Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Personal Attacks

Putting the "SPA" tag on editors' contributions, or worse, on their listing on an RfM or RfA, when those editors are not engaged in so-called astroturfing, can be considered a personal attack. In this case I think this is what the tags actually are, and is highly discouraged. These were initially put in by User:MarkWood, but User:DPeterson has reverted the Requestor's removal and, I fear, may have started an edit war on an RfM page! (I can only hope an Administrator intervenes before all this becomes too embarrassing for Wiki.) Larry Sarner 14:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing them is far worse, vote stacking on this rfc m,ay well be an issue and to remove them is essentially to try to skew the rfc, SqueakBox 17:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
And putting them back is far worse still. This is not an RfC, as you indicate, but an RfM. These tags (or anything else) should not have been used on the RfM's list of participants. The essay on SPA identifies inappropriate use of this tag (i.e., not used to flag astroturfing) as a personal attack. The tag is not supposed to be used to express an opinion on the nature of an editor's participation on Wiki, but rather to accuse them of trying to skew votes, etc. Moreover, these tags were not put in by the requestor, but by the other side, which was an obvious attempt to skew the RfM by misrepresenting the requestor's, which is really bad Wiki form. But, let me ask you, why do you want these tags there that you would take a step towards an edit war on a RfM project page? If anyone wants to make a point about other editors' involvement, there is plenty of opportunity to do so by adding a comment section on the project page; I certainly wouldn't object to commentary (just to the comments' content) -- it's a free Wiki, after all. Larry Sarner 20:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Yup, my mistake re this being mediation but my point that these absolutely should be here is not weakened by said mistake, SqueakBox 20:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the reasoning of SqueakBox. The SPA tag is quite relevant here as there is a real question that the mediator must address regarding the legitimacy of certain editors and potential "vote stacking." The tags were relevant on the RfC and also belong on this RfM. It is for the mediator to consider their relevance and remove them if so indicated. Edit wars get started when editors (such as Sarner) begin removing others' material, which has been a problem in the past with this editor. RalphLendertalk 20:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by User:Sarner

As he has done in the past, Sarner is engaged in disruptive editing. There is no basis to label the editors he has labeled with the SPA tag. Their edit histories show a long a diverse group of edits across many articles. His actions are provocative, disruptive, and controntational. In the past he has been sanctioned and blocked for such behavior. I question the sincerity of his agreement to mediate, given this behavior. DPetersontalk 22:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

See my reasoning below (the present section was added while I was creating that entry). I went to the trouble of checking the contrib lists of all the editors not previously tagged. The editors I tagged had as little or less "diversity" than I. Any claim otherwise is self-serving and false. The above is a personal attack (it is also false), which I hope others will take due note of. Larry Sarner 22:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I was also discriminating. I did not tag DPeterson or RalphLender. They have less "diversity" than Shotwell, who was tagged by MarkWood et al., but there is little I can do about that discrepancy. Larry Sarner 22:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
As I read their histories, they have long and diverse edit histories across a variety of article. DPetersontalk 22:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
If we can all make it through mediation and resolve this, we'll never have to deal with each other again. In the meantime, let's please refrain from vandalism accusations, spa allegations, or anything of this nature. None of this is particularly helpful. One cannot vote-stack on a request for mediation and we are now in the position of having the majority of parties to mediation tagged as single purpose accounts. We have some thick content disputes here and it'd be very disappointing if they didn't get resolved because we can't get along. DPeterson, I suggest that you file a suspected sock puppet report if you believe sock-puppetry is taking place, or file an RfC if you think there is a user-conduct issue. That would be much more effective than this request for mediation. I highly doubt that mediation can settle the question of whether or not someone is a single purpose account. Mediation requires that we all treat each other with some level of respect and open-mindedness. We must take each other seriously for mediation to work properly. shotwell 23:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Certainly FatherTree, Mapypole, Mercer, and Sarner are SPA's per the check. I don't see sock-puppetry, these are issues for the mediator to resolve: how to take into account the SPA's as well as the conflict of interest/financial interest conflicts. DPetersontalk 01:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Whether someone is an SPA is irrelevent unless you are claiming sock or meat puppetry. If you are, then get on with it, ask for checkusers or make your claim or whatever. Whats the point in mediating if you're going to say everyone who disagrees with you are all socks or meats and everything they say should be ignored? It's a nonsense. Either make your allegation plainly or not at all. Fainites 18:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Your tone suggests that you really have no intention of mediating with an open mind. The relevancy of being an SPA and all that implies is an issue for the mediator to resolve, as I suggested above. This, along with the conflicts of interest, self-promotion, and "self-dealing" or finacial issues is another for the mediator to consider. Wikipedia frowns on self-promotion. DPetersontalk 21:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The SPA issue has been set aside already by the Mediation Committee as irrelevant. They have said plainly, "...all participants are seen as equals, provided they are coming with an open mind to dispute resolution. Whether they've made few edits outside the scope of the mediation's articles is a non-issue from our standpoint..." In the interest of true consensus-building, it is time to give up this hobby-horse and move on to more substantive matters. Larry Sarner 22:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Your comments don't sound collaborative...more confrontational. The issue of SPA is irrelevant for purposes of deciding on taking or not the RfM...but not for evaluating contributions during the process...that is a mediator decision. The issue still remains of your and Mercer's conflict of interest and self-promotion, and financial interests. Again, for the mediator to evaluate and decide. DPetersontalk 22:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you misread the Committee's comments. The comments were not limited to the acceptance of mediation, but to the participation in mediation. They also added, "...and gives us no bearing on acceptance/rejection of a case." You had forced the issue on SPA and there was a decision by the Committee that the issue of SPA is irrelevant. Also, mediators do not "decide", they "mediate". The matter is settled, please let it go and give the mediation process, if accepted, a chance to work. Larry Sarner 22:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
SPA is irrelevant for acceptance/rejection. How those editors are viewed during mediation will be determined by the mediator and is an issue. But, more to the point is the question of your and Mercer's conflict of interest and self-promotion, and financial interests. For mediation to work, confrontation and other related tacks will not be productive, as you know from previous disputes and blocks. DPetersontalk 22:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't want the reality of limits to mediation lost in this discussion about SPAs. It is an arbitration committee that decides and can mandate changes to articles. Mediators facilitate consensus building. The 'best arbitors of NPOV policy is always going to be community consensus' quote. How do we work toward that in a civil manner?--Ziji Image:Baby_tao.jpg (talk email) 23:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I suppose we can start by not trying to (a) keep any of the involved participants from being involved, and (b) using ad hominem arguments with other editors. I may have to count to 10 a lot, but I pledge to do that for my part. Larry Sarner 02:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I think Sarner forgot to count to ten: [[1]]. SamDavidson 18:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, many of the issues raised here were settled by consensus previously at [[2]] and in other mediations...community consensus is essential. DPetersontalk 02:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SPAs

Well, since my interpretation of what I thought was a clear Wiki essay on the use of SPA tags has been ignored and/or disputed by editors willing to engage in an edit war if they don't prevail, I will yield on removals of the tags. But if the existing tags are deemed correct and appropriate, then there are other editors in the list who should likewise be tagged for the exact same reasons. So I have done so. Using the reasoning above, reverting my work doing so would be removing valuable information and an attempt to skew the RfM, so the tags "absolutely" should remain. Larry Sarner 22:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You can certainly redact your own edits. However, your conduct now is just like conduct that in the past resulted in your being blocked. It raises serious questions about your sincerity regarding this process. DPetersontalk 22:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Forgive my intrusion into your war, but this wikicounter [3] could be a more democratic/less provocative summary of the work of every editor without labelling them SPA's and it could be aplied to every party to the RfM for example, DPeterson produces [4] and Sarner produces [5].--Ziji Image:Baby_tao.jpg (talk email) 22:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. It clearly shows my broad mainspace editing history and other's very limited history to just the articles under dispute. I think that tool clearly shows those editors labeled by Sarner are not single purpose accounts, See, for example Sam Davidson [[6]] or JohnsonRon [[7]] or MarkWood [[8]] or the others. DPetersontalk 23:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
So how to get unanimous agreement to removing the SPA tags and replacing them with the wikicounter summary for every participant? The tool's page is sometimes slow to load, for example SqueakBox [9] took a minute.--Ziji Image:Baby_tao.jpg (talk email) 23:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The toolserver is frequently overloaded. SqueakBox takes a long time because he has a very high number of contributions. shotwell 23:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this is an issue for the mediator to resovle: how to manage and take into account the SPA's and the financial conflict and conflict of interest problems. DPetersontalk 01:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The SPA's are clearly personal attacks designed to be offensive. On what possible basis could they be said to assisit a mediator at this stage when all we're supposed to be doing is asking for mediation, not conducting a war on the mediation page. All those editors who added SPA tags, however 'correct' they may be should remove them and those questions that are covert personal attacks masked as questions should be removed by the editors too. Fainites 06:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Now that the SPA tags have been removed I will remove myself.--Ziji Image:Baby_tao.jpg (talk email) 08:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The chair of the mediation group has determined that at this stage, the SPA tags should be removed, and were. That was the appropriate process. The assigned mediator will have to decide how to include and weight the material of SPA accounts once mediation starts. DPetersontalk 13:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see what other comments you perceive and label as "personal attakcs designed to be offensive," Fainites. Perhaps you could define those. DPetersontalk 17:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
While I certainly don't think of my one added issue (consensus) as a covert personal attack, I do think that it is something that will come out in the wash of a properly conducted mediation. Therefore, I'm striking it out. If others do the same before the 7-day comment period concludes, I will delete it entirely. Larry Sarner 14:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Sarner. I suspect the whole 'consensus' issue is bound to come up in mediation anyway. I again invite any editors who on reflection may consider their 'questions' to be in fact personal attacks to remove them. Fainites 17:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see what other comments you perceive and label as "personal attakcs designed to be offensive," Fainites. Perhaps you could define those. DPetersontalk 19:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It's up to the individual editors. Fainites 21:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
So you have not specific statements that stand out for you as being "Personal Attacks designed to be offensive"? Then why did you make the statement? DPetersontalk 22:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
No, you misunderstand me. Some may or may not look like obvious personal attacks to me, but as we are asking for mediation and the referral page was beginning to look like a warzone I was appealing to individual editors to consider whether their questions or statements were really questions or actually personal attacks. It is a matter for them. Fainites 08:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
So, in order to facilitate mediation and our working together, please let me know which ones "look like obvious personal attacks to me"(you)? DPetersontalk 10:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Well on sober reflection DP you might like to consider whether this "What weight and influence do single-purpose accounts (SPA editors) (sometimes called meat puppets) have in this process?" is a question or a personal attack. 'Meatpuppet' has a very specific meaning and it does not follow that an SPA as such is a meat puppet. As for your allegations about Mercer and Sarner being suspect because they are SPA's, they are the least likely here to be socks or meats because they alone of all participants have the straightforwardness to be exactly who they say they are on Wiki as well as to the outside world! It is a matter for you however, whether you wish to reframe your question for mediation purposes. Fainites 17:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The issue with Mercer and Sarner is addressed in another queston for the mediator to address regarding their conflicts of interest as leaders of ACT, their vested interests in this topic, and their financial interests here that create a oonflict of interest is self-promoting, and promoting of their group. DPetersontalk 17:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


