| Revision as of 18:00, 17 June 2006 editSarner (talk | contribs)887 edits Response← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:25, 17 June 2006 edit undoMarkWood (talk | contribs)283 edits →Discussion: another's commentsNext edit → | ||
| Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
| Yes, I hope the mediator returns to the page and compare what has happened at the article to the above comments. One of us apparently doesn't understand the process. I also object to the characterization of my intentions (above) instead of limiting comments to actions and disputes, particularly here where the effect is to slander me; is this not a violation of Wikiquette? ] 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | Yes, I hope the mediator returns to the page and compare what has happened at the article to the above comments. One of us apparently doesn't understand the process. I also object to the characterization of my intentions (above) instead of limiting comments to actions and disputes, particularly here where the effect is to slander me; is this not a violation of Wikiquette? ] 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| The inclusion of the items Mr. L. Sarner seems to object to so strongly are minor. It appears that he will only be happy if the page reads his way and no other, as if his is the only opinion that matters. Several others have disagreed with him and that should speak to a concensus. I see no willingness to compromise on his part. The Also See section is fine as far as I am concerned and I would like to see it stay as it is, as do others. I see no slander on the part of DPeterson and wish Mr. L Sarner would stop making such provocative statements, it does not help being so confrontative and rigid. ] 21:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:25, 17 June 2006
Mediation Case: 2006-05-21 John Bowlby
Please observe Misplaced Pages:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal.
Request Information
- Request made by: Sarner 17:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Are there no takers for this case? Is the reason because I have not done this correctly? How long should I wait to go and try formal mediation? Sarner
- Where is the issue taking place?
- John Bowlby (incl. its talk page)
- Who's involved?
- Me (Sarner, previously under 206.81.65.234) on one side, and on the other side: AWeidman, the latter's apparent sock-puppets (68.66.160.228, 66.238.221.11), and as of yesterday two persons who apparently recently created accounts -- DPeterson (who signs edits under the alias User Name PPeterson) and MarkWood (who occasionally corrects the signatures of DPeterson, and evidently initially operated from 63.164.145.85, a Kinko's in Los Angeles).
- Today's edits on the Bowlby talk page indicate that UserDPeterson is also a sock puppet of AWeidman. Sarner 15:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- In addition, other IP addresses in the same class B are showing up, all of which are registered to the same ISP (XO Communications) in New York City, probably a dial-up: 66.238.223.245, 66.238.222.38, 66.238.216.119 Sarner 22:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
MarkWood. I am.
- What's going on?
- An edit war on John Bowlby for about the last month. The other side engages in personal attacks, specious reasoning, reverts without discussion, refuses to answer questions about alleged "facts", regularly violates the NPOV policy in edits, uses sock puppets or allies to make reverts to avoid the 3RR, misapplies Wiki terms like vandalism, bias, and consensus, refuses to sign comments on the talk page, puts words in the mouths of prominent people, and probably more that I have overlooked.
- (Most recently can be added: edits my comments on the talk page, raises slanderous charges against a third party, refuses to answer questions (or challenges) which could lead to consensus Sarner 15:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- And now inserts a copy of an existing discussion section on the talk page after deleting my responses and inserting new comments of his own, deliberately wasting Wiki database space. Sarner 22:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC))
- I had earlier suggested that the whole edit war could be avoided by deleting a section that I felt had no business being in a biographical article and clean up the bibliographic references and see-also links, which contain little more than spam. I felt the controversy could best be dealt with in other articles where the topic of discussion was more pertinent and there would be other editors who could bring much knowledge to the table (such as attachment theory). When that suggestion was summarily rejected, I did a (bold) edit on the section in question to show how the topic could be accurately and fairly treated, which I also hoped would convince the other side that they ran risk a substantial risk to their position by keeping the topic open here. Instead it led to the edit war conducted as described above.
Sarner has attacked me and others with irrelevant questions and unfounded accusations. All his accusations above apply to him: raising irrelevant questions, putting words in the mouths of others, refusing to answer questions that could help others understand his view and purposes, etc.
