Misplaced Pages

re: adminship

Yes, I've decided to run. That's the second offer I got in two days, looks like people are dying for me to become an admin. MER-C 09:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Advocates for Children in Therapy

I really appreciate that you've decided to help us out. We've been unable to agree on two specific points that I'll make clear on the talk page. The people involved that are not listed on the mediation request page are:

• User:JohnsonRon (Talk)
• User:SamDavidson ( Talk)
• User:JonesRD ( Talk)
• User:RalphLender ( Talk)
• User:StokerAce ( Talk)

Thanks again. shotwell 14:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge several related disputes Advocates for Children in Therapy, Bowlby, Candace Newmaker, & Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy

I would like to see the disputes on these pages all managed as one large dispute. How can we arrange that? Shotwell is a participant in the dispute on ACT and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. Sarner is the problem on Bowlby and Candace Newmaker. Shotwell and Sarner work closely together as a review of their talk pages shows and their comments on the talk pages of the articles in question. DPeterson 21:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, StokerAce appears to be a party related to Sarner or Shotwell...nor edit history, except for these disputed pages on these issues. DPeterson 21:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please let me know how we can manage all this as one larger issue...it would be most economical and we really cannot resolve anything about ACT without resolving the other issues. DPeterson 21:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight:

• I am interested in the ACT article and concerned with the outcome of this mediation, but I have no desire to be a party to it, directly and indirectly. I have faith that, as long as there are people involved with the mediation who truly understand, and are committed to enforce, Misplaced Pages policy, then all will turn out without my activation.

• I wouldn't want the dispute resolution on ACT to be held hostage to the disputes about the other articles. Besides, the present mediator didn't sign up for all that.

• Shotwell and myself do not "work closely together" or even at all, though he once did make useful comments on Talk:Candace_Newmaker and just recently he sent me some useful tips about how to be a more effective editor in the face of the obstreperousness of DPeterson, et al.

• Mr Shotwell has not been struggling with the ACT article on my behalf, or ACT's. I suspect that s/he has been doing so strictly for concern with Misplaced Pages.

• However, "Dave Peterson", "Ron Johnson", "Sam Davidson", "RD Jones", and "Ralph Lender" do work very closely together, as you will discover in time. There are others, too, who might pop up as your mediation progresses.

• I have no idea who StokerAce is, and have no known relationship with him or her, in or outside of Misplaced Pages.

• I am currently engaged in serious editing activities on the Candace Newmaker and John Bowlby articles. These are currently in the discussion stage of dispute resolution from my point of view. If Peterson desired to open those to mediation, he should have gone through the formal request process.

Good luck to the present mediator. Larry Sarner 00:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging all the related cases is a wonderful ideaRalphLender 13:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation of LTTE article

I dont know if it a freak accident but I just requsted mediation of the LTTE article a few minutes back Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. It seems you've just taken up a previous request for mediation of that article. Since the user who requested mediation and some others mentioned no longer contribute to WP, could you take on the new request instead? --snowolfD4 21:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I can do it. Can you please give me a link to the case? Nwwaew(My talk page) 21:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Dude I already gave it. Look up :-) Anyway here's it is again.Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam --snowolfD4 21:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Great. Hopefully we can resolve the dispute. --snowolfD4 21:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Request your Help with User:Shotwell and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy

User:Shotwell has a dispute with the material in the article on Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (just like the dispute User:Sarner had in the past and has). He has put in a request for user comment on the dispute, which is just fine an in accord with Misplaced Pages dispute resolution proecures. However, he now has edited the page in a provocative manner. His view that there is no verifiable source for the statement that this is an evidence based treatment is disputed by several other editors (there are several professional publications in peer-reviewed journals and books and empirical studies supporting the statement cited in the article and on the talk page. I would appreciate your intervention here. DPeterson 02:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me.

The specific sections of the talk page where you can find these problems are listed below. He appears to want a citation for nearly every sentance (first link)...despite the fact that the cited peer-reviewed publications provide all the required verification. He then will not compromise and is the only one wishing to keep the verify tag on the page despite other editors feeling it can be removed. You will see in the edit history that he has reverted it back a couple of times.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Dyadic_Developmental_Psychotherapy&action=edit&section=11
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Dyadic_Developmental_Psychotherapy&action=edit&section=12
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Dyadic_Developmental_Psychotherapy&action=edit&section=13
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Dyadic_Developmental_Psychotherapy&action=edit&section=14
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Dyadic_Developmental_Psychotherapy&action=edit&section=15

DPeterson 14:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Response about Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy

On my talk page, you asked what my problems with the DDP are. Here is what I wrote there:

The problem with the article is that it makes broad claims concerning therapeutic efficacy and evidential basis in a manner that would suggest they are encyclopedic fact. I don't feel wikipedia should make such claims unless a very strong majority of psychologists would agree with them. We're not here to recommend one form of treatment over another and such a precedent could ultimately be dangerous. Although DDP is relatively harmless according to the APSAC, other forms of therapy may not be. Are we to claim other forms of therapy are effective because a very small number of papers have concluded this? Moreover, DDP is relatively unknown and under-studied. The editors of Child Maltreatment recently wrote:

"In our estimation, DDP still does not meet criteria as an evidence-based treatment, although

the published findings do raise hopes that DDP may be promising."