I think you've missed the point. Its whether you think referring to SPA's as meatpuppets as if the two were synonymous was an appropriate part of a question for mediation. If questions are framed as personal attacks then mediation may be refused.Fainites 18:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SPA Tags

I have removed the SPA tags from the page. They serve no purpose in mediation, as all participants are seen as equals, provided they are coming with an open mind to dispute resolution. Whether they've made few edits outside the scope of the mediation's articles is a non-issue from our standpoint and gives us no bearing on acceptance/rejection of a case. Thanks.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] 08:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I thank the Committee for making this clear. I am relieved that it came to the notice of those able to parsimoniously resolve it. Larry Sarner 13:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extra articles

I added the articles added by SamDavidson to the additional issues to be mediated. I hope that's ok. The majority of the people who signed up for mediation have not even edited the talk pages of those articles. Perhaps more importantly, those articles were not listed when everyone else agreed. At any rate, at least we're all agreed to mediate now. Cheers, shotwell 12:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. However, those other articles are mentioned in the original list of issues to be mediated, so it was confusing which articles would be subject here. Making that explicit should help with the process. DPetersontalk 12:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see the reasoning now. It seems like mediation normally begins with everyone writing out whatever concerns them. We will all get a chance to elaborate upon our concerns in a more effective fashion than the RfM allows. shotwell 12:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to agree. I signed, "agree" 'assuming' those articles were also part of the mediatioin since Shotwell had mentioned them in the filing. That was the basis for my agreeing. RalphLendertalk 13:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
What about Reactive Attachment Disorder and Attachment Disorder then? Fainites 18:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I agreed only with the understanding that those articles mentioned in the issues to be resolved are also part of this mediation. It seems to me that there are also three very important issues that must be resolved as the very first step here:
  1. The conflict of interest, financial interest, and self-promotion of the ACT leaders, Mercer and Sarner.
  2. Must we rehash the issues raised previously by members of that group in several other mediations and which were resolved?
  3. How to handle the SPAs. SamDavidson 18:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually Shotwells 11th point on the referral already covers those articles in which DDP is described as evidence-based and effective. Also, you will note that Mercer and sarner are not the only editors against whom issues of COI, financial issues and the like are raised. It would make sense to deal with those together. Thirdly, I am not a 'member' of a 'group' and have not been involved in previous mediations. Fainites 19:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I found it confusing that one editor's listing those articles was moved by Shotwell...so I can understand why SamDavidson is underscoring the point. I don't see any coflict of interest or self-promotion problems with any of the participants named in this mediation other than Sarner and Mercer...can you be more specific? Overall I would agree that those three issues delineated by SamDavidson can be addressed as a first step. RalphLendertalk 20:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what Fainites had in mind, but there is a conflict of interest issue in relation to the use of Dr. Becker-Weidman's materials and also his Wikipedia contributions (eg, he created the DDP page). It's one of the additional issues listed. StokerAce 21:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
He's not a party of this mediation and, as far as I can see has not contributed in months, so his contributions may even be gone or edited substantially. This is really a red-herrinng. In addition, he has not conflict of interest and is not self-promoting merely because he practices DDP...but, again, that is irrelvant as he is not a party to this. Let's try to keep focued on salient issues and not divert using red-herrings. DPetersontalk 21:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It's disingenuous to pretend this is not an issue. It's been argued over and over again on the talkpages and it appears here in the list of issues to which you have all signed up. You can't agree to mediate on just the issues you select and not the others. It is quite plain that there is an issue about the extensive promotion of DDP by Becker-Weidman across a range of articles, and although he as a named editor has not taken much active part recently, all of his positions and the substance of his edits are actively defended by you. This is part of the substance of this mediation. Fainites 21:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It is just a red-herring. He's not edited any of the articles in months and they have been substantially edited and mediated over the past year or two. He's not promoted DDP anywhere "across a range of articles." If you have facts to the contrary, put them here. Otherwise, stop diverting from the issues by the use of red-herrings. I support the points raised above by SamDavidson that three issues need to be resolves as a first step:
  1. The conflict of interest, financial interest, and self-promotion of the ACT leaders, Mercer and Sarner.
  2. Must we rehash the issues raised previously by members of that group in several other mediations and which were resolved?
  3. How to handle the SPAs.

