User talk:Sarner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Beginning Here

I would prefer that any discussion of my editing activity take place here rather than on the page(s) I have been editing. Sarner 12:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. Again, welcome!

[edit] Mediation @ the John Bowlby article

Hi there! I have taken the case you listed here. I have replied on the article's talk page, so if you could reply there that would be great! Hopefully we can work things out. Cheers, Brisvegas 07:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop vandalizing

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Talk:John Bowlby, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. DPeterson 01:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What I mean by this is that, after careful consideration, I think the continued harangues and harrassment fall within the scope of this. If I am wrong, please accept my apologies for misunderstanding either the Wikipedia policy or your intentions. 68.66.160.228 01:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)DPeterson 01:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I accept your apology, though I suspect it's insincere. You are wrong. Stubbornness and bold editing is explicitly mentioned in Wiki policy as not vandalism. Larry Sarner 02:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Stop Vandalizing by deleting or moving comments on talk pages

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Talk:John Bowlby, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. DPeterson 01:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's go to Wiki administration over this, and over your other activities. See you there. Larry Sarner 02:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. You edited (moved and changed setting) of my comments and I believe that constitutes Vandalism...but if I read the Wikipedia policy incorrectly, I apologize. DPeterson
Please stop what? I only undid what you inappropriately did on the vote page by commenting on Dr Mercer's vote in the vote section, which I did by the expedient of putting in a section header to keep the integrity/separateness of the vote section. (Notice that I never commented -- in the vote section -- on any of the votes cast on your side.) But you know, on second thought, I think I'll just leave it all there, to stand as mute testimony to the boorishness of such actions. Larry Sarner 05:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for stopping. DPeterson 13:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
You're hardly welcome. I didn't "stop" vandalizing, since I wasn't vandalizing in the first place. Larry Sarner 16:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Stephen Barrett

Dear OKO: Because of POV warring on the Stephen Barrett article, I'm hereby banning you from editing the article. Please feel free to edit elsewhere on Wikipedia, but should you make any edits to this article your edits will be reverted, and ultimately you may be banned from editing on Wikipedia.

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's NPOV rule by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Yours sincerely, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your interference on Barrett article

May I ask where you think you get the authority to "soft-ban" anyone? How you think I have engaged in POV warring, when I haven't entered a single POV into this (or any other) article? How you think that I am a "sock puppet" when my contribution record reveals otherwise? Did you bother to read anything of which I argued on the talk page? Can you seriously argue that Levine2112's edits are NPOV, while mine are POV? You have acted like a Wiki terrorist, IMHO. Larry Sarner 21:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Larry: Thank you for your message. I apologise that you disagree with my decision. My duty as a Wikipedia administrator is, in part, to prevent contentious editing from occurring on articles; consequently, I have the authority to implement blocks and, in terms of general community precedent, specific bans - although, it is true, only article bans passed by the Arbitration Committee are binding as per policy, the alternate approach would have been to block you indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for disruptive editing, which I could well have done (and have the specific authority to do) but thought it more reasonable merely to remove you from the Barrett article. I have done the same with OKO (talk • contribs) who is engaging in similar behaviour, as both your accounts show a specific fixation towards editing the Stephen Barrett article (in your case, that article and John Bowlby); Arbitration Committee precedent is that users who engage in disruptive, fixated editing on an article may be banned from editing that article (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair, for instance). I have no interest in the dispute on the Stephen Barrett talk page, and pass no judgement over whether Levine2112's edits are either POV or NPOV as I have not looked into the user's contributions. I aver that my actions are not that of a terrorist, but an individual whose duty it is to ensure the mechanisms of Wikipedia are kept free of disruption. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

This is your final warning. You have clearly tried the community's patience; your recent edits to WP:AIV to report a good-faith contributor for "vandalism" that amounts to writing a good-faith article, and your attempt to describe the article as pure vandalism and your abuse of the speedy deletion tag in doing so are disruptive and constitute a type of personal attack. If you continue, you will be blocked. Mangojuicetalk 15:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