They go on to point out the deficiencies in the studies being used to reference the claims made in Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. This is a highly credible source that is directly contradicting what Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy claims. Note that there is an incredibly vast difference between asserting "This is an evidence-based, effective therapy" and "Some studies have concluded that this therapy is effective." The editors that disagree with me seem to believe that any claim which finds its way into a book or peer-reviewed journal can be taken as scientific canon. Anyone involved with the academic hamster-wheel of publishing would immediately recognize the error in such reasoning.

DDP is intended to treat Reactive attachment disorder. This is a very serious and rare psychological disorder. In my mind, labelling DDP as "effective" and "evidence-based" is no different than labelling some experimental cancer treatment as effective and evidence based. Furthermore, the same Child Maltreatment article said:

"Although we did not discuss DDP in the report, it is worth considering, whether DDP is a concerning,

coercive, abusive attachment therapy or a promising, nonconcerning, and noncoercive treatment. We

hope it is the latter; however, it can be difficult to judge."

They aren't saying that the therapy is abusive, but they are not endorsing the therapy as being non-abusive either. As such, we cannot claim that this therapy satisfies APSAC guidelines because the very authors of those guidelines are not completely sure of the fact!

The proponents of DDP have come to conclusions that are in the scientific minority. I am not advocating against these conclusions and I believe that they belong in the article. My problem is that the conclusions are minority opinions and do not deserve to be treated as encyclopedic fact or scientific canon.

The reply to letters I am quoting can be found at http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/11/4/381. It is important to reiterate that this is likely the most credible source available to us regarding DDP. The authors are not, as DPeterson pointed out, disparaging DDP. They are, however, pointing out that a lot of research and investigation needs to be performed before it can be labelled as effective or evidence based.

The DDP article boils down to an endorsement of DDP and I'm not really sure we should we endorse any therapy whatsoever. We're here to present facts. Imagine if this article was about Ritalin. Ritalin is probably an effective treatment for ADHD and I suspect there is a vast library of research concluding the fact. Shall we go about endorsing Ritalin? Note the difference between the following claims:

"Ritalin is an evidence-based and effective treatment for ADHD."

"Ritalin is primarily used for the treatment of ADHD. A large amount of research has concluded that..."

I would also like to point out the large number of psychotherapy related articles that link to DDP or claim it is evidence-based. Even the Child abuse article makes this claim. Every one of these mentions was added by one of the editors involved in this dispute. This is suggestive of a large advertising campaign for DDP. It may seem bizarre that someone would advertise a therapeutic technique, but note that this therapy is practiced at a very limited number of treatment centers (maybe one) and its proponents stand to profit from a favourable impression of DDP.

Note that I have no interest in psychology and have never studied it before. I only stumbled across these articles because of the dispute at Advocates for Children in Therapy (which I was brought to by random page!). The "snake-oil claims" made in the DDP article led me to further research on the topic. I encourage anyone interested to follow the references and see for themselves. The matter at hand is quite clear to me and I suspect that it'd be clear to any reasonable person who investigated further.

This is an issue of encyclopedic and scientific integrity. I am not likely to change my opinions on these matters unless I am presented with a very solid and rational argument as to why I am wrong. shotwell 16:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the letter at Child Maltreatment was only written because Dr. Becker-Weidman, a proponent of DDP, wrote a letter to the journal. I feel it is important to put their letter in this context. DDP has received little or no professional attention aside from their response. shotwell 17:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that Shotwell may be misrepresenting the article and the author's opinions. As I previously brought to his attention, the authors of the APSAC Task Force article stated, The authors of the report acknowledge in a recent article that they wrote the report before the peer-reveiwed publications were published and even state, '"In fact, the term dyadic developmental psychotherapy is not mentioed anywhere in the body of the Taks Force report. Dr. Becker-Weidman ius cited three times in the body of the report, noe of which refer to coercive techniques...Regarding the issue of empirical support, it is encourgain to see that outcome research on DDP was recently published in a peer-reviewed journal...We congratulate Dr. Becker-Weidman on this work and hope he will continue to expand these efforts..." and there is substantially more. (Child Maltreatment, 11,4, Nov 2006).'

There are several peer-reviewed publications supporting the efficacy of this model, some published after the APSAC report. All forms of treatment have some degree of uncertainty...for example, if you read the articles on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Psychoanalysis you will find differing opinions. If Shotwell has citations for research in peer-reviewed professional publications to present a different view (as presented in the Cognitive Behavioral Psychotherapy or Psychoanalysis articles, then he should put that data into the article). However, if Shotwell just doesn't like the article, in the same way that User:Sarner has a long history of disputing this article, among others, then that is not helpful or relevant to editing this article. Do we claim a "large advertising" campaign for Psychoanalysis because it is mentioned in many other articles? No, his statements are really a clear POV and are now becoming uncivil and unhelpful.

Finally, his manner is increasingly becoming very similiar to Sarner's uncivil manner. Using terms like "snake-oil" without verifiable and reliable sources is not helpful in building consensus. There currently is a consensus on the article's talk page to remove the verify tag because the article has been found to have good verifiable sources and references. DPeterson 17:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)