DPetersontalk 22:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Would consensus building be more likely to continue with or without the COI in Dr Becker-Weidman material and its defence by DPeterson? What are the costs and benefits of doing so? Whether, how and when to include that issue or not is now the issue that you are working toward a consensus. From my reading of it, to not include it in the mediation has as many consequences as to include it - it's a question of what best maintains the involvement of those involved in building a consensus. Failing to reach consensus on this now will likely keep it a sleeper, one that can wake up later. Both choices are okay, to deal with it now or agree to deal with it later. Which will work best for you as a community?--Ziji Image:Baby_tao.jpg (talk email) 23:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Evidence and facts should be the basis of discussion, not speculation, red-herring baiting, and conflict instigation. The continued raising of this diversionary issue does not help build consensus. This focus on Dr. Becker-Weidman is not based on facts.
  1. Fact: he's not edited these articles in months (years).
  2. Fact: he's not put DDP material "across a range of articles."
  3. Fact: The conflict of interest, financial interest, and self-promotion of the ACT leaders, Mercer and Sarner are issues to be considered.
  4. Fact: A number of SPAs are involved here and this issue must be considered.
  5. Fact: The question of who and how involved and uninvolved editors participate is important and an issue to be resolved, as described in one of the notes in the mediation request.
  6. Fact: Many of these issues have been resolved by prior mediation and continue to be raised by the same group of editors. DPetersontalk 23:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather leave this up to the mediator (assuming anyone takes the case) than debate it here, but just one additional point. It's not just Dr. Becker-Weidman's contributions that are at issue. It's the citations to his articles. Again, we don't need to debate this here (the opposing views are clear by now). It's just one of the issues for the mediator to consider. StokerAce 01:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Leave it to the mediator to decide the order of issues (if they wish). But the citation of Becker-Weidman and DDP and its defence is one of the big issues on all of these pages so its not an issue that's going to go away, whatever the issues are about Sarner and Mercer.Fainites 10:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
You may change your tune now, but your comments 'were' specifically regarding Dr. Becker-Weidman,

"It is quite plain that there is an issue about the extensive promotion of DDP by Becker-Weidman across a range of articles'"

By contrast, the issues about Sarner and Mercer are real and clearly violate Wiki standards. DPetersontalk 12:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The whole quote goes on to say "all of his positions and the substance of his edits are actively defended by you. This is part of the substance of this mediation." so I haven't changed my tune and it nonsense to try and insist that this is not an issue for mediation or is a red herring. Can we just get on with it please, which we will never be able to if you try and insist we only mediate on the issues you consider important and not on the issues others consider important. Resolving this kind of thing is the whole point surely. Just constantly repeating that Sarner and Mercer have a COI will not resolve anything. Fainites 15:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Please avoid Personal Attacks against editor DPeterson. There are several editors who have used references by Dr. Becker-Weidman as sources. Attacking one editor is not helpful for developing consensus or mediation. Singling out references by one author is a red herring. Shall we go after Dr. Beck or Dr. Siegel, etc? This is a silly argument and a silly line to follow. I do agree with the above, that the conflicts of interest regarding Mercer and Sarner and ACT must be resolved first, along with a few other procedurual issues. RalphLendertalk 16:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
What personal attacks? Disagreeing with someone is not a personal attack. This issue obviously isn't going to be agreed on this page so lets just wait until a mediator is appointed and then see what they say shall we? Fainites 17:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the mediator will need to address several important issues, inparticular the ones stated above:
  1. The conflict of interest, financial interest, and self-promotion of the ACT leaders, Mercer and Sarner.
  2. How to handle the SPAs.

