting to understand the evolving "common law" of Wikipedia by studying this case would, I think, be baffled. Why was DPeterson blocked for only a year by the Committee though there was substantial evidence of significant disruption by him for over a year. Meanwhile, why was a conspirator, RalphLender, banned indefinitely -- not by the Committee but by the Committee's clerk? Why was AWeidman never formally brought into the case, despite substantial evidence of his centrality? Why was the unrefuted evidence of advertising for Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy ignored altogether? Meantime, a number of accusations from the "other side" were also left unaddressed, leaving some reputations besmirched.

User:Shotwell warned the community, through the megaphone of this case, that allowing editors to use, with impunity, this dispute-resolution process to defame other editors was a "deal breaker" with him. This Committee apparently is prepared to ignore his warning. Without knowing Shotwell's ultimate decision here, I think the Committee ignores such sentiment at the project's peril. If people with intelligence and integrity are treated in such a manner, word will spread and contributions of true value will dry up. As the community serves only a few callow enthusiasts, the project will dry up.

Maybe all this is as it should be. Maybe Wikipedia, as a first attempt of its kind, should fail, so that successors can arise that do not have its shortcomings. Sort of web-based natural selection, perhaps. If I were on this Committee, though, I wouldn't want it to happen on my watch.

Larry Sarner 04:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I can answer some questions easily. First of all, ArbCom never bans anyone for more than a year. AWeidman was never brought into the case because he's made exactly two edits in the last ten months, and so didn't seem to be an issue. RalphLender, on the other, was blocked as an abusive sockpuppet; he's blocked indefinitely in the same way all the DPeterson sockpuppets were blocked -- it doesn't take ArbCom action to do that, just identification as an abusive sockpuppet. We are not empowered to deal with content issues. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for some clarification, but it raises other concerns. In my opinion:
  • What about the case of "Headley Down" which I heard about in the course of this case? Isn't that an individual who's been permanently banned? What if the real person behind "DPeterson" adopts another persona, and goes off to edit NLP or something; isn't that OK -- after all, it's only "DPeterson" affected by your decision.
  • Next, I disagree with your decision about "AWeidman", but how would anyone know about it? It would have been nice if you all had discussed it on the workshop page. You didn't even respond to Shotwell's motion to include him. Just ignoring an issue discussed at great length by multiple parties was, well, not nice.
  • Of course, any administrator could (and at one point, did) block RalphLender. But the determination that he was an abusive sockpuppet was an ArbCom "finding of fact" (that was never "found", by the way) and was the subject of much discussion in this case. It shouldn't have been left dangling, undecided, for the clerk (or some other administrator) to act (or not act). The Committee took the case; it should have decided it and acted as a Committee.
  • Advertising on Wikipedia is a conduct issue not a content issue. Evidence was presented that AWeidman was using Wikipedia for advertising. The appearance and conduct of DPeterson and RalphLender were part of an advertising campaign. The DDP article is residue from that advertising campaign. Proposals were offered for remedies for that advertising. On the other hand, DPeterson (he of no credibility) argued that it was a content dispute. If you agreed with him, why didn't you say so, at least in your decision? More courteously, why didn't at least one of you arbitrators at least discuss it on the workshop page and get some cogent reaction from the parties?
For all the months that this went on, the Committee didn't leave much of a record to guide the Wikipedia Community, in my opinion as a Community member. Should I be taking this elsewhere?
Larry Sarner 17:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll just touch one of these: the ban on "DPeterson" is the ban on the person editing as (among others) DPeterson, not on the username DPeterson; if he comes back under another name, and is discovered, any admin will block him. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


Sarner has a point here.
  • I appreciate the Committee do not do content disputes, but the net result of this ArbCom seems to be the banning of DPeterson on the basis of multiple sockpuppet use only - something which Shotwell made absolutely clear in his Sockpuppet report back in November '06 which nobody bothered to take up, and which was painfully obvious to all those editors who dealt with this person with 6 names for over a year.
  • RalphLender has only been banned by Picaroon. Why is their no ArbCom finding on this obvious sock.
  • Why is there no finding or comment on the various unfounded allegations and smear campaigns conducted by this bunch of socks?
  • Has anybody even seriously considered the evidence about whether or not this person may be AWeidman or has it just been ignored?
  • Why is the Committee so apparently so unconcerned by this 18 month long domination of an entire set of articles on an important element of child psychology by one or two people and a bunch of socks so that all main articles about attachment were distorted and over a dozen others compromised, to present a dangerous fringe view as mainstream? Surely there has to be difference between mere competeing POV's and an obvious and aggressive advertising campaign? How come Wiki simply cannot deal with this?Fainites barley 18:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, the problem is solved now that the sock-farm is gone. I would have liked some sort of vindication about the advertising and personal attacks, but on further reflection I appreciate the minimal approach being taken by arbcom. They've solved the root problem and are leaving the rest up to the community. The case of RalphLender shows that any further sock-puppets can be blocked without the help of arbcom. shotwell 20:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. Part of the problem is the result of the DPeterson puppetry; it's really hard to tell what the heck was really going on through the noise raised by the puppets. We'll see what happens; the environment should be calmer now, and the community should now have a better chance of working it out. If I'd known about DPeterson's socks before this all started, I'd have blocked them all (including him) outright. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
With regards to RalphLender, the checks done by Jayjg and Jpgordon found the four socks listed in the #DPeterson finding of fact, which I blocked as soon as I knew. I only became convinced in the last week before the end of the case, based on the evidence provided by several of you, that RalphLender was also a sockpuppet of DPeterson. At that point the arbitrators were just working out the wording of the sockpuppetry principle, so I figured the easiest path was to block RalphLender when the case concluded. Picaroon (t) 01:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Fair enough. Perhaps one answer would be to have more arbitrators. Looking at the list of cases going through it's a huge task to fully comprehend each one. The 'noise' of the sockpuppets as jpgordon so aptly puts it has proved very effective on talkpages and other dispute resolution processes for a long while. It has a numbing effect. I think more findings on use of wiki procedures to attack opponents, smear campaigns and distortion of sources would have been appropriate as this was a very focussed campaign conducted by the sock army over a long period of time and a number of past editors appear to have given up in despair. However, the main thing is done. Thanks for everything guys. 07:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)