User talk:StokerAce

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi. Are you still interested in all this or have you given up? Please contact me. Fainites 22:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm glad somebody's managing to follow it. I get a bit lost myself! Hope to see you join in Fainites 14:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you enable your e-mail I would be happy to e-mail you the relevent sources. Fainites 12:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I get a bit ratty on the talkpage but it does get silly, having to go over the same facile arguments again and again. Hopefully some of the new editors will actually read the sources though and then there could be some sensible discussions on the talkpage. Fainites 17:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Sarner group seemed to give up ages ago. I've already said that I think ACT are a bit unfair just putting DDP in with the rest on their website. After all, Hughes makes his epiphany pretty clear both on his website and in his introduction to Becker-Weidmans book. I don't find ACT's exerpts from his 2000 book at all convincing. Prior and Glaser don't put Hughes in with AT either. What I don't understand though is this madly defensive approach on the AT page. I would have thought Becker-Weidman would want his theory to be accepted as mainstream. I would have thought to become 'evidence based' he needs to take Chaffin seriously and he needs serious players to try and replicate his results. I hope for his sake that scientific circles don't assume he's behind all this obfuscation and promotion going on on Wiki. The funny thing is, with the quality and number of good sources it's actually a very easy article to write! It's getting it on the page that's difficult.Fainites 21:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. i think that's one of the criticisms - that you can't tell what the therapy actually is. You really need a blow by blow account of the therapy. Prior and Glaser say of Hughes (they don't mention Becker-Weidman) that it reads like good therapy with troubled children, but nothing to do with attachment. Fainites 17:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, DPeterson once had a sign in error, which gave the IP address as 68.66.160.228. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Bowlby&diff=prev&oldid=55501980

IP 68.66.160.228 checks out to Buffalo, NY.

Dr. Becker-Weidman's center is just outside of Buffalo, NY. http://www.center4familