Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-25 Attachment theory

I've gone and closed Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-26 John Bowlby and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-25 Michael Rutter. Any mediatior can see these discussions if necessary. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 23:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you both review your sources? Look at the dates. the most recent is usually going to be the most accurate.

Lunakeet 13:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to start by trying to agree the ambit of mediation please Luna as there are three running between the three same editors on roughly the same ground involving the same set of articles.[1] Fainites ^barley 17:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That (review)would ordinarily be reasonable, Lunakeet, but in this case part of the problem is interpretation of the sources, and another is quality of the secondary sources in use.Jean Mercer (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest the following to encompass all three referrals:

There may of course not be definitive answers to any of these but there are plenty of notable sources around. Fainites ^barley 21:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediator; Who are you? Are you Luna Santin the administrator?KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This case appears to encompass the same issues as Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-25 Michael Rutter and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-26 John Bowlby. If there are no objections I will close the other two cases and leave notes referring to this case. --Cabal of one (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. Fainites ^barley 08:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Same here. Jean Mercer (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re; Fainities "Suggestions for ambit of mediation"

Dear Administrator,

I am sorry to say I cannot agree particularly in the light of the comment made below. This case does not encompass the same issues and I disagree with closing the other 2 cases. (Please can you restore these 2 cases to their original status?)

I believe this issue is important enough to warrant somebody with a recent qualification in the field of child psychology or Fainites and Jean Mercer will simply carry on pulling the wool over peoples' eyes.

Fainites has written the following about me which I find rude and insulting,

"My objections are also set out across 4 different talkpages. I don't propose to write it all out again here but to sum it up - misrepresentation of sources, use of OR or fourth rate sources if they support your POV whilst excluding notables sources on spurious grounds, pointy editing to promote your particular personal bugbear about Bowlby, ignoring mainstream sources provided by other editors which would indicate your POV is incorrect, failing to respond to requests for sources to support your contentions and generally threatening sanctions, shouting, personal attacks and demanding the move of the 'discussion' to a different page when faced with sources or 3PO's that don't fit your aim. Lets see if we can even get mediation started by agreeing what the main points of factual disagreement are shall we?" Fainites barley 19:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You've missed out part of what I said there Kip - and, as ever - the context.[2] Fainites ^barley 20:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a direct quote. Wikipedia would not exist if we all obeyed Fainities 'Rules of Context'. I find this criticism abusive as it tries to portray me as disingenuous. I have made another request to move on to the next stage of Dispute Resolution as I believe these references show you are acting in bad faith.KingsleyMiller (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Kingsley i have asked you many times not to keep posting odd bits of other peoples talkpage posts all over the place but to provide links instead. Are you now saying you are not prepared to mediate? You have been accusing me of acting in bad faith ever since I first dared disagree with you so that can hardly be the reason. Why don't you actually set out what you want to mediate about? What about my list of issues? Fainites ^barley 17:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have specific questions which I should like answered if possible;

1. Who is Lunakee and why was she replaced as the administrator with yourself?

2. Has the administrator Luna Santin contacted you regarding these pages as I am still awaiting a reply from her?

3. Please can you explain the next step in the Dispute Resolution?

Kingsley MillerKingsleyMiller (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not an administrator, and Lunakeet is not an adminsitrator [3], and they are not Luna Santin [4]. I've studied psychology myself, but it was agreed that merging the 3 cases would be best. Further comments on my talk page. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 00:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve Crossin2,

I think the comment below is helpful and illustrates the point I am trying to make about keeping issues separate.

In reply I mention that many of the administrators editing these pages have only a superficial understanding of psychology. When you say you have studied psychology are you aware of the controversy surrounding Bowlby's work which I mention below?

Also could you please answer the previous question regarding the next step for dispute resolution?

KingsleyMiller (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I SHOULD LIKE TO REPEAT THE ABOVE REQUEST. Many thanks, KingsleyMiller (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, first of all. Using CAPS LOCK is rather impolite, it is considered shouting. I've been busyish, in real life. Anyway, I studied psychology for 2 years at high school. We didn't exactly get into a huge amount of detail on the attatchment theory. This step is the current step in dispute resolution. The only other step for mediation is the Mediation Comittee, but they generally won't look at a dispute unless we have looked at it first. Mediation takes time. That's all. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 18:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative notes / Steve Crossin3

I am sorry if you consider CAPS LOCK shouting. As far as your 2 years studying Psychology is concerned I am afraid it not sufficient to 'mediate' this subject. Before you get all irate again let me explain the reason. There are plenty of people that think they know something about Psychology. In reality because the subject we are discussing is counter intuitive this knowledge only works against a deeper understanding of the topic. (A classic example is the work of Dr John Bowlby which for a time was considered brilliant. He said that a small child's relationship with the mother was qualitatively different from any other. He based this theory on his observations. This theory later proved incorrect).

People such as Fainities and Jean Mercer have spent their time on Wikipedia promoting Bowlby's earlier work blissfully unaware that he was later shown to be wrong. When somebody like myself comes along and tells them they have been getting it wrong for years they are not prepared to accept their mistake and just like yourself get angry with the messenger.

Fainities has no formal qualification in the subject and mostly acts as a mouthpiece for Jean Mercer. Unfortunately if you take a look at her work you will see it is flawed because she too was unaware of the controversy surrounding Bowlby's work until my contribution to Wikipedia.

Fainities 'suggestions for ambit of mediation' is supposed to show their reasonable side. However in reality it shows how little they know about the subject. Fainities describes parenting almost exclusively in Bowlby's terms for mothering, with fathers mentioned almost as an afterthought. In reality we should be asking the reason Wikipedia makes such a distinction when it comes to parenting?

The subsequent discussion below only seeks to highlight the lack of knowledge about this subject. For example those familiar with the concept of 'maternal deprivation' would know that 'monotropy' is not a tenet of the attachment theory, so what is the point of arguing the point when it is already established? - This is a fundamental issue.

If you go to my user page you will see that I describe my role as challenging 'incorrect research'. You have to say to yourself, 'What does this mean?' The thing is there are many people like Fainities and Jean Mercer who are still operating according to the old conventions which I tried to address in my publication which Professor Sir Michael Rutter described as an 'interesting and informative guide'. Therefore it would be wrong to let them set the terms for mediation especially when Fainities has shown that he or she has acted in bad faith (see above and below).

I hope this explains the reason I wish to move on to the the next stage of dispute resolution and I hope you do not find this offensive.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, good luck finding anyone who's willing to mediate this case at all. It's not the best thing for someone who's studied psychology to mediate this anyway. Would be a COI. Good luck then. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Kingsley, it is clear to me that you are very knowledgeable on the topic of Psychology. It is indeed a daunting topic, and perhaps a basic understanding of the subject would help a potential mediator. However, it is generally observed on Wikipedia (by me at least during my near-on-a-year of being in the mediation/Dispute Resolution "arena") that the more one knows about a topic, the more one will have preconceived views about the subject. A mediator needs to be neutral, and having a "blank slate" to start with means that the mediator may be able to look up relevant recent scientific literature - I know from my own study of the subject that plenty of the research is rather old when it comes to Psychology, and the newer stuff is obviously more relevant to us.

On a similar note, an interest in the subject is also helpful. There is a compromise to be struck. And Steve seems like the perfect mediator for the job here - I don't think you will find anyone else willing to take on the job, be it with MedCab or MedCom.

The task of a mediator is to bring the participants of the discussion to a mutually accpetable solution, usually on a content issue. ArbCom, on the other hand, will not do anything about content issues as they consider it outside their remit. Thus, mediation is almost certainly the best place for this dispute at the moment. Input from WP:RFC and WP:3O are other possibilities, but will only work if you (the participants) are willing to accept their outcome whatever it is, which I don't think is going to happen here.

Good luck with this case, and I urge you to accept Steve's offer and attempt to resolve the issues we see before us. If the will to resolve a dispute does not exist, it cannot be resolved by mediation or, arguably, any other manner. Let's move forward and get on with it! Martinp23 17:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Substitute "Steve" for "Any mediator who volunteers themselves" above :) Martinp23 17:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative notes / Steve Crossin4 / HelloAnnyong / Slakr / Martinp23

Martin23 thank you for your kind intervention. I do not believe Steve Crossin should just abandon his role but we need to redefine it. He is just one in a list of mediators that have had the wool pulled over their eyes by Fainities and Jean Mercer. Below I give the example of HelloAnnyong who made some good points in a private discussion with Fainities but was deliberately tied up in knots. Fainities has now got poor old Slakr 'reinventing the wheel' by using boxes and secondary sources below.

The reason a 'blank slate' does not work is because a major factor is that people base their assumptions on the work of Bowlby. For a time his work was 'heralded' until it proved wrong. We cannot go back and erase the plaudits Bowlby received at the time but they should not be used to justify a theory which is wrong. I do not say this just for your benefit but for all those like yourself who use Wikipedia.

I know mediation is about compromise and reasonableness and that there is nothing 'cool' about going out on a limb but if we accept compromise we end up with something that is not true. (The best example is the concept of 'monotropy' which still is not part of the attachment theory). Is this what Wikipedia is about?

The question I would ask Steve and yourself is how can I get around the Wikipedia principles of 'consensus' when so many 'secondary sources' are misleading?

In each case I have mentioned I have seen mediators run up the flag pole by Fainities and Jean Mercer. And then turn on me or disappear because the subject is not what it seemed.

Now it is your turn! KingsleyMiller (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Would I someone, who has no previous knowledge of the subject be able to help? ŠξÞÞøΛ ^talk 18:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is to deliver information as it appears in the secondary sources, where those sources are verifiable. Now, we can't decide whether or not a source is correct - other sources may do that and our articles should reflect this. As long as a source is reliable and verifiable (as defined in those policies), we ought to include what's in it - regardless of what we think about its content. To allow our feelings in this regard to come into play would violate the neutral point of view and no original research policies.

Ultimately, it is our job to report on the sources - not to decide on the truth, or the content of the sources. Martinp23 18:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the sources are the issue, are they not? I am watching with interest to see when Kingsley Miller will adduce sources to support his views about Bowlby's role and about monotropy, but so far I see only wool, garden paths, and now flagpoles. Jean Mercer (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

How are mediators to proceed if they are not provided with sources relied upon but simply accused of insufficient knowledge or of being duped? Fainites ^barley 21:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly. At this point, KingsleyMiller (talk · contribs)'s claims have so far been unsubstantiated with proof. Furthermore, this editor's contributions to this talk page have primarily revolved around accusation of motive (i.e., bad faith) statements and critique over mediation as a whole ([5], [6], [7]). I've created multiple opportunities (arguably more than most mediation cases) for everyone to better demonstrate their views, including multiple tables that request secondary sources; and, as of this writing the only two people who have taken advantage of these opportunities are Fainites (talk · contribs) ([8], [9], [10], [11]) and Jean Mercer (talk · contribs) ([12], [13]).

So, if KingsleyMiller (talk · contribs) chooses not to address the issues at hand by simply citing his arguments and verifying them as requested numerous times, the only choice left for any other mediator would be to default to what can be sourced— and it appears that so far this dispute's resolution would come down to much of what Fainites (talk · contribs) and Jean Mercer (talk · contribs) have provided as possible resolutions. --slakr^\ talk / 22:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Seddon,

Unfortunately this is the problem! We need somebody who is an 'authority' on the subject. My argument is that Fainites and Jean Mercer have already 'duped' several mediators acting in good faith. Fainites is acting as a mouthpiece for Jean Mercer and her work is flawed because she was unaware of the controversy surrounding Bowlby's work. Many thanks for the kind offer.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

First, I reordered this to maintain some form of chronological order and to keep similar threads together. As a side note, I'm not really sure how I got roped into this section header, but I think that this is starting to sound like axegrinding. You can only claim conspiracy so many times. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong,

You are included in this section because you have been 'duped' by Fainites. You were in dialogue with Fainites and he or she deliberately tied you up in knots. The example is given below. (You don't seem to read the edits).

All,

I do not accept Jean Mercer is a reliable 'authority' on the subject of 'attachment theory' or the work of John Bowlby. Until my intervention she was totally unaware of the controversy surrounding the work of Bowlby indeed her references to him on this page show that she still believes he was a 'great' man. Jean Mercer is living in a 'time warp' because Bowlby's ideas conform to her own about parenting.

Also I find the suggestion by Martinp23 that Wikipedia should publish material that is incorrect or wrong, totally unacceptable even if it comes from so called reliable secondary sources.

For the reasons given above I suggest the page called 'attachment theory' should be deleted as Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle for Jean Mercer to publish her own ideas about Bowlby.

(For those interested here is a link to a John Bowlby article written in 1986 in which he describes his contribution to Child Psychology - LINK)

KingsleyMiller (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fainites,

The page on 'attachment theory' relies on the following source;-

^ a b c d e f g h i Prior V and Glaser D (2006). Understanding Attachment and Attachment Disorders: Theory, Evidence and Practice, Child and Adolescent Mental Health, RCPRTU. ISBN 978-1-84310-245-8 (pbk).