You have vandalized my talk page by placing nonsense vandalism notices on it. I have elected to begin with this mild notice, although this is your third action. This is notice that if you continue actions will be taken to block you. DPeterson 23:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another instance of Vandalism

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. DPeterson 23:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC) Please stop vandalizing the Advocates for Children in Therapy page. Your addition of numerous requests for "facts" is an act of vandalism since each and every fact you want a reference for is provided on your website, Advocates For Children in Therapy, which is listed in the article itself. DPeterson 23:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have the right to edit this article. I am requesting that you justify, with reliable sources every "fact" you give. Since you put these "facts" on the page, you have the burden of showing them to be facts. (Good luck!!) Also, you are not supposed to be doing an original work, and should be able to cite your sources for all information. None of the "facts" I tagged appear on the ACT website, so that claim does not wash. (One fact does appear there, but I didn't tag that.) Removal of my tags without providing a citation would be an act of vandalism, IMHO. Also, accusing me of vandalism on this article is, well, itself vandalism -- see above comments by an administrator. Larry Sarner 00:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks [1] and disruption, including the AfD which in my opinion is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. When you come back, you are to disengage with DPeterson; he has complained to me that he feels harassed and I don't blame him. I have looked through his contributions and I don't see any incivility coming from him. You may contest this block by placing {{unblock|(reason you should be unblocked)}} on your user talk page, which you can still edit. Mangojuicetalk 01:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Now to answer your concern about vandalism reporting: vandalism is the kind of edit that no one should have a disagreement about. Here are a couple of examples of true vandalism: [2] [3] [4]. Edits other people want to make and you don't like are not vandalism, and it's a kind of incivility, if not a downright personal attack to describe someone's good faith edits as vandalism. As for my actions, I have described the situation on the admin noticeboard and asked for others to review the situation, so you'll get your outside opinion on my actions. Let me note for the record that DPeterson's post on my talk page was after my warning to you and my removal of the speedy tag, so it didn't affect my actions. Mangojuicetalk 01:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request For Arbitration

An RfAr has been filed to resolve problems. DPeterson 12:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop vandalizing Bowlby page

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please stop repeatedly reverting the Bowlby page from the consensus view that exists there. Follow Wikipedia dispute resolution policies if you disagree with all the editors who do not agree with you. Try having a poll, mediation, or arbitration. DPetersontalk 12:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To anyone possibly influenced by this inappropriate warning, please see my response on the above user's talk page: [5]
Larry Sarner 06:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. RalphLendertalk 13:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the same behvior you previously exhibited that led to your being blocked...please stop. RalphLendertalk 21:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
To anyone possibly influenced by this inappropriate warning, please see my response on the above user's talk page: :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3ARalphLender#Please_stop_your_.22vandalism.22_warnings_on_my_user_talk_page]
Larry Sarner 23:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Your refusal to follow Wikipedia practices and polices regarding dispute resolution and your continued reverts can be interpreted as vandalism and meet the descriptions of that term. Please stop and begin to follow the dispute resolution process. DPetersontalk 00:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

To any reader possibly influenced by this inappropriate warning, please see the comments of an administrator at Talk:John Bowlby#Outside_view_and_a_suggestion. Larry Sarner 05:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

'SECOND WARNING' Unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Others have warned you regarding your behavior...please follow Wikipedia dispute resolution processes rather than continuing to act unilaterally. MarkWood 13:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop vandalizing Candace Newmaker page

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please stop repeatedly reverting the Candace Newmaker page from the consensus view that exists there. Follow Wikipedia dispute resolution policies if you disagree with all the editors who do not agree with you. Try having a poll, mediation, or arbitration. DPetersontalk 12:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To anyone possibly influenced by this inappropriate warning, please see my response on the above user's talk page: [6]
Larry Sarner 06:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. RalphLendertalk 13:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To anyone possibly influenced by this inappropriate warning, please see my response on the above user's talk page: :[7]
Larry Sarner 23:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Your 'refusal to follow Wikipedia practices and polices regarding dispute resolution' and your continued reverts can be interpreted as vandalism and meet the descriptions of that term. Please 'stop' and begin to follow the dispute resolution process. DPetersontalk 00:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

To any reader possibly influenced by this inappropriate warning, please see the comments of an administrator on the John Bowlby talk page. Larry Sarner 05:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
'SECOND WARNING' Unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Others have warned you regarding your behavior...please follow Wikipedia dispute resolution processes rather than continuing to act unilaterally. MarkWood 13:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

I strongly suggest that you contact an advocate regarding all of these silly warnings, the strange mediation cabal case request about you, and the articles you are involved with editing. An advocate would help walk you through the dispute resolution process regarding these things.

The best way to resolve disputes such as these is just to get outside editors involved. You should make RfC's about the Bowlby and Newmaker articles. Doing so is just a matter of listing the article on the RfC page (in an appropriate category) and very briefly describing the dispute at hand. You can do this and find further instructions at the RfC page. The point of this is simply to draw further comment from outside parties. After filing the RfC you should list out the issues with each article on their respective talk pages so that outside editors can quickly assimilate the issues at hand. It sometime takes awhile for anyone to respond to RfC's.

Another helpful thing to do is to find an appropriate wikiproject and bring the articles to their attention. This may have the effect of bringing some expert attention to the articles.

Finally, you should place an appropriate warning template on each article and then clearly list the reasons for the placement of the template on the article talk page. It is clear that the "attachment experts" will simply revert your edits, so placing the tag there is a means to avoid an edit war while letting people know there is an issue. Moreover, the placement of such a template will place the article in an appropriate "disputed" category. There are a ridiculous number of articles in these categories, but there is still a small chance that someone will stumble across the dispute by these means. You can find further information in the following places: Wikipedia:Template_messages/Disputes, Wikipedia:Resolving Disputes/Templates.