RalphLendertalk 17:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Just to say I am working away next week and may not have internet access. 86.143.211.85 13:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Sorry. Fainites 13:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. I contacted the few active mediators and have been assured that we are not forgotten and it will be looked at by the end of the week. Fainites 19:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not in any rush here. DPetersontalk 20:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No point hanging around. This dispute has gone on long enough. Fainites 22:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Just seems that tempers are very hot, still, as I read the comments on the talk page for Attachment Therapy. It will be difficult for the mediator to mediate if there are such hot tempers still flaring. That was my thinking on the subject. Cooler heads would probably result in a better process and outcome. DPetersontalk 22:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think your temper was the one flaring and you should try to control it. You insulted several editors and they simply asked you to try to be civil. You seem to have these conflicts with editors frequently and most places you edit. Do you think you might be the problem? FatherTree 00:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I showed no temper, only made an observation and commented that another editor's comments seemed ok to me. But, I see that the group of you is now back on line supporting and amplifying each other's comments as before. DPetersontalk 01:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The comments that 'seemed OK' to you included the phrase unfounded and patently false statements and an accusation of financial bad faith! Fainites 09:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Well the statements are false and the individuals do have a vested financial interest in the dispute since they have books and one has a career built on the controversary. DPetersontalk 11:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thats a matter of opinion and is very much in dispute as you know. Fainites 13:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Since one of the group (FatherTree) (see diff: [[10]]) continues to knowingly make false accusations of my being a sockpuppet, I don't see how we can mediate these issues at this time? DPetersontalk 01:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Same old stuff DP. But unfortunately it's the pot calling the kettle black. This mediation referral has been riddled with accusations that our 'gang' as you so charmingly call us on the AT talkpage are all meatpuppets etc and should therefore be effectively ignored. We haven't declined mediation on that basis, and your SPA tags and inappropriate questions were removed by the mediators. Give it a rest. Mediation has at least to be tried don't you think? We could all of us from both 'sides' be really nice people underneath and we can all read sources. The hope is that a tough mediator will keep the discussion to the point, without inane repetition of accusations and concentrating on the important issues. Something we all need don't you think? Lets give it a go. Fainites 09:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to proceed with mediation. I am only observing that one of your group (I've not used the word gang and apologized for hurt feelings in my first use of it...so please give it a rest and move on) continues to knowingly make false accusations and that this behavior is an impediment to mediation. One way to proceed with mediation is to assume good faith and not jump all over innocent comments. In addition, not making provocative and false and misleading comments would also help. Sarner does have a history of being sanctioned for that, you reaslize. I'd like to try mediation, I'm only observing that two of your "group" or colleagues seem to be acting in ways that are not supportive of the mediation process. DPetersontalk 11:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be better and more straightforward to apologise for rudeness rather than 'hurt feelings' DP. You don't have the capacity to hurt my feelings, nor I doubt, anyone elses on these pages. It is also ill-mannered and disingenuous to constantly attribute one editors views and indeed actions to another on the spurious ground of being a 'group'. Nobody is going to believe these are 'innocent comments'. Therefore on the question of assuming good faith, I suggest you practice what you preach (cf accusations of meatpuppetry on the mediation referral page no less). I am pleased to hear however that you are not attempting to delay or put off the mediation process. Hooray. Fainites 11:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Calm down...please stop making personal comments and personal attacks. That is not helpful to mediation. This exchange started when an editor noted that after Sarner's comments many of your group began commenting here defending the comment by Sarner. I am not accusing you of being a meat puppet. The only two who we know work together are Sarner and Mercer since they are both leaders of ACT...I am not accusing the others of being sock or meat puppets and only ask that FatherTree apologize and stop knowlingly making false accusations. Seems reasonable to me. DPetersontalk 11:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Really people. Let's calm down and focus. Sarner made a clearly provocative and accusatory statement as he's done before and then both sides explode. Yes, Sarner made an inappropriate provocative comment. FatherTree made a false accusations of editors being sockpuppets, and then everyone began screaming. The group on one side begin defending each other and making more and more of the same comments. This does not bode well for mediation. Accusations of editors being sockpuppets, especially when the editor knows the accusation to be untrue are not productive. Making inflamatory comments and statements is also not productive. I suggest you focus on the issues. RalphLendertalk 12:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly calm thank you DP, and very glad to hear that you are no longer accusing me or indeed anyone else of being meat or sockpuppets. Fainites 12:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow! One inflamatory comment sure set off a big fire. I guess we should be careful about what we say and how. That first inflamatory comment was just pretty bad...and look at the responses...lots of hot hurt feelings. Everyone should stay calm, take a breath before editing, and avoid making personal comments or making comments that they know will be inflamatory. SamDavidson 19:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is your characterization that my initial comment was "inflamatory" [sic] and accusatory. I don't think it was. Actually, the subject matters of my comment (about an Elvis movie and the etiology of AT) are not listed among the mediation topics, and I didn't mention anyone who is part of the mediation by name or motive, so I don't see how my comments can be considered "inappropriate" by Wiki standards. The same cannot be said of comments by "JohnsonRon", "DPeterson" and "RalphLender" -- all of whom made personal attacks on me and others. I've already said on the AT talk page that their responses don't bode well for the mediation. Perhaps I should have said that the incident demonstrates how necessary mediation is. Larry Sarner 22:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Your comment was inflamatory and accusatory...those are good adj for your statement. The article is the subject of mediation, so it is just bad form. This type of behavior is what got you sanctioned in the past. I think SamDavidson's advice to "stay calm, take a breath before editing, and avoiding making personal comments or making comments that they know will be inflamatory," is excellent advice. I recommend you follow it. DPetersontalk 23:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Your constant admonishments to others to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks are really beginning to get very funny indeed given the content of most of your posts. Read your own comments before you press that 'save page' button. Fainites 23:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
There are two Ms in "inflammatory", DPeterson and SamDavidson. Jean Mercer 00:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC) And before you shriek that I have called you an "M in inflammatory", let me confirm that it's your collective and surprisingly similar spelling skills that i have in mind.
Thanks for the tip. Just remember that veiled accusations of sock or meat puppetry are still offensive and violate wiki policy...being sly or slick is not excuse to hide behind. Given Mercer and Fainities continued provocations it is very difficult to see how they can possibly genuinely contribute to mediation in a constructive and collaborative manner. You are both not demonstrating behavior support of such a process. DPetersontalk 01:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
"being sly or slick" ?? and you accuse others of incivility. Mercer and Sarner are certainly forthright. They say who they are and are tranparent. You however claim to be all sorts of things but will not even say if you are Becker or not. You have never denied it. FatherTree 11:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
DP is correct that "veiled accusations" are "offensive and violate wiki policy." I'd agree that such veiled accusaitons can be characterized as "slick" or "sly." At least as I read my dictionary. RalphLendertalk 16:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

