This user may have left Wikipedia. Sarner has not edited Wikipedia since 14 February 2010. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
I would prefer that any discussion of my editing activity take place here rather than on the page(s) I have been editing.
Sarner12:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 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!
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, Brisvegas07:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. DPeterson01:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)DPeterson01:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. DPeterson01:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sarner05:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 Sarner21:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Mangojuicetalk15:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. DPeterson23:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. DPeterson23:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sarner00:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Mangojuicetalk01:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Mangojuicetalk01:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. DPetersontalk12:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To anyone possibly influenced by this inappropriate warning, please see my response on the above user's talk page: [5]
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. RalphLendertalk13:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. DPetersontalk00:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'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.MarkWood13:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. DPetersontalk12:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To anyone possibly influenced by this inappropriate warning, please see my response on the above user's talk page: [6]
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. RalphLendertalk13:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To anyone possibly influenced by this inappropriate warning, please see my response on the above user's talk page: :[7]
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. DPetersontalk00:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'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. MarkWood13:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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. DPetersontalk23:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. DPetersontalk23:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.DPetersontalk00:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sarner07:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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? RalphLendertalk13:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sarner14:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. RalphLendertalk15:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sarner13:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Sarner14:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sarner20:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be so kind as to remove dyadic developmental psychotherapy from the list of names for Attachment Therapy, as listed on the ACT web site? http://www.childrenintherapy.org/essays/overview.html As far as I know, there is no evidence that DDP has any of the "distinguishing characteristics" of Attachment Therapy. I think removing DDP would be an important gesture to some of the people with whom you have argued in the past, demonstrating that you are willing to seek compromise on some of the controversial issues in this area.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, I think the evidence does exist, even on the homepage of Dan Hughes' website (http://danielahughes.homestead.com/, accessed this date). This is not the place for ACT to explain its actions or opinions. I will say this much, we are as convinced as ever that listing DDP as we have was not in error, but per our notices/disclaimer (http://www.childrenintherapy.org/library/disclaimer.html) and our general integrity, we are always open to anyone to try to convince us that we have unfairly characterized someone or something. We invite you to communicate with us directly at public@childrenintherapy.org.
Do you think that "some of the people with whom you have argued in the past" will read this and, since they have convinced themselves that we are the same person, conclude that I/you have an advanced case of MPD?
I have given up long ago trying to delve into the minds of the people in question. Anyway, I thought it was worth a shot asking you. I have a sense that the continued presence of DDP on your site drives them crazy and causes them to do some of the things we've seen here in wikipedia. But who really knows. StokerAce01:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a matter of interest, how long has DDP been on your site in the list? I only ask because the inclusion of DDP on Wiki by AWeidman and DPeterson started some time ago, as did attacks on ACT See for example [9]Fainites13:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our first reference to DDP, both on our site and to the list to which you refer, appears to be on 9 June 2004. Shortly after that it appeared again on our Proponents page for Hughes. Prior to adopting the proper name, DDP, Hughes had labelled his version of AT as "affective attunement", and that appeared in the aboriginal version of the essay on our website on 4 September 2003. BTW, I think one of you said that you thought Theraplay was miscast by us as AT. Please note that Hughes said in his 1998 book, "Therapeutic affective attunement experiences [i.e., AT] ... are also considered to be central to Ann Jernberg’s Theraplay ... emphasiz[ing] physical contact, eye contact ..." Also, the Theraplay Institute has had tables/booths at ATTACh conferences. Larry Sarner06:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well Theraplay is often pushed in the same articles in company with DDP, and is at times also described as 'evidence-based' along wih DDP although no proper source is given for this - only the work of its progenitor I believe. Nobody's really looked into this as its not promoted in quite the same way as DDP. I didn't see anything in its advertising bumph that suggested coercion, but it was a long time ago That I looked. I did also find a paper somewhere that said it was 'intrusive' but didn't seem to be criticising it for this. I'll see if I can find it. I'm not sure using DDP's words of 'effective attunement', or having a booth at ATTACh conferences is enough to label it an attachment therapy. Certainly 'effective attunement' do not seem to be words the likes of Chaffin use as a specific description, although I have seen 'attunement' somewhere in a different context. Does the use of the words 'effective attunement' necessarily imply its linked to Hughes or some other form of AT? Fainites19:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heres the article I was thinking of. [10] It seems to be much older than DDP and comes from a psychoanalysis backgorund. I assume the association with AT is derived from its theory of developmental stages that have to be 're-done' and its specific use of physical intrusiveness. But does it really come from the same wellsprings as AT? Fainites19:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a quick search and found a couple of outcome studies on autistic and shy children. There should be more studies as its been around since the '60's. I was just wondering when you considered it to be an AT and whether its apparent association with DDP (claimed only by DDP on Wiki certainly) had anything to do with your classification? Is it a sort of chicken and egg?Fainites19:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I have indicated before, Wiki is an inappropriate venue to explain or justify actions, decisions, or opinions on ACT's behalf. Hughes's quote, which I happened to run across while pursuing an answer to something else, was mentioned here only to underscore that even AT proponents claim Theraplay is a fellow traveller. (It isn't, as you stated above, that Theraplay uses DDP's nomenclature.) And I mentioned the Theraplay booths at ATTACh conferences as an instance of the reciprocity given to AT by Theraplay.
