Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:03, 9 July 2006

Hello, I am Cowman. Welcome to the void that is my user page. Please add comments to the bottom of the page and sign comments with ~~~~, or click here, or more preferably e-mail me as I am only sporadically active. Thanks! Cowman109

Archives
November 2005 – April 2006 May 2006 – June 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 September 2006 – November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 – February 2007 March 2007 - November 2007 December 2007 - December 2009 January 2010 - September 2010 October 2010 - October 2011 November 2011 - April 2012 May 2012 - April 2013 April 2013 - April 2014

ReadyMade/Anthony

Please note the latest discussion at Talk:Red Hot Chili Peppers in which ReadyMade/Anthony insists he is not affiliated with the fansite link he keeps adding, contradicting his earlier statements, and keeps asking anyone who questions him to prove they are not affiliated with fansites.

I find it impossible to assume good faith about this user and probably will not participate any further. Ideogram 22:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have NOT contradicted any of my statements! I was asked if I was affiliated with stadium-arcadium. My answer was no and still remains the same. I have responded to the question truthfully and have not contradicted myself ANYWHERE. ReadyMade 19:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Busted. . IrishGuy 19:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Learn the definition of the word 'affiliate' and then come back to me when you have sufficiently educated yourself. Thanks, ReadyMade 18:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's stop this right here, please. 1) My talk page isn't the place for arguing and 2) accusing eachother of these things are not productive. Thank you. Cowman109 18:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

RHCP concensus

Heya, I think you're possibly opening this debate up to response from new users from fansites. I don't think a fair concensus can be achieved if the fansite supporters organize themselves to respond (i.e. emailing users via fansite mailing lists) to the debate.maxcap 23:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if they open accounts and join Misplaced Pages, that is better for Misplaced Pages. Ideogram 23:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's better for wikipedia, but not for the debate. maxcap 23:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

We have to keep the big picture in mind. Ideogram 23:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing is if any new users sign up specifically for this debate, they are unfamiliar with policies and the reasoning behind them.maxcap 23:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as they are willing to listen, we will explain our policies and reasoning to them. If they are not willing to listen, their opinions will not apply. This is why Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Ideogram 23:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Maxcap does have a point, but nonetheless I was at least hoping for a way to turn the attention away from accusations of being affiliated back to a search for a compromise. :) Any direction away from accusations and personal attacks is generally a plus. Cowman109 23:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

At the same time we have to keep in mind that we are aiming to come to a final compromise at some stage. ReadyMade 19:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we keep in mind that personal attacks are not allowed, as well. Ideogram 19:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 19th.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Med Cab

Hi, I wanted to join med cab and help out there, and I've added the page to my watchlist, and was just wondering if there's anything else that I should do. Or can I just add my name to Some Current cabalists (mediators) and just get to it? Thanks for the help, The Halo (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The Mediation Cabal is an informal process, so feel free to add your name to the list (there isn't procedure concerning that). Before you jump into mediating cases you should take a look at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators (which has recently undergone quite a few changes). It may be a good idea to work on cases that appear to be simple and not too heated at first to get used to how things work. The thing I cannot stress enough is to ask for help and suggestions if you ever need them. Cowman109 19:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I can't wait to get started and help out. The Halo (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

More personal insults by user 999

You have just removed personal insults by user 999.

This comment he has made in the latest post on my talk page is damatory and egregrious. And also deeply insulting.

Please could I see about blocking user 999 he has stepped way over the line on this one, and you made a note on his talk page to warn him about doing this.

This was his posting made after your posting to his talk page.

I tried to help you. You discounted every one of my suggestions and started paranoid claims I was a member of HOGD, Inc., sockpuppet of JMax or Zos, refused to enter into any kind of discussion, and continue to lie your ass off about your actual motives. Your whole intent is to slander a living person in order to falsely exalt your laughing-stock of an order, and that is such low behaviour I bet even your mother hates you. Please note that Misplaced Pages is not therapy. Thanks. (P.S. I see you still haven't figured out how to indent. Bright) -999 (Talk) 22:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Frater_FiatLux"

He is stepping way over the line here mentioning even my mother. I would request that you block him for 24 or 48 hours to let him cool down. An admin has just edited the messages to take out the offending parts. But could you please see about blocking this user for a short while to let him cool down.

