The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:AWeidman[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

AWeidman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

DPeterson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
RalphLender (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
JonesRD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SamDavidson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
MarkWood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
JohnsonRon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.66.160.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

shotwell 02:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

These accounts are involved in extensive debates at Advocates for Children in Therapy, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, John Bowlby, and Candace Newmaker. The talk pages on these articles show that they share the exact same opinions on arcane issues such as redundant "See Also" links, make highly similar formatting errors, uniformly link to the wrong pages or non-existant templates when trying to link to wikipedia policies such as WP:V, and so forth.

Note that all of the accounts were created around the same time that mediation was taking place on John Bowlby concerning the inclusion of information about Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (DDP) into the article. Each one of them contributed to that debate on the side of including the information about DDP. DDP is a therapy advocated, taught, and practiced by AWeidman's clinic.[1] The wide majority of these users' edits have been to insert or strongly defend claims about DDP throughout wikipedia in articles ranging from John Bowlby to Child abuse.

The most conclusive evidence concerning DPeterson involves two edits in which DPeterson and AWeidman add their signatures to edits by 68.66.160.228.[2][3]. While there is no issue with using a separate account, AWeidman acts as a separate entity in order to create false consensus.[4]

Their contrib histories and comments on talk pages show many very striking similarities. Here is a small sample of diffs to support that assertion:

1.) Use of too many apostrophes when bolding text.

• User:AWeidman:[5][6]
• User:DPeterson: [7][8]
• User:JohnsonRon: [9][10]
• User:SamDavidson: [11][12]
• User:RalphLender: [13][14]
• User:JonesRD: [15][16]
• User:MarkWood:[17][18]

2.) Inability to link to link to wikipedia guidelines. (links to articles or non-existant templates)

• User:AWeidman:[19][20]
• User:DPeterson:[21][22]
• User:JohnsonRon:[23][24]
• User:SamDavidson:[25][26]
• User:RalphLender:[27][28]
• User:JonesRD:[29][30]
• User:MarkWood:[31][32]

3.) Arcane agreement on putting redundant links in See Also

• User:AWeidman:[33]
• User:DPeterson:[34]
• User:JohnsonRon:[35]
• User:SamDavidson:[36]
• User:MarkWood:[37]

4.) Misc.

• JohnsonRon calls DPeterson "David" before DPeterson has posted that information anywhere.[38]
• SamDavidson corrects DPeterson's mistake.[39]
• They all have strikingly similar user pages. Note that AWeidman and DPeterson once had user pages that were equally as similar.[40][41]
• DPeterson,JonesRD,JohnsonRon all signed an rfc about me with only the date. This rfc is orphaned and there is mention of it on any talkpages.RFC-Shotwell
• DPeterson,JonesRD,RalphLender, and MarkWood signed a similarly orphaned rfc about User:Sarner and they all sign with only the date. Once again, there is no talk page discussion anywhere. RFC-Sarner

Comments

You began this vendetta after it was noted that your edits and comments on the various articles, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Candace Newmaker, Bowlby, and Advocates for Children in Therapy were similiar to sarner's, who was blocked from the Bowlby page for disruptive behavior. Your actions are clearly motivated this. Your "evidence" is just wrong...only one example is the reference to some one calling me Dave, when it is clear they are referring to a SamDavidson. I consider your note on my page vandalism and so will remove it accordingly DPeterson^talk 03:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear that SamDavidson edited the page in the period prior to JohnsonRon's comment. Moreover, his comment came after you made a series of wikifying edits.[42] shotwell 04:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC's I linked to have changed since I last looked at them. Here are the diffs for the versions I saw:Shotwell RFC, Sarner (late sig shotwell 12:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

This is due to a dispute here between Sarner and the users he tagged as sockpuppets above. I believe the users are unrelated and this is unjustified. Nwwaew(My talk page) 11:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear this up, Sarner did not file this report and he is not involved in the medcab request. shotwell 12:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a frivolous complaint. It was set up to get even for an ongoing dispute between Sarner and Shotwell and severl other editors...all of whom they name here. As the mediator has indicated, this is to the ongoing dispute. Since it is unjustified, I will remove the tag from my home page as since it represents an act of vandalism. RalphLender^talk 15:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC) See mediator's comments regarding this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07_Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy#Discussion RalphLender^talk 15:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The repeated insistence that this is an act of retaliation or vandalism is troubling. Before posting this, I noted it on the medcab page and nobody said anything. Thus far, none of my assertions have been refuted in a reasonable fashion. shotwell 17:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to point out the edit where SamDavidosn replies to a comment he made, saying "I agree with RalphLender".[43] This is the same edit where he fixes DPeterson's mistake. shotwell 18:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Not blocked. I recommend taking this report to WP:RFCU. Kilo•T 19:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---