An interesting and quite relevant new book: Keen, A. "The Cult of the Amateur". He refers to what happens "when ignorance meets egoism meets bad taste meets mob rule."Jean Mercer 13:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that "veiled accusations" violate vikipedia policies and can be characterized as RalphLender has and as DPeterson has. Such statements are both slick, sly, and offensive. SamDavidson 01:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If the shoe fits, wear it-- or, wear both or even all three of them. If it doesn't fit, no doubt mediation will show that, with respect to both veiled and naked accusations.Jean Mercer 14:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, mercer, calm down. Your comments really are not helpful. I think you'd have to agree that they are inflamatory. Let's just let mediation take its course, which means trying to act civil and Assume good faith. DPetersontalk 18:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I think they are just trying to be provocative. JonesRDtalk 21:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No, really, not "inflamatory" again. Are you spelling by consensus?Jean Mercer 23:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editor "behaviour" issues

I have reverted the lastest change in the RfM made by DPeterson who himself had reverted a change by the MedCom Chair who, being in the antipodes, will probably not be aware of the reverts for some time.

Both the current and immediately past chairs have tried to make it clear that COI, SPA, and other arguments are not relevant to mediation. That's why they removed such additions in the first place. Mediation is only about the text of the articles at issue.

It is possible that continually adding back in these issues, especially after the mediation was accepted, is partly responsible for the delay in getting a mediator to take the case. If that's right, then such editing is tantamount to sabotage of the mediation process and all of us have wasted six weeks because of it.