Frater FiatLux 22:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to refactor his second attack but someone else got to it before me. If he persists, I will see to it that he recieves the final warning personal attack template and then I will report him to the proper channels if it is necessary at WP:PAIN. I recommend that you just don't respond to any further insulting comments he makes to you and ignore him in the interest of turning the attention towards the mediation request. Cowman109 22:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I've just made more suggestions to the mediation file but 999 has edited them already. Every effort I make on the mediation file gets edited by 999. He provided commentary and I had to reply, he has now struck lines through my suggestions. Frater FiatLux 22:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Frater_FiatLux"

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-13 Conservatism

Heyas! I appreciate you stepping in to assist with my case. I think I managed to pick a sensitive topic to mediate, hey? Anyway, if you have any suggestions for me, I'd appreciate them! (In the case of information of a sensitive nature, please feel free to use my email. I check it daily.) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation re Dion Fortune page.

I apologise in advance if I am asking a silly question. I have just filled in an application for mediation for the Dion Fortune page. I followed the instructions and saved the page however the page is not showing up on the "Cases in need of mediation" list. Have I done something incorrectly or will it show up in time? Thnaks for your time.

Morgan Leigh 04:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have worked out what I did wrong and I have corrected my mistake. Sorry.

Morgan Leigh 11:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Violation of Mediation

Please take a look at the following articles, where user Kephera975 and Frater FiatLux have both violated their agreement to have these articles subject to mediation by reverting to articles with derogatory claims, including claims of Satanism.

• The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sodalitas Rosae Crucis et Solis Alati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ordo Stella Matutina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thanks, -66.219.59.51 16:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

999

I saw your message on 999's talk page. That's fine with me, however, I deleted some old messages off my talk page to make more room, and he reverts them back. 999, also removed my comments to his talk page with the comment: "stay off my talk page farter Lux", which is inapropreiate and uncivil. Can you please arrange it so that 999 stay's away from my talk page as he's left messages there ahain today. Nothing uncivil but I think that we should aviod each other for the time being. He went way too far last night and I do not appreciate him at the moment leaving messages of kind. I realise I have to archive though if I need more room, but it doesn't excuse the fact that 999 can delete my comments and I carn't delete his because he reverts them back. Please tell him to refrain from doing this.

Frater FiatLux 16:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have done so. He has also been blocked for 3 hours apparently for editing your user page, so hopefully that may cool tell him to back off as well. You may want to archive your talk page anyway, though, as it does appear to be getting a bit long. :) Cowman109 16:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Inventional Vandalism?

Hi. The tags are immaterial and were not what I was refering to, but they belong on the talk page, not on the article. Please look carefully at the changes to the article. You'll have to read both first paragraphs because the addition of the tag deliberately confuses the diff generator so the changes to the first paragraph don't get called out. I wasn't refering to the tags, but to the deliberate libel added to the articles. ---Baba Louis 16:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I now see the small changes to the paragraph. True, Frater probably should have not altered the paragraph in that matter. Cowman109 16:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note this change which was reverted by someone else. It specifically labels a group which his order views as competition as "Satanic" - this is the essence of what he has been doing all along - modifying the descriptions of other orders to cast them in a bad light with uncited personal opinions. Can't somebody stop him from doing this? ---Baba Louis

I'll bring this to his attention and ask him to stop. Thanks for telling me. Cowman109 17:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cowman. I would like to mention that the above user BabaLouis making this complaint has decided to edit my user page and and label myself as a "Satanist" on my own page. Just check the history on my user page. Thank you. Kephera975 05:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

mediation case

I would like to mediate 2006-06-20 Crimean war but this case also involves Ghirlandajo and I seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot with him. I would prefer it if you mediate this case with me assisting. (you can reply here I'll watchlist you) Ideogram 17:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually about to be a bit busy in real life so I won't be able to get too heavily involved in another case (I'm already juggling with 3 at the moment and am busy keeping things civil between several editors in an unrelated incident). You could ask Jbolden or simply invite others to come help with the mediation (or could even speak with user:Kim Bruning about an experimental guerilla mediation of it. :) ) Cowman109 17:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's too bad, I enjoy mediating with you. I think our styles complement each other. Ideogram 17:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Taiwan