Sarner is a member of a fringe group called ACT. He and his wife, Rosa, and their friend, Mercer seem to have some grudge against anything having to do with attachment and related areas. As a result he has acted to remove any references to material he and his group deems inappropriate. They have a long history of attacking therapists, regardless of their approach, if the therapist treats children with Reactive Attachment Disorder. There have been successful lawsuits against members of ACT requiring them to change or remove slanderous information or stop certain practices. I point this out only to point out that Sarner has a specific agenda and does not seem interested in real dialogue...he only wants to advance this view of a fringe group (fringe group,, meaning not accepted by or a member of any recognized group such as APA, NASW, etc.)
Sarner began a revert war by deleting material without even considering that no one else seemed to have a problem with it. Several others have commented that the material on the page is fine. He then discounts this as sockpuppetry!
- Sarner began a revert and edit war. If you go to the Bowlby page, the discussion section, you will see that he very quickly attacks AWeidman and so it appears that Sarner had no intention of finding some compromise or of discussing the matter. Sarner then proceeds to personally attack several people and to post irrelevant questions and issues. While Sarner's leadership of the ACT group may not be relevant, it does suggest he has a specific bias that he may be attempting to introduce into the article (or edit out of the material). MarkWood
- Sarner continues to delete accurate and useful information that a consensus of contributors seem to want to see on this page. Sarner does not seem to be an expert in this area. As previously described, he is a "zealot" with a specific agenda to push. I think his postion as Administrative Director of ACT, among other things makes that clear. Material on the use of Bowlby's theory in practice is interesting and relevant to readers. [[user:DPeterson|DPeterson
- I added material to the article that seems relevant, references and material on the use of Bowlby's theory as the basis for therapeutic interventions. Sarner took exception to that and when it was suggested that we agree to disagree, he began to just delete additions and revert the article to his own preferred version. I believe, and others do as well, if the discussion page is accurate.
- Discussion of how Bowlby's theory is used in practice seems very relevant as it shows how influential he has been and remains.
- What would you like to change about that?
- (1) Somehow end the edit war in this article by permanently eliminating the section in dispute, removing the linkspam, and taking the whole argument over to attachment theory.
- (2) Get the participants (including me, if I'm guilty of anything) to recognize their violations of Wikiquette or Misplaced Pages policy in the course of this edit war, and pledge not to repeat them.
Have Sarner stop the revert war and edit war and leave the material. Links to cited material seem to be appropriate so that readers can find more information on the subjects mentioned.
- I'd like to see Sarner leave the article alone or merely add what may be relevant material and let other reader's comments guide the growth of the material. It is my belief that material on the use of Bowlby's theory in practice and attachment theory is relevant here. Including links to other Wiki articles that are mentioned in the Bowlby article also seem relevant and appropriate. Links to outside pages that describe material are also relevant. While Sarner calls all this SPAM, I disagree as these links provide additional information to readers. MarkWood
- Leave the edits alone and allow readers to read about Bowlby's attachment theory as applied in practice today to successfully help very disturbed and damaged children
- Leave the material in about how Bowlby's attachment theory is being used by practitioners. As a practitioner and licensed mental health professional I believe I have some knowledge and expertise to offer. I've published articles in professional peer-reviewed journals, edited a book, and use, among other methodologies, an approach that is evidence-based and has been supported by a number of prominent professionals in the field. Furthermore, there have been several publications about this approach in peer-reviewed professional journals, it has been accepted as material worthy of presentation at various professional organization annual conference, and has other support. I mention this only to point out that I am knowledgeable about this topic, subject matter, and article. ..but this may not be relevent to the direct question: Should information about how Bowlby's attachment theory is used in practice be in an article about Bowlby. To that question, I would say it is relevant (and others seem to say so too). AWeidman
- Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?
Yes, if you believe I have something to offer.
Sure, it that would help MarkWood
- This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do
- what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.
- Maybe, after I see what this is like. I'm pretty callow in Wiki affairs, and not sure I'd be of any use.
- Yes, if that would be helpful AWeidman
Mediator response
I'll see what I can do to sort things out. Brisvegas 07:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Evidence
Please report evidence in this section with {{Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence}} for misconduct and {{Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence3RR}} for 3RR violations. If you need
help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil.