Larry Sarner 19:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Other Issues to be Mediated" section is for just that...other issues that others who are party to the mediation want mediated. The COI issue is a valid one...as the one identified, it is problematic that you would delete it. Furthermore, it is raised as an issue regarding Dr. Becker-Weidman, so if COI issues are not relevant, I suppose that one must be removed too?
Generally the fomat for talk pages is that an progresive comments on the same thread are indented to indicate that the comment refers to the previous one. You and your colleage mercer may not be aware of that Wiki convention since you don't edit much, but if you look at other talk paages you will see that what I am saying is accurate. DPetersontalk 20:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Dpeterson, it was the acting chair of the mediation committee that removed the issue. shotwell 20:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The issue most recently deleted were deleted by Sarner not the mediation committee chairperson. The issue I added is in the same vein as the first one in that section so I don't see the problem...except that Mr. Sarner is the subject of my addtion and obviously takes exception to it. I suggest the proper approach is not to delete my addition but to let the matter be mediated. DPetersontalk 20:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Check the history. Daniel removed the item [11] and then Sarner made some minor edits. [12] shotwell 20:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Different item. I see that Sarner deleted Peterson's addition. That is not acceptable and appears to be purposely provocative. Sarner, you'd said you were going to act differently....You've been sanctioned in the past for such behavior. I agree with Peterson that those additions belong in the additonal items section. I also have to agree that the wiki convention is to indent progressive comments. It appears as if Sarner is being provocating on purpose. I hope he stops. JonesRDtalk 21:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
See this diff that shows Sarner deleted Peterson's addition [[13]] JonesRDtalk 21:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
No, same item. DPeterson's "addition" was actually a revert of the MedCom chair's change of the issue from COI to COS. I only reverted his revert. I explained my actions clearly here on the talk page. I have not been provocative in any way; it was not me who reverted the MedCom chair's edits! Oh, and I have never been sanctioned in the past for "such behavior". That is a personal attack, as well as being false. Attack my edits or words or logic all you want, but please keep your comments about me personally, or my alleged motives, to yourself. Larry Sarner 21:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
With regards to Becker-Weidman, I can only second-guess the then MedCom chair's reasoning for keeping it. Perhaps it was Shotwell's carefully nuanced request that made the difference. He seems to have focused his issue narrowly on the text and whether the text was in violation. That's a question of COS not COI. On the other hand, your request was focused solely on whether I or Jean Mercer have any right at all to edit on these articles. Anyway, that's how I see the distinction. Larry Sarner 21:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

With regards to indenting (I suppose this belongs here as it is an "editor behavior issue"), I have four comments: (1) At least one of the comments you indented wasn't a "progressive" one; (2) when indenting comes over to the right margin, the comments become unreadable on smaller screens; (3) the editor making the comment gets to choose the indentation, not self-appointed indentation police; (4) you have been asked by others not to edit their comments, specifically with regards to indentation, but you do it anyway--a power thing? Larry Sarner 20:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I now get to add my own voice, since DPeterson edited my indentation on the above comment. DPeterson, you do not have any authority to edit my comments on this or any other talk page, either as to substance or as to form. Do not do it again. Larry Sarner 21:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Different issue. I see that Sarner deleted Peterson's addition, which is identical to the first one in that secton. That is not acceptable and appears to be purposely provocative. Sarner, you'd said you were going to act differently....You are not. You've been sanctioned in the past for just such behavior. I agree with Peterson that those additions belong in the additonal items section. I also have to agree that the wiki convention is to indent progressive comments. It appears as if Sarner is being provocating on purpose. I hope he stops. JonesRDtalk 21:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Presumably the "different issue" you're talking about is the line added by DPeterson, which reads "Possible occurances of citing oneself and Conflict of interest". You have also made it clear that you're aware Daniel removed the long bit about ACT. Furthermore, when you restored the part about ACT, you added the comment, "this belongs here". Why have you and DPeterson deliberately added this issue when, 1.) You are fully aware that the medcom chairperson removed it, and 2.) You claim to only be interested the other issue added by DPeterson?
Furthermore, it is curious that you have reverted only moments after I informed DPeterson he reached three reverts. shotwell 22:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, now chair, deleted it along with many other 'questions' from DPeterson and the others. If you wish to know why, DP, and can't work it out I suggest you ask Daniel directly. This makes more sense than putting it back where it is likely to be removed by Daniel again. I have asked Daniel about progress and he has said the committee is discussing our case at the moment. Fainites 08:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, this is a new addition, which is identical to the first one in the section. Therefore if the first is legit, so is this one. I do understand why sarner, mercer, and friends would object since it directly addresses their COI and financial interests in the dispute. DPetersontalk 19:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Also DP, as you well know, there is a COI noticeboard. I'm puzzled as to why you haven't used this given your incessant accusations of COI and your propensity for filing ANI's etc. Is there some reason why you don't want an answer on your incessant COI allegations? Why don't you simply ask Daniel why he removed it? Fainites 08:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

A legit question. I've not brought it to the COI noticeboard because it is one of the subjects of mediation...DPetersontalk 14:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I've already said I don't object to it being dealt with. It should make the talkpages shorter anyway. It was Daniel that removed it from the mediation list though so I was suggesting you ask him why rather than blame others. Fainites 18:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, he never removed this added issue, it wss Sarner and shotwell. What he deleted was different than the one I added and Sarner et. al deleted. Since this is a new addition, which is identical to the first one in the section if the first is legit, so is this one. I do understand why sarner, mercer, and friends would object since it directly addresses their COI and financial interests in the dispute. DPetersontalk 19:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. [14][15][16]Fainites 21:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Your links make my point. My addition is different than those and is nearly idential to the first one there. As I said, he never removed this added issue, it wss Sarner and shotwell. What he deleted was different than the one I added and Sarner et. al deleted. Since this is a new addition, which is identical to the first one in the section if the first is legit, so is this one. I do understand why sarner, mercer, and friends would object since it directly addresses their COI and financial interests in the dispute. Thanks for helping make that point. DPetersontalk 22:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
You keep repeating yourself. Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true -- even if you click your heels. If I am the "friend" of which you speak, then perhaps you could explicitly state your concerns. Specifically, what is my financial interest? shotwell 22:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Or is it me? If I have a financial interest, when do I get my pay out DP? You seem to know more about it than I do. Fainites 22:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Can DP verify that he does not have a financial interest in promoting Becker? FatherTree 00:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble following all of this, but here's what I see from the diffs. First, Daniel deleted a couple items, including this: "Citations to materials User:Jean Mercer and User:Sarner and contributions by Mercer and Sarner to these pages. Mercer and Sarner are leaders of the Advocacy group Advocates for Children in Therapy and publish commerical materials to fund their group and any reliance in their work needs to take into account their financial interests in their POV." See the diff here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_mediation%2FAttachment_Therapy&diff=141542018&oldid=139697799 Then later, DPeterson added this in: "Citations to materials by user:Sarner and user:Jean Mercer by Mercer and Sarner to these pages. Sarner and Mercer run an advocacy group (Advocates for Children in Therapy) that publishes materials and promotes an agenda regarding the treatment of children with disorders of attachment. Any reliance on their work nees to take into account their finanical interests in this dispute." See diff here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_mediation%2FAttachment_Therapy&diff=141650155&oldid=141593994 To me, it looks like what Daniel deleted and what DPeterson added have the same general meaning. I have no opinion on why DPeterson added it back and what the implications are. I'll leave that to DPeterson to explain and the mediation committee to comment on. StokerAce 01:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

One additional point. I don't think anyone objects to having Mercer's/Sarner's interest in the issue discussed. In fact, I am quite curious as to how Wikipedia will deal with this issue. Mercer/Sarner have been very upfront about their identity the whole time. If Wikipedia punishes people for being forthright in this way, it could have the bizarre consequence of respected experts in a field being driven to edit Wikipedia under a pseudonym. StokerAce 01:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify for you, the primary issue is that they deleted an item I added to the additional items to be mediated section. It is not their place to do so. My addition is nearly idential to the first one in that section. As I said, Daniel never removed this added issue, it wss Sarner and shotwell. What Daniel deleted was different than the one I added and Sarner et. al deleted. Since this is a new addition, which is identical to the first one in the section, if the first is legit, so is this one. I do understand why sarner, mercer, and friends would object since it directly addresses their COI and financial interests in the dispute. In any event it is not their place to delete others' items; that can be the subject of mediaton. I hope that clarifies this for you StokerAce. DPetersontalk 01:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you show me the diffs? Or quote the text you are referring to? Like I said, there has been a lot of back and forth and I'm not sure what everyone is talking about. I think they are referring to the issue I quoted. I'm not sure which one you have in mind, though. StokerAce 01:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Denada. There are no diffs to show and no text I am referring to. If you look at the project page history you will see that Sarner and Shotwell deleted my additions and it is not their place to delete my additions to the "other issues to be mediated section", wouldn't you agree, StokerAce? Especiall since Sarner is the subject of the issue I raising. That is the only issue here. DPetersontalk 02:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to make an accusation, then you need to back it up with diffs. If you cannot provide evidence, then you need to cut it out. shotwell 02:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As best I can tell, Daniel deleted it, DPeterson added it back, and then Sarner or Shotwell (I forget which) reverted back to Daniel's version. If you (that is, DPeterson) see it differently, I'm happy to look at any diffs you can point me to. StokerAce 02:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My reading is that Daniel deleted an additional item and that the most recent addition by DPeterson is different than that original one...regardless, it appears mediation will not occur and arbitration is pending. SamDavidson 15:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this mediation case has been closed, and arbitration has been requested (not "pending") on the behavior of DPeterson and allies. It is a pity that mediation could not have proceeded, since only it focuses on article substance (arbitration focuses on process). I wish I knew for sure why no mediator would take this case in the end, but I can reasonably speculate that the edit-war initiated by DPeterson against the MedCom chair was a factor. Larry Sarner 16:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)