User talk:StokerAce

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 ACT 2 Candace Newmaker 3 Mediation over Advocates for Children in Therapy 4 Re: sockpuppet notice 5 Vandalism 6 ACT/Bowlby/DDP disputes

[edit] ACT

Yes, there are such mechanisms but they can sometimes take awhile. I've already made an rfc for this article, asked the mediation cabal for help, and brought the attachment therapy related pages to the attention of the psychology wikiproject. All of these problems would be fixed if there was more attention on these articles -- sometimes it just takes time.

As for excluding them from editing, I'm not really aware of the procedures. I don't think that such an attempt would go very far or be helpful. The fact that ACT opposes their specializations may suggest the possibility of a slight bias in their edits, but it also means that they can offer a unique point of view. However, I believe that those who have a direct and demonstrated personal interest in the article about ACT should probably voluntarily refrain themselves from making controversial edits.

The larger issue is that all of the "attachment" articles have a similar bias and we can't very well make a flood of rfcs or mediation requests on all the articles. Ironically, I feel that these bizarre warnings on my talk page will also help because they may perk the interest of other editors.

I have also responded on your talk page. shotwell 18:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Being a sock puppet or meat puppet raises concerns about your neutrality on these issues; particularily given the history of dispute here and that one editor, a leader of ACT, was actually blocked from editing a page. DPeterson^talk 01:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

These are just Wikipedia terms for an editor who has no edit history and who is focusing primarily on one page...it is not meant as an insult. Take a look at the definitions. DPeterson^talk 01:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, a sockpuppet "is an additional account of an existing member of an Internet community to invent a separate user." A meatpuppet "is a variation of a sockpuppet; a new Internet community member account is created by another person at the request of a user solely for the purposes of influencing the community on a given issue or issues." I didn't say it was an insult. I just said I'm not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. On the other hand, calling ACT a "fringe" group is an insult. StokerAce 12:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Candace Newmaker

Your thoughts on the use of the term "killed" are very cogent. I hope you will continue to participate in the dialogue. It needs neutral outside parties. Sarner with his wife, is one of the primary leaders of Advocates for Children in Therapy and has a history (see Bowlby ) of becoming somewhat rigid. He was "soft-banned" from the Bowlby page for a while. Anyway, your input on the Candace Newmaker page will be very helpful. SamDavidson 18:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

StokerAce, just for your information, I was not soft-banned from editing the Bowlby page. This calumny is raised at every opportunity by the clique of user(s) you see on the ACT page. Truth is, I was blocked once very briefly on the Bowlby page, allegedly because of a personal attack, but the administrator who did that had this block reversed almost immediately by another administrator and he did not reinstate it. While we've disagreed on the "killed" issue, I hope you will continue to engage in the debate on the articles, including Candace Newmaker. Larry Sarner 14:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation over Advocates for Children in Therapy

You have been listed as an involved party in Advocates for Children in Therapy, and I have accepted the case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07 Advocates for Children in Therapy. If you can please take a look at the case and let us hear your side, I would appreciate it. Thanks! Nwwaew(My talk page) 19:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: sockpuppet notice

I have been told to take it for a CheckUser, so thats what I'll do. Nwwaew(My talk page) 20:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Tag removed on pages. Nwwaew(My talk page) 00:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! StokerAce 01:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

The outcome of the sockpuppet investigation was a finding of vandalism: "please list diffs of vandalism for C. Dmcdevit·t 21:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)" See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Sarner JohnsonRon 00:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It was not a finding of vandalism. It was a statement that in order for there to be a checkuser carried out under C, there needs to be some evidence of vandalism. But there was no vandalism, so that's the end of it. StokerAce 01:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think your reading is correct. JohnsonRon 01:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. You can ask someone for clarification if you want to. But it's pretty clear. StokerAce 01:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

JohnsonRon, you have written this misinformation in two places now. WP:RFCU is not a place to confirm whether or not vandalism has taken place. The request was denied because no evidence was provided for the code letter. Furthermore, when did StokerAce vandalize anything? Has StokerAce even edited the disputed articles? Stop accusing everyone of vandalism, it sounds ridiculous. shotwell 01:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. I've never edited anything, just made comments on the discussion pages. So what could I possibly have vandalized? StokerAce 01:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I am just observing and reporting what in on the page and what the reviewer stated, "please list diffs of vandalism for C." If you disagree with the results of the ongoing investigation, you may want to put a comment there or discuss it with the reviewer. JohnsonRon 11:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what there is to discuss. The reviewer said the request was "declined", and then indicated that for C, diffs of vandalism are required. There were no such diffs. But you should feel free to contact the reviewer if you still need clarification. StokerAce 11:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ACT/Bowlby/DDP disputes

ArbCom doesn't generally resolve content disputes and we haven't really even scratched the surface of the dispute resolution process. If the debate continues in this fashion for much longer, I suppose we'll need to request formal mediation in order to facilitate some true discourse. I was previously inclined to go through the mediation cabal, but I think that if we reach mediation, we'll need some formal structure. I am of the opinion that we could all compromise on these issues without mediation because the dispute is dependent on misconceptions regarding guidelines such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV, as well as misconceptions about my position concerning the article. These things could be immediately resolved if a greater diversity of editors would take interest. I filed an RfC and nobody commented, but I think this has to do with the ridiculously large debate on the talk page.. I am at a loss when it comes to attracting neutral, yet knowledgeable editors to the disputed articles. shotwell 19:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about the ACT and Candace Newmaker entries. I thought we were making pretty good progress on the Newmaker page for awhile. The thing about DDP is that claims about it have been inserted in a large number of articles. Try a google search restricted to the wikipedia domain and you'll see. This does suggest a marketing ploy, but I really think they believe those things about DDP and are acting in good-faith. shotwell 19:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As I stated elswhere, your alignment with the Advocates For Children in Therapy crew (Sarner) seems to come through here with your several mischaracterizations.

First, "only six." Six is quite a large number of interested editors. Second, as several others have written, the article is well sources with verifiable, reliable, and factual sources. Professional peer-reviewed publications represent material that is reliable and that has been carefully evaluated in a "blinded" manner by neutral professionals. Third, no where does the article say, "this treatment is absolutely effective" as you state. Fourth, The literature does not begin by stating that this treatment "is not child abuse." Fifth, the article is very NPOV...I think your suggestions actually clearly represent a POV; that of the ACT group. suggesting that the material is a "marketing Ploy." Do you make the same statement regarding Cogntitive Behaviour Therapy, which is listed in many many articles on Wikipedia? No. JohnsonRon 19:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)