Misplaced Pages:Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.
Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
NOTE: These are my suggestions as a mediator. If you have your own, feel free to list them in the space below mine. If you agree with the proposal, sign your name under the Support heading. Thank you. Brisvegas
1. Section on Legacy/Practical Application of Attachment theory
There are precedents for the impact of psychologists' theories on modern scientific practice to be mentioned in their biographies, e.g. Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. However, in order to keep both sides happy, this section could be trimmed to no more than one or two paragraphs, and a link to Main Article:Attachment theory provided. Most content in the section Use of Bowlby's Theory in Practice could be merged into Attachment Theory.
Support:
I would support a legacy section of a single paragraph with only general references to the direct influence Bowlby has had. Sarner
A legacy section of two paragraphs would be fine with a link to other relevant pages for more details. DPeterson 13:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I support a legacy section of a paragraph or two. I like DPeterson's recent edit...it is to the point and focused. This is the one I support. MarkWood 15:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: (Please state why if opposing)
2. External links
The two links that previously occupied this section were http://psychematters.com/bibliographies/bowlby.htm and http://attachment.edu.ar/bio.html The policy page that governs the use of sources is Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. About self-published sources, which includes books published by vanity presses, and personal websites, it says: "Sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight... Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Offer: The two links are not official authoritative websites on the subject but are nonetheless of interest to the reader. Instead of listing them on the article, they can be listed on the article's talk page.
Support:
I originally listed these sites, but certainly have no objection to having them removed or listed on the discussion page instead. Sarner
Oppose: (Please state why if opposing)
3. Wikiquette
Although initial contact between the sides to this debate was not always positive, it is encouraging to see that both sides have begun refraining from personal attacks and are working constructively to try and reach a compromise. Indeed, the very act of trying mediation is a sign of good will that should be applauded. Offer: All parties involved agree to follow wikiquette by refraining from personal attacks and unpleasant conduct. Everyone acknowledges they may have made mistakes in the past, apologise for any offence caused and are now ready to move on and work to achieving our common goal: building an excellent encyclopedia.
Support:
It was certainly never my intent to engage in personal attacks, and tried to restrict my comments only to contributions. I may not be the most objective determiner of my own actions, however, and will appreciate correction from the mediator in this regard. I pledge a good faith effort to follow wikiquette. Sarner
What you suggest is more than agreeable with me. I may have gotten carried away as the heat of the discussion and argument proceeded. That was not my intention and so I am sorry for any hurt feelings or bruised ego's my comments may have caused. DPeterson 13:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is fine with me and I can agree. It was nver my goal to engage in a series of personal attacks. I attempted to focus on the issues raised, but may have gotten side-tracked by some of the questions and comments; I regret that. MarkWood 15:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: (Please state why if opposing)
Comments by others
I would suggest that the most recent edit by DPeterson is a good compromise and one that should be acceptable to all reasoned individuals who are looking for some closure to this debate. MarkWood 15:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Misplaced Pages is based on consensus.
Discussion
Please return to this section. Sarner has begun a revert war because he does not agree with material in the "also see" section and does not seem willing to either compromise or build concensus. It appears that he will only accept an article that represents his own point of view and is intent on deleting material he does not like, despite others' protestations and disagreement. Clearly more active mediation is necessary here. If he continues to make unilateral deletions, would it be appropriate to ban him or block him for continuing his revert war? DPeterson 17:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I hope the mediator returns to the page and compare what has happened at the article to the above comments. One of us apparently doesn't understand the process. I also object to the characterization of my intentions (above) instead of limiting comments to actions and disputes, particularly here where the effect is to slander me; is this not a violation of Wikiquette? Larry Sarner 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The inclusion of the items Mr. L. Sarner seems to object to so strongly are minor. It appears that he will only be happy if the page reads his way and no other, as if his is the only opinion that matters. Several others have disagreed with him and that should speak to a concensus. I see no willingness to compromise on his part. The Also See section is fine as far as I am concerned and I would like to see it stay as it is, as do others. I see no slander on the part of DPeterson and wish Mr. L Sarner would stop making such provocative statements, it does not help being so confrontative and rigid. MarkWood 21:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)