In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. User FCYTravis is an administrator who appears to be abusing his status. He has edited a blocked page, engaged in edit wars, refused to follow the findings of a poll (see Talk:Advocates for Children in Therapy), refused to participate in mediation, called a user a "sock puppet," and misrepresents Wikipedia policy and practice to suit his own needs on the pages he wants. to edit. If you review his talk page you will also see multiple complaints by many other editors. It is unclear where this issue should be raised. It was put on the Administrator's page, but he directed me here.
{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.} When sources were provided for the section disputed by FCYTravis, he rejected those citations and sources, despite others finding the sources adequate and cogent. DPetersontalk 22:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC) See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy&oldid=73600469 as an example of sources and citations provided.) DPetersontalk 22:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
(provide diffs and links)
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
The users above brought this RFC because I have stood up to oppose their campaign of POV-pushing, illegitimate "polls" and false "consensus" on Advocates for Children in Therapy. Before I got to the article, this version, for example, contained such inflammatory, unsourced and blatantly POV language as Advocates for Children in Therapy is not recognized nor accepted by the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, or any other large professional organizations. As such ACT is not part of the mainstream mental health professional community and its advice is not sought by these groups. ACT has a number of its articles cited by and posted on Quackwatch which is run by Stephen Barrett. Both groups are controversial advocacy groups.
Whether any of the above is true, none of it was sourced - so upon finding the article I requested citations and removed much of it as it was highly inflammatory, negative and without any corroboration. I was subsequently accused of vandalism, and the situation degenerated into a stale edit war. I requested page protection, which was granted. The above two users then magically multiplied into a bunch of oddly-similar names which all had near-identically-slim edit histories to the same set of related pages and proceeded to votestack their own alleged "poll" demanding inclusion of the material I removed. Given that no poll can override Wikipedia's basic reliable sourcing and verifiability policies, I quite rightly simply ignored them. I also refused mediation because there's no point in "mediating" an RS/V issue. Straight to ArbCom with that, if they want.
The very odd thing is that for some time now, the page has been basically stable. We seem to have come to a tacit agreement that what is at Advocates for Children in Therapy now is acceptable to both of us. Thus, it's unclear why Mr. Peterson has chosen to bring this action against me at this time. As for the "complaints from other users," one they're not relevant to this issue and two, they're virtually all related to OTRS tickets which I have been active in responding to - including ones demanding biographies of living persons actions.
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.} I think that FCYTravis has toned down his responses and has presented himself in a more conciliatory and helpful light recently. I disagree with his summary, in part, (I think the statements were eventually given proper citations as the current version shows), but overall think his conduct on the page is question is not really an issue anymore. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 01:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.