Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-21 John Bowlby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-05-21 John Bowlby 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Evidence 1.4 Compromise offers 1.4.1 1. Section on Legacy/Practical Application of Attachment theory 1.4.2 2. External links 1.4.3 3. Wikiquette 1.5 Comments by others 1.6 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-05-21 John Bowlby

[edit] 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.

Aweidman

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 Wikipedia 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

DPeterson

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

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

[edit] Mediator response

I'll see what I can do to sort things out. Brisvegas 07:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Sarner was soft-banned from editing the John Bowlby page. As he was the main disputant, I am closing this case as the current issues appear to have been settled (and this case page is filled with much clutter). If further troubles arise, please contact me (or file another mediation cabal request so we can start with a clean slate). Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 16:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

---

A compromise has been proposed and accepted by all except sarner. He appears unwilling to compromise, colloaborate, or accept the consensus that has occurred in the talk page. It appears that he has a specific agenda and acts as if he is an agent of ACT, which is a fringe group that he is a leader of. It may be time to move on and accept the consensus without him or to move to mediation. DPeterson 00:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The other side keeps spilling the dispute into other pages, like here, where it is not appropriate. They (if indeed they are "they" and not just one person using many aliases) also do not seem to understand that if a dispute is to be resolved by consensus, then each side has to be a party to the consensus; one side agreeing with itself does not constitute consensus, or even an attempt at building consensus. Which may explain why, like a broken record, they don't discuss an issue, just engage in name-calling and demands that I capitulate.

The mediator, Brisvegas, has wished us "good luck" and, perhaps wisely, moved on to other matters. We might have use for another mediator, or call it a day on mediation, with thanks to the Cabal for trying.

Larry Sarner 13:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sarner has ignorred your advice and request to not make changes to the page and allow mediation to occur and for there to be a consensus. He seems to act as if he sees that the consesus is not in his favor and is acting in a manner contrary to building consensus, collaboration, cooperation and that is contrary to the Wiki way. Please intervene Dr. Art 03:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

---

There is no "other side," but that does suggest a certain view of how Wikipedia operates that is not consistent with its principles. sarner's continued attacks are just not productive. His continued discounting of those who do not agree with him is also counter-productive. The proposal on the Bowlby Talk page is an excellent one that several contributors have agreed with. It is time to move on now. MarkWood 16:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. More refactoring of this page. This discussion obviously doesn't belong here, but the other side keeps trying to expand their commentary beyond the proper venue. Mainly to slur me, I get the feeling. Larry Sarner 08:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

A compromise has been proposed and has been accepted by a number of contributors. It is now time to move on and stop the useless continued arguments.

DPeterson 18:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

See what I mean? Spilling over the Bowlby discussion here for no good purpose. It is time for the other side to stop the useless posts to this page and others. Larry Sarner 20:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

---

It is time for sarner to finally accept that his view is a fringe minority view that is not main stream and to relent, in the interests of Wikipedia process and procedure, to the fact that his view is not accepted. That would be the appropriate course of action and consistent with Wiki methodology.

DPeterson 23:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

See what I mean? These red herrings appear all the time on the Bowlby page. They can't resist a forum, regardless of appropriateness.

Larry Sarner 16:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Resorting to name calling and lumping all contributors who disagree with him is not productive. It reall is time for this to be over as there is an abundantly clear consensus. MarkWood 18:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

See what I mean? They are all in lock-step, too.

Larry Sarner 22:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

'This is really becoming silly...Implying that a number of contributors are in "lock-step" is just ridiculous. That is merely another tactic to discount legitimate differences. It may also indicate that the views expressed by larry sarner are really fringe and not representative of the readers and contributors interested in this topic. DPeterson 22:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)'

See what I mean? They can't leave it alone. They have to use every forum, no matter how inappropriate -- like this page. When caught out, they 'shout'. Larry Sarner 01:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There he goes again. This only further supports the general suspicion that he has an agenda and is not truly interested in consensus, collaboration, or compromise. DPeterson 00:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

See what I mean? Such begging-the-issue personal attacks occur with great frequency on the Bowlby talk page. Why do they have to be brought here? Larry Sarner 14:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears the case is now resolved. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07_Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy JohnsonRon 20:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)