Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Proposed decision

< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration‎ | Attachment Therapy

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 13 active Arbitrators of whom none are recused, so 7 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties

edit

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

edit

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

edit

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

edit

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


Proposed final decision

edit

Proposed principles

edit

Dispute resolution

edit

1) Wikipedia's dispute resolution process exists for the benefit of editors acting in good faith to resolve a disagreement. Bad-faith attempts to game the process are prohibited, and will result in sanctions against those engaging in them.

Support:
  1. Kirill 23:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 16:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 15:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 20:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose:
Abstain:

Sockpuppetry

edit

2) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability – and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, create false consensus, or vandalize – is strictly forbidden.

Support:
  1. Second choice. Kirill 23:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 2nd choice.[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 16:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. James F. (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 15:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 20:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Second choice.[reply]
  7. 2nd. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Sockpuppetry

edit

2.1) The contemporaneous use of multiple accounts by a single user to edit within a single topic area is prohibited.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Third choice; this may run into problems depending on how we define "single topic area". Kirill 01:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Too hard to keep the accounts straight Fred Bauder 16:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is covered (along with much more) above, under "create false consensus". James F. (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 15:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Sockpuppetry

edit

2.2) The contemporaneous use of multiple accounts by a single user to create a false impression of consensus is prohibited.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 20:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC) First choice: More focused and applicable to this case.[reply]
  2. First choice. James F. (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice Fred Bauder 01:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. Kirill 02:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Best. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SimonP 01:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Conflict of interest

edit

3) Editors at Wikipedia are expected to work towards NPOV in their editing activities. It is not possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda. Editors who have exceptionally strong professional, political, or financial commitments to a particular point of view are asked to refrain from editing in affected subject areas. This is particularly true when the affected subject areas are controversial.

Support:
  1. Kirill 23:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 16:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 15:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 20:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

edit

4) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

edit

Locus of dispute

edit

1) The dispute centers around Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Advocates for Children in Therapy, and a number of related topics. These articles have been the subject of editing by adherents of various viewpoints of the topic, who have frequently been in conflict with one another.

Support:
  1. Kirill 23:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 16:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 15:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 20:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Real-world involvement

edit

2) A number of editors, including AWeidman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jean Mercer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Sarner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), have various degrees of real-world involvement with the topics in question.

Support:
  1. Kirill 23:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 16:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 15:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 20:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

DPeterson

edit

3) DPeterson (talk · contribs) created four sock puppets: MarkWood (talk · contribs), SamDavidson (talk · contribs), JonesRD (talk · contribs), and JohnsonRon (talk · contribs). They were used to edit war and to create the appearance of consensus, contravening the policy on sockpuppetry. The four sock puppets were blocked indefinitely after they were identified as such by checkusers Jayjg (talk · contribs) and Jpgordon (talk · contribs).

Support:
  1. Kirill 23:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 16:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 15:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 20:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

edit

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies

edit

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

DPeterson banned

edit

1) DPeterson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:
  1. Kirill 23:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 16:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 15:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 20:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Parties reminded

edit

2) All parties are reminded of the need for care when editing in an area with a potential conflict of interest. They are encouraged to fully disclose any such circumstances that may apply to them and to voluntarily refrain from editing articles where they may reasonably be perceived to have such a conflict.

Support:
  1. Kirill 23:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 16:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SimonP 15:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 20:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

edit

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

edit

Template

edit

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

edit

General

edit

Motion to close

edit

Implementation notes

edit

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Vote

edit

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Close. All done. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, close. James F. (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Done. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. Paul August ☎ 23:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close. Kirill 00:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Close. SimonP 01:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attachment_Therapy/Proposed_decision&oldid=431097489"