Both Cline's initial book, What Shall We Do With This Kid? and Jernberg's Theraplay came out in 1979, so they are contemporaries. As far as I am aware, there has been no reliable, supportive studies published in the professional literature for either AT or Theraplay in the nearly three decades since. This is damning for both, not just for EBM purposes, but also for the looser standard of "generally accepted practice".
Both have roots in the Sixties with Freudianism or post-Freudianism. Even so, the grande dame of contemporary Freudianism, Alice Miller, has condemned AT (quoted on our website), and has done so in terms that would encompass Theraplay as well.
To answer your chicken-or-egg question about DDP/Theraplay, their inclusions in our list were on their own (de)merits. We've known about Theraplay for a very long time, independent of Hughes's view of it, though it was listed in our essay for the first time on 9 June 2004 — the same time as DDP! BTW, I know of no reference by Theraplay to DDP (or its predecessor nomenclature, "affective attunement"), though there might be.
Becker-Weidman and the others may be pushing Theraplay on Wiki for the purposes of giving DDP company in the wilderness. Or they may see the kinship pointed to by Hughes, as quoted above. Or it could be something else that I’m missing.
Thanks P No. 7. I was just intrigued by the way it kept popping up, inserted along with DDP at the same time, sometimes as evidence based, yet there don't seem to be any Theraplay proponents hugely expanding the Theraplay article or anything. I wasn't sure whether it was an attempt to promote a therapy thats 'also used' or just gaining respectability by association, like putting DDP in the same category as Leiberman.[11]Fainites17:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Larry--- it's great the way we're so rich now,from publishing our books and all! I think i'll start a Godiva chocolates page.Jean Mercer 15:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC) I like thos turtle candies too. Jean Mercer15:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your improvement on Attachment Therapy (i.e., replacing reference with reflist). Just for my education, what is the difference between these two templates?
If you are able, can you guide me as to how I can make DOI's work with a pipeline, like ISBN's apparently do?
reflist template automatically formats the references to a smaller font (looks nicer that way) and if you use |2 after reflist (like I did), you get two columns, but only on some browsers. If you want to do references correctly (and it's not a formal rule, but if you notice most of the better articles like Evolution have well-formatted references), then go to WP:CITET. I would do the references like this: <ref>{{cite journal|title=This is a title|author=Smith, JS|date=2007|journal=Journal of Good References|volume=22|issue=3|pages=57=59|doi=700.1.0005etcetc}}</ref>
The references end up perfectly formatted, italicized and bolded where appropriate, and read cleanly. I slowly change the references in every article I edit eventually to this format. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions00:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holy moly, 138 references, plus another 54 duplicates! Then it has all sorts of [citation needed] tags wanting even more! And templates saying sections are incompletely sourced! They can claim this article is not WP:OR?! Reading any part of it with just the hyperlinks is maddening. Thanks, I think. Larry Sarner08:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some small edits to which I hope you will agree.
In doing so I may have inadvertently messed up the page.
I should be very grateful, if you have time, to have a look.
Again, many thanks for your help.
kip
Me AGAIN!
Larry,
I want to do another page on 'maternal deprivation'. I am worried because I will make a mess of it. Would it be okay to do it in the same way I tried to do the Rutter page and e mail you so that you can check it configures to the Wikipedia format?
I've been reviewing edits to the articles covered in the current arbcom dispute, especially the contended ones such as DDP, ACT and AT.
I notice you've been editing the ACT article. That's mostly not a problem, many of your recent edits are ones anyone will concur with, such as spelling corrections [12], citing existing statements [13], adding precise dates [14], list cleanup [15] and so on.
It's important to remember that the present case looks at the conduct of all involved though, and to ensure you remain a visibly neutral editor yourself. Regardless of how the arbitration turns out, potential COI does appear to be established for several parties, yourself included, and therefore your edits will quite rightly be open to a higher level of scrutiny than some random persons. If you did edit controversially without checking on the talk page, it'd be easier for others to identify this (rightly or wrongly) as a COI/bad faith concern.
For an easy example: whether or not justified or neutral, it will be hard for a WP:3O or WP:RFC outsider to be sure if the removal of the Quackwatch reference [16] is an appropriate handling of an unhelpful POV addition by a problematic disruptive editor, or an inappropriate removal of relevant information. Even problematic editors sometimes add valid information. Edits like that are far better visibly checked on the talk page, their relevance discussed fully, and removed (if decided) by someone else, to be sure no taint of bias attaches to the decision and any other editor can check it was properly based upon policy and reasonable consensus. (That's an example only, to illustrate the matter!)
So this is a heads up to just ensure you're aware that you will have to be careful in editing, to ensure that neutrality is visible and that COI issues have visibly not impacted your textual changes -- or that you check carefully for consensus and policy based views to be sure the proposed edits are fair, if challenged.
(Obviously such care and rigor is never a bad thing, but on articles where you don't have such a direct personal and professional stance it won't be so necessary to go overboard to demonstrate neutral consensus based editing. For example, if you decided to edit on Psychosis or History of China, nobody would assert a COI issue there.)
Thank you for the friendly and comprehensive warning. I will make good-faith efforts to follow what you suggest.
I recognize that I am viewed as having potential COI issue on matters relating to Attachment Therapy. But I have no financial or commercial interest in opposing AT; quite the opposite, it is expensive and difficult. I am not looking for any credit for volunteering my effort and money to an important cause, but I think it is wrong that I cannot significantly participate in an appropriate venue just for doing so! Especially when I have not tried to conceal who and what I am (here or anywhere else), in contrast to certain (nameless) other editors who pursue me all over
On the particular article about ACT, I've tried 'til now to refrain from any edits at all, just to be scrupulous about the COI allegation. Except for the Quackwatch thing (which I think is an attempt -- on the part of established disruptive editors -- to drag in others or their reputations unfairly into this quagmire), I have only made "Caesar's Wife" type of changes.
As for the other articles, I'm hoping that the Becker-Weidman affair in its full scope will wake up Wikipedia's administration to the need for a policy change. There must be a way for genuine experts to edit articles in their areas of expertise, even when the are real-world controversies or enemies. An encyclopedia needs dedication to the truth even as it pursues parsimony in presentation. Wikipedia policy (such as "neutrality" and COI) should be an approximation to the presentation of truth. Otherwise, Wikipedia becomes just a glorified blog with whoever has the last word winning.
I hold that view not on behalf of just myself. I'm not the "expert" in the present controversy, nor likely to be on any article of importance. But there are genuine experts (Jean Mercer, for example, who has actually testified as an expert in a court of law) who can contribute to Wikipedia with knowledge and clarity. I want those contributions for the readers of Wikipedia, myself included, so that Wikipedia becomes a trustworthy source as well as a popular one. And Wikipedia's popularity brings up another motivation I have: I want to live in a world with citizens who make decisions based on information obtained from readily available sources that are reliable and trustworthy. Wikipedia's very popularity puts a great responsibility on those who have assumed its administration to assure that the project's audience is well-served by the project.
All that being said on the soapbox, I still am trying to edit in conformity to Wikipedia's present rules and policies. If I transgress, I will attempt to change in a spirit of comity. If I cannot find a way to conform, or persuade that the rules change so that I can, I will depart and spend my not-so-copious free time more fruitfully elsewhere.
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may found at the above link. DPeterson is banned for one year. All parties are reminded of the need for care when editing in an area with a potential conflict of interest. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon(t)20:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit comment on Attachment Therapy RfAr workshop page almost made me believe that you = DPaterson. Still, I reverted your edit because the case was closed at that point and shouldn't be edited further. Please be a little more careful with the choice of words in your edit comment :) - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps03:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the edit comment. I don't know why I didn't say "response to..."; I meant to. I edited the workshop page without reviewing the instructions on the case's main page. It would be wise to have the clerk tag pages when a case closes just to remind users not to post any more. I was reacting to DP's and RL's slew of parting shots, done just hours before formal closure and long before I became aware of the closure; their comments before the door slammed shut seemed gratuitous efforts to have the last word in the record. Not a biggie. Larry Sarner16:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help with the page on Professor Sir Michael Rutter. I have now also produced a page called 'The theory of Maternal Deprivation' and edited the 'John Bowlby' page to include an extract on the topic.
You have helped me in the past and I should be grateful if you would take a look at these pages and tidy them up, if possible?