User:Chiang Kai-shek is being obstreperous about User:The Halo's proposal to have two separate portals, one for Taiwan and one for the ROC. This seems like a great solution to me, but Chiang Kai-shek is insisting that there should be only one portal and it should be called Portal:ROC. I really don't know how to deal with this; could use your help. Ideogram 07:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. This is just a short message supporting Ideogram's statement. It seems that Chiang Kai-shek is opposed to any suggestion other than is own. I would greatly apriciate it if you could have a look at this issue. Thanks. The Halo (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for coming in to sort out the closing there. I think that you'll agree we wern't getting anywhere with the case, and it was right to close it. Is there any tips you can give me based on what you've seen at Portal talk:Taiwan (I just hope it's not 'Just leave Med Cab, your not cut out for it!!) Thank you. The Halo (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

PS, if the Portal:Taiwan case is still in mediation, with you in charge now, may I please assit with it, as I would like to see it through. Thanks. The Halo (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that really went wrong is that the case was closed. The 'if you don't cooperate we will send you to arbcom' argument is threatening and doesn't get much done. Simply put, I don't believe cases can fail. I believe that as we are an informal process, there's nothing from stopping us from directing them and or starting routes of alternate dispute resolution. Arbitration should be the absolute last step. Cowman109 16:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've changed my comments on the portal talk so that it doesn't seem like I'm just pushing them to arbcom, which wasn't what I meant. I just didn't know where to send the case next. Thank you for your help, and for your comments. The Halo (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cowman, I already filed the ArbCom request. Sorry I was focused on the request file that I didn't see your comment at the Portal talk. What should I do? Can I just delete the request entry? — Nrtm81 17:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I replied on the portal talk page as well, but there's no harm in leaving it there. There is always a chance that it will be accepted. Cowman109 17:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If I went via the RfC medium, would their concensus be Misplaced Pages-binding? What I'm aiming for is to settle on an accepted portal name so that it is publically known to all Wikipedians that the portal name stays. Otherwise other people will keep suggesting different things about what the portal name should be. At least with a fixed portal name, Wikipedians can move on to more productive work. — Nrtm81 17:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, an RFC is just a way to guage community consensus. By having neutral parties look into the matter, other opinions could be brought in that may reveal something that was not clear before. I'm getting ahead of myself, though. Let's just see how the Arbitration request goes, so we can do this one step at a time :). Cowman109 17:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it too late to retract the ArbCom request? I think there's a solution to this mess. Please check the talk page. I think Chiang Kai-shek will agree with the solution. I'm off to bed now, will check on the results six hours from now. If the ArbCom request can be retracted, could you do so if possible? Thanks. — Nrtm81 20:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave a message on the talk page of WP:RFAR and ask for it to be retracted. I'm not sure what procedure is for that exactly, so I guess it's best to ask those who are. Cowman109 20:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Would it be bad idea to file an RFAR against User:Chiang Kai-shek while the RFAR regarding the portal name is still pending? Ideogram 17:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably. Plus for user conduct you might want to see a RFC first before jumping to that level. Cowman109 17:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Misplaced Pages:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Maxwell

The mediation is dead, clearly. Other editors have weighed in and agree that the lawsuit meets Wiki standards, as long as it is reported NPOV. Oliver can not pick and choose what he wants to push his POV. MollyBloom 20:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes he did. There are TWO lawsuits, one that we discussed and the other another edited, that discussed the release of parties in the federal class action.MollyBloom 20:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

He changed the fed release discussion to only point out that Maxwell had several patents (which is unsubstantiated) and deleted the other lawsuit entirely.MollyBloom 20:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Keeping conversation on your talkpage, instead. Cowman109 20:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good.MollyBloom 20:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please ask Oliver again not to talk to me directly, and not to post on my talk page.MollyBloom 22:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wahl

In the Wahl case I was waiting for a user to respond, I will put that on the case page. Sorry for the inconvenience.Geo. 21:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I just came here to say the same thing. Anyway, looks like it is being taken care of.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 22:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

medcabal

I've decided not to "officially" take on any more medcabal cases, but rather try to help in the background by looking into cases and making comments and participating as a private citizen in mediations that interest me. I think I work better in a team than as the lead mediator. (watchlisted) Ideogram 05:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Halo and arbcom

