| Revision as of 07:31, 27 May 2006 editBrisvegas (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,604 edits →Mediator response: i'll give it a whirl← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:36, 27 May 2006 edit undoDPeterson (talk | contribs)4,116 edits add detailsNext edit → | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| : 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 ]). 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. | : 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 ]). 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! | |||
| ; ''What would you like to change about that?'' | ; ''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 ]. | : (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 ]. | ||
| : (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. | : (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. | |||
| ; ''Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?'' | ; ''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. | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Recruiting}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Recruiting}} | ||
Revision as of 12:36, 27 May 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)
- 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!
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
Comments by others
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.