I hope that helps! shotwell 15:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. I have been following the dispute resolution process assiduously, I think. I haven't exhausted all of the "discussion" part, yet. I've even done the "disengage for awhile" part, but it didn't help. I have tried to engage them in discussion since coming back from that, but they won't engage -- they insist only on reverting every edit of mine, regardless of its nature, then insisting that I be the one to escalate things immediately to later stages. They also seem to take every opportunity to engage in personal attacks on me, though I've managed to bite my tongue and try to stay strictly on point.
I have tried to use inline templates, but they just revert those out. I'm sure that if I tried to use the section or page templates, they'd do the same to those. I inserted the templates effectively as a compromise (as you know, another stage in the dispute resolution process) to allow the disputed parts of the article to remain in the article while the discussion took place.
As I'm sure you have found out, too, I find these very difficult "people" to reason with. I use the term "people" loosely. I actually think there may be just one (or maybe two) person with different accounts. They may actually be different people (though there's some circumstantial evidence that they're not), but they are certainly not independent of each other in terms of attitude, phrasing, or reasoning.
Again, thank you for sharing with me. Larry Sarner 21:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
See, there you go again, Sarner, creating needless conflict and stiffling attempts to build consensus. The page represented a consensus developed in the past, after you were blocked for a while. To build another consensus, you should participate in a colloaborative effort to build consensus and not continue to be uncivil and rever other's changes and ignore the consensus on this page. Your edits have been "mercilessly edited" because no one agrees with you. However, I am willing to engage with you in a reasoned dialogue focused on building agreement. Changes not accepted are reverted because you are pushing a very limited and unaccepted view. But, I think we can find agreement if you will follow Wikipedia practices regarding dispute resolution. DPetersontalk 23:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Mr "Dave Peterson" for sharing your insight with me. This comment will be most valuable to show others. Larry Sarner 23:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
See, there you go again, being uncivil and confrontational. Why the "Dave Peterson?" I continue to try to engage in a civil dialogue with you and assume good faith, but you do try my patience. However I will persist in assuming good faith and continue to make efforts to build consensus and a collaborative relationships. DPetersontalk 23:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I eagerly await that day, but your personal attacks, as above, leave me skeptical that the day will ever arrive. Larry Sarner 00:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
See, there you go again, acting in a provocative manner not conducive to building consensus as I wish to do...and as several other editors have tried to do. Your personal attacks are just not helpful...Please stop...this is what got you in trouble on the Bowlby article and the Barrett article.DPetersontalk 00:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
No it wasn't. And accusing me of personal attacks elsewhere is laughable. I always address arguments on article pages. This is my talk page. I consider your posts here as vandalism of this page. I have all the evidence I need from you here. They are a waste of valuable time. Please go away from here. I will delete all future personal attacks here from you or any of the others. Larry Sarner 07:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
As recommended by several other editors, you have been asked to stop reverting from the consensus version to your own. Since you've rejected taking a poll and various other Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures; let me suggest another option. Instead of merely reverting to your version and deleting material that others find acceptable, how about if you just 'ADD' what you think would improve the article first, get a consensus on that and then begin discussions about what you think should be chnaged or delted and build consensus for that? RalphLendertalk 13:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Or, you and the others could take the trouble to read my edits first, tag the material you disagree with, and go to the talk page with your disagreements. That's what seems to happen elsewhere in Wikipedia with other editors. You could even restore stuff that I delete, tag it and go to the talk page. I would happily leave tagged material alone while its discussed on the talk page or sent to other dispute resolution. That seems to me a more respectful and potentially productive process, as well as being fair to the readers of the article(s). Larry Sarner 14:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to help you by encouraging you to engage in collaborative and consensus building actions. Adding material first, would be more engaging and collaborative then merely continually deleting what you don't like. RalphLendertalk 15:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Your help would be welcome by telling "Dave Peterson" to stop meataxing my edits (wholesale reverts) instead of looking at the material I've added and working with it. S/he's even reverted changes I've made when I haven't reverted anything. I'm the aggrieved party here. Larry Sarner 13:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with RalphLender, you should try his suggestion. [Personal attack removed.] JonesRDtalk 19:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging cases for Advocates for Children in Therapy, Bowlby, Candace Newmaker, & Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy

The way I propose we do it is to suggest the idea in each case page, and take a vote. If it's successful, then we combine all the cases into one large case with all the mediators from before, and close each individual case. Nwwaew(My talk page) 13:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a great idea!!RalphLendertalk 13:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

While there are some things in common, there are actually many separate issues on these many cases, as well as other editors involved, that would cause difficulties all the way around. Past mediation on just one case was long, tedious, and ultimately unsuccessful (the mediator, Brisvegas, actually resigned). Not all of the cases are ripe for mediation, since some or all of the Buffalo cabal have not tried to discuss changes. Finally, I suspect the real purpose behind these mediation ideas is to freeze the pages into one form while the mediation is dragged out with their endless failures to understand or accept Wiki policy. It can be a great time-waster, as it has been in the past. I would also point out that no one has yet submitted any requests for mediation on the other pages -- they keep insisting I do it; if they ever do request it, I intend to insist that my edits be frozen in place while the mediation goes forward. Larry Sarner 14:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VIOLATION OF 3RR ON BOWLBY ARTICLE

You have violated the 3RR in the Bowlby article and a notice has been filed with the 3rr admin body. RalphLendertalk 22:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

wp:3RR wp:AN/3RR

See WP: Aministrators' Noticeboard/3RR

RalphLendertalk 22:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

He only reverted three times. shotwell 00:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The final finding was "No Violation". [8] Larry Sarner 03:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finding of Vandalism instead of sockpuppetry

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)

Once again, nonsense. This was a request by the administrator for proof of vandalism -- which was not complied with by the requestor. No violation found (see above). Larry Sarner 20:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/r/User_talk%7ESarner_8422.html"