I think we should either endorse or not endorse Halo's statement. It looks like the case is not going to get accepted. Anyway you are familiar with it I just think we need to make an actual endorsement of his position or not. jbolden1517 13:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ironicly enough, this is pretty much what I came to talk with you about ;) I put in my comment at ArbCom at the time because I thought that we were close to a break through on the issue. However, I think that we're about as far away from fixing this thing now as ever. Chiang hasn't added to the discussion since he told people to "Live with it", dispite being active yesterday. He might just have been busy though, so I'm not so worried about that. However, Nrtm81 has now said "I better not keep considering things. My stance is Portal:Taiwan, no compromise on the name of the portal". He also said "Maybe it was my mistake to ask for mediation since I didn't want a change in the portal name" because of this I feel that this line of mediation has hit a dead end. I wanted to know (I realise that I took a long time to get to this question, but, you know...) wheather I should refer this case to Med Com, remove my comments for ArbCom, and let them deal with it (though they can't decide it's name, which is what Ntrm81 wants) or just leave the case open in case anything changes? Thank you. The Halo (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The above question has been delt with on jbolden1517's talk page. However, if you feel that you want to comment on any part of it, feel free! The Halo (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 26th.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

TERRORIST USERNAME

Why is a Wikipedian permitted to use a terrorist username (User:UpTheRa)?? In case you did not know it, "Up the 'Ra" is a pro-Irish Republican Army slogan.

This is in violation of Misplaced Pages rules barring "provocatine" usernames.

Why is this tolerated?? As an American, I am offended, particularly given the consensus that has emerged post-9/11. If I used an offensive term for a username. I have no doubt I would be blocked immediately.

Thank you for your attention.

Gary 19:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The user appears to have only created their account a few days ago, so if the username is inappropriate it probably went under the radar. I'll speak with an administrator and see what should be done. Cowman109 20:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Banu Nadir

I meant I was going to ask that protection would be removed,Sorry for the inconvenience. Geo. 19:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Dneiper

Sure, I'll mediate it. Looks like it's a matter of finding the right word.Arthur Ellis 01:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Elections

I am sorry that you consider elections to be a threat against you as the coordinator. I consider elections a vehicle for legitimacy. Regardless of political differences regarding Kim's status I do not think you are justified in removing my name from the list of mediators. I find it very troubling that people who claim to head dispute resolution services refuse to make use of wikipedia's dispute resolution. I hope at some point you become willing to have an election and win rather than be appointed to the coordinator position. jbolden1517 23:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The only place that really needs an election is Arbcom. The cabal does not need an election as it is an informal process - and the coordinator position has always been appointed. Besides, the coordinator position is entirely superficial - everything a coordinator can do, every other mediator can do. I'm sorry that things had to end this way. Cowman109 02:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if you don't consider elections a threat against you, you should let Kim know. He's running around "defending" you against my horrible threat of holding elections. Even a report to AN/I to watch out for the mad election vandal. Anyway I guess until someone decides to run against you it really doesn't matter. Its looking more and more like the only people on the discussion board are me, you, Kim, robchurch and TWPPC. jbolden1517 02:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing is there are no elections. It was stated in the past that there would be none. And I suggest you re-read through the e-mail that you sent me. It's not productive to have this conversation on my talk page anyway :) Cowman109 02:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments to medcom! This could turn into a happy ending. 02:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 3rd.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

MedCab help

Hi Cowman, I have been trying to mediate at the John Bowlby article. Although it initally seemed like a compromise could be achieved, both sides now remain stubborn, with one side getting an ever-increasing number of users, all of which are single-purpose user accounts that support one side against the other (very suspicious). Anyhow, I no longer have any more time to assist in mediating this case, in part due to real-life concerns and also due to the feeling that in this case I am simply banging my head against a brick wall - I would rather focus on improving Misplaced Pages's articles for now. It would be great if you could help find a new mediator to take this case, although at this stage it seems that succcessful mediation will be difficult.

For the record, the dispute revolves around the biography of British psychologist John Bowlby, whose pioneering work in attachment theory has proven highly influential in later psychological work. One party (several "users", including User:AWeidman, User:DPeterson, User:MarkWood, User:JonesRD and with more accounts being created every week) wishes to pepper the article with links to other treatment methodologies inspired by Bowlby's work which have no direct relevance to him (wishing to not only mention dyadic development psychology and theraplay in the Legacy section but also the See Also section). The other party (User:Sarner) wants the article to have little to no mention of these methods, preferring them to be relegated to an article on Bowlby's attachment theory instead.

Since this debate has started, an increasing number of new users has come to support one side against another, in what seems to be like classic sock/meat-puppet activity. I have no more time or desire to deal with the petty squabbling of both sides over an issue which concerns no-one other than themselves, and I prefer to devote my time to more construtive endeavours. I may take other mediation cases in the future, but for now I need a break. I appreciate your assistance and hope you understand.

Best regards, Brisvegas 01:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I will see if I can help out, thanks. Cowman109 02:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have stated on the page my objection to the allegation that I am a "sock-puppet." I resent this! This continued allegation despite Brisvegas's apology on the talk page makes we question his objectivity. I contriubute to a number of pages of interest to me. My feeling is that just like other pages (Aaron Beck, Freud, etc.) mention and link treatments based on their work, so should this page at least ink in order to be comprehensive and complete. A compromise has been offered and accepted by me and several other contributors and rejected by sarner(keep Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and eliminate Therapy. I don't know about the others, but I am not a "sock-puppet" or "meat-puppet." DPeterson 02:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never said that DPeterson is a sock-puppet, since I have always given him the benefit of the doubt, per WP:AGF. I am referring to later user accounts, such as JonesRD, whose initial edit and subequent contributions have been almost exclusively related to this dispute. While I may be wrong, the balance of probabilities is rather strong as to make me suspicious. I do not wish to take any more mediation cases which involve a sudden influx of new users whose purpose is to push the agenda of one of the main parties in the dispute, as this is unhelpful and is a waste of my time and effort. I am delisting Bowlby from my watchlist and shall avoid it for now. Thanks for your help. Brisvegas 03:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I misunderstood the comment and apologize. DPeterson 03:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

However, it can be said that DPeterson's is very nearly identical to that of JonesRD -- no contributions beyond the narrow interests of this dispute. He has the added known characteristic, shown by several login failures, that he has the same IP address as User AWeidman. The benefit of the doubt may have been given to the one user who has the most damning evidence! Larry Sarner 07:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It are these continued false allegations, purposeful disrespectful tone, and irrelevant, diverting arguments, that cause us to require some directive administrative intervention; the continued false allegations, off-point arguments, and rigid stance against compromise, collaboration, or consensus. The fact that Mr. Sarner is a leader of the fringe group ACT, and is representing their view and agenda, may be part of the problem. DPeterson 14:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Cowman, thanks also for your recent help with my MedCab request (unrelated to tge above). I'm new to the process and appreciate the assistance. cheers, Jim Butler 02:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Bowlby Page

Many contributors feel that the Theraplay and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy references remain in the also see section. One, or maybe two others (both members of the same group, ACT, do not want those references to remain. A compromise was proposed by a Misplaced Pages administrator --David.Mestel-- in which Theraplay would be deleted and Dyadic Developmental Psychotheray would remain. Seven contributors supported this. I appreciate your intervention. The dispute has been going on for a long time and it appears that sarner (and mercer) are unwilling to compromise or waiver from their agenda. Both are representatives and leaders of a fringe group, ACT (you can find it on the web) dedicated to elminating any reference to attachment-based therapy. Sarner has been unwilling to accept any compromise or to collaborate and work with the clear consensus. Your help here will be much appreciated. DPeterson 02:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What you've just read is indicative of the problem on the Bowlby page. The argument constantly is being taken to other venues instead of keeping it on the Bowlby talk page. (Just look at the discussion section of the mediation request, and the "Bowlby Page" section of Brisvegas's talk page!)

Then there are the personal attacks, such as those above. How many can you count in just one paragraph? I scrupulously avoid such attacks -- and it's very, very hard to keep from responding in kind -- and they just keep it up.

You will find vandalism on the Bowlby page; bizarre, illogical arguments; violations of fundamental Wiki policies (such as Reliable Sources); claims about consensus, collaboration, and compromise that bear no relation to reality (not even Wiki virtual reality); lies (such as above, saying Mestel proposed a "compromise" as an administrator was done as an "advocate" for their side); ballot box stuffing, stalking horses, sock puppets -- you name it, it's all there.

Anyway, I hope you will tell all of us (myself included), to keep the argument about the Bowlby page on the Bowlby talk page where it belongs and not here or the mediation request page.

See you there! Larry Sarner 07:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sarner continues with his personal attacks by making false allegations and being disrespectful to various contributors if they don't agree with him. For example, claims of "ballot box stuffing," sock puppets," and "stalking horses" are false and he has been told that, yet he continues, perhaps because he will only accept view and opinions that he forms and is not open to new information, collaborative consensus building, or cooperation. DPeterson 14:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)