I wish to find these references in my University library and I would like to know which article from this publication you are citing and where? In the context of this discussion I would appreciate a plain answer. KingsleyMiller (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I never give you anything but a plain answer Kingsley. Just not necessarily as blunt as I would like. The book is fully cited in the refs, complete with ISBN, publisher etc. Its a book not an article. Thats why it has an ISBN number and does not say 'Eds' in the ref. Its published by the Royal College of Psychiatry Research and Training Unit. Its part of a series who's purpose is to set out the most up-to-date thinking and evidence based research/developments on a series of topics for practitioners, professionals and, presumably, reasonably intelligent lay people. Unfortunately I can't give you page numbers right now as my copy has gone walkabout but the relevent parts are easy to find. When I find my copy my plan is to alter the method of reffing to show page numbers as was done here [14].Fainites ^barley 09:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Could we perhaps collectively endeavour to keep this discussion readable, by using indentation properly? Kingsley, mine was not a suggestion but a summary of the policies in this area. If you disagree with them, then the appropriate place to argue your cause is on the policies' talk pages, not in a mediation. The job of the miedation would be to determine which sources should be used, not to impose what is, whether right or wrong, one's own view on an article. Thanks, Martinp23 14:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To put it cynically, Kingsley, you are looking for a mediator who has the "knowledge" that he'd take your side in the dispute. A biased mediator cannot mediate and find a mutually acceptable solution, and if you're not prepared to follow the proper route for mediation, ie a neutral mediator finding a compromise, then mediation will not work. ArbCom will not hear the case because it's a content dispute, so you're back at step one. I strongly suggest you think about where this is going and consider changing your stance. Martinp23 15:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Martinp23 - Swearing

I am not happy with your swearing. I shall report this to an administrator in the hope of having you removed from the discussion.KingsleyMiller (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. The point still stands. This page is now 110KB in size and you still don't have a mediator, and I'm suggesting you prioritise yourselves to finding a mediator rather than continuing to partake in what has descended into a mudslinging match. I'd like to see this dispute resolved, but it ain't gonna happen unless various people get their acts together. Martinp23 15:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Kingsley, Martin is an admin. People have limits, and I guess Martin is at his. He's also on MedCom, but really. You seem to reject any mediator that offers their help, so I'm not suprised he's at his limit. So, either decide on a mediator, or the case will be closed. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 15:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not censored. We can swear if he likes. I like to swear myself. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how what I know or don't know is either accessible to KM or relevant to this discussion --neither is his view of me as authoritative or otherwise a relevant point. Fewer personalities, more sources, please! Jean Mercer (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I found Martinp23's comments a refreshing change from faintly veiled personal attacks. Jean Mercer (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought Slakr had started on the mediation by trying to refine the issues. I haven't taken part in a mediation before (not one that's got of the ground anyway) so I'm not sure of the procedure. If it helps - I'm OK with any of you guys, and indeed would be impressed by your willingness to pick up this poisoned chalice. Fainites ^barley 15:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not touching this one with a ten foot pole Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we all agree that we need to move on already. Let's forget what just happened :) CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't blame you Steve. So is Slakr the mediator then or his he just trying to set it up for mediation? Fainites ^barley 16:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• As far as I know, no. Slakr isn't mediating. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Pity. I thought he was. He seemed to be getting to grips with things. Fainites ^barley 16:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've moved what seems to be some mediation discussion (not administrative) to the talk page Martinp23 16:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A question: What happens if no mediator picks up the case? Do Fainites and Kingsley just return to the article page and keep reverting each other? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I imagine so, or an admin will intervene and bang heads together :) Martinp23 17:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well thats all very easy for you to say, but what is an editor to do when someone will not provide or discuss sources and simply assumes bad faith on the part of anyone who disagrees with them? Why should editors who do provide sources, edit productively and attempt to discuss on the talkpage have their heads banged with anybody? Kingsley has consistently accused me and JeanMercer of bad faith and sought sanctions from ArbCom and admins since the day I first disagreed with him, to no avail. Anybody who does not see things from his point of view is seen as a dupe or sap, including all of you. What on earth good do you think banging heads together will do? And, by the way, there have not been revert wars. Fainites ^barley 18:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Martin. I'm not cross with you. Just mildly despairing. Fainites ^barley 19:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand. It is easy for me to say, but I do know where you're coming from, and I know of this sort of dispute, and there will be a solution, somewhere. This may require admin intervention (blocks, protections, probations). Mediation is best because the participants, if they feel they've come to a solution themselves (which they have!) will be more likely to accept it. Admin actions tend to cause Drama, hence the preference I show to exhausting all the mediation routes before looking to "harsher" meothds of dispute resolution. Martinp23 21:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A break

[edit] A nice cup of tea and a sit down

Done that? Right, let's carry on. Martinp23 16:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)