Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy

message: I urge the committee to accept this case. I'm not directly involved in this dispute, but I've been watching it for some time, and have made one or two attempts at mediation.
This dispute has been going on for several months. Attempts at WP:DR have been met with extreme resistance, to the point of disruption (supporting claims of WP:COI), and it does not appear that anything short of committee involvement will resolve the issue.
While I can't address the content dispute, I can support the claim that Dpeterson, RalphLender (and others) appear to be working in concert, and are unwilling to move toward compomise. Instead they divert discussions with accusations of WP:NPA, WP:SOCK, etc (example). I believe the mediator had to 'clean up' numerous  tags. It appears there may also be some validity to the claim of meat puppets (though I dislike the term) and COI.
Sample of behavior:
After a post on AN/I against FatherTree failed to gain support (here), DPeterson and RalphLender opened 3 virtually identical threads on the admin boards (here,  here and here), each falsely claiming prior 'admin support' (from a non-admin), in an apparent effort to 'kick start' their threads. Ironically these 3 noticeboard posts claim WP:CANVAS against another FatherTree, and actually appear to be an attempt to canvass support and game the system. And by acting in concert it appears to be a form of puppetry.
When I realized that they had failed to notify FatherTree about any of the posts, I notified FatherTree (here). DPeterson's responsed by attempting to involve another admin, claiming that I was 'unhelpful' (here). Another time, when I was attempting mediation on Shell's page, SamDavidson attempted to involve yet another outside party, with whom he presumably thought I was in conflict (here).
When I suggested that the multiple open threads constituted canvassing (here), and recommended that he close two of the threads (here), DPeterson replied "...Since each one gets a variety of comments from a variety of editors it may make sense to keep all open..." (here). 
Shell (admin) ultimately realized that multiple threads were open, and closed one on AN (here), and later also closed the other two.
DPeterson copied Shell's AN comment to both AN/I threads, and misrepresented her as supporting his charges (here and here).
RalphLender, (team mate), copied Shell's AN comment to the article talkpage here and falsely claimed: "... the administrator did find that the issue of FatherTree knowinlgy making false accusations of sockpuppetry is real and valid ." 
Shell responded with a categorical denial (here):
:"Whoa - I did not support your accusation; I said if he was doing it to warn him and then let me know if he continues. You would need to provide some kind of proof to back up those accusations and his continuing after your warning. That in no way was a finding that FatherTree had done anything improper. Also, I specifically noted that the accusations of canvassing against FatherTree were false"-Shell
Again I encourage the committee to accept this case, as the situation is disrupting the community. Peace.Lsi john 14:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Lsi john 

message: I an uninvolved in any way, but aware of this dispute since it overlaps with another. Information note when assessing the parties involved: Note that  (referred to above) was a LTA/HeadleyDown reincarnation. A reasonable assessment might be that some sock activity or meat recruitment is more likely to be happening. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update confirming above:  blocked as sock. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact note by uninvolved party FT2 

message: *Identical mannerisms and styles. This should be apparent to anyone who's "worked" with his accounts. Certain words and abbreviations are favoured by all six members of the pro-DDT group, eg. "stmt."
*Weird, characteristic mistakes across all accounts: for example, [], always using "rrv" instead of "rvv", 'bolding poorly etc.
*Occasional account slip-ups. For example, on 1 July DPeterson said:
*:"I was merely suggesting that what you wrote read more like a talk page comment than an addition to the article. If you want to edit the article, with citations, you are certainly welcome to do so."
*Yet before this he had not been involved in any discussion or action relating to the issue (addition of an addendum to the Bowlby article) at all. His sockpuppet, JonesRD, was the one who made the suggestion DPeterson claims to have made.
He should have been blocked *long* ago. DopaminergicOverdrive 04:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: damning indications of dpeterson's sockpuppetry.

message: I declined an unblock request from . He may need a clerk to copy responses from his user talk to /Evidence and/or /Workshop. Thanks! Vassyana 01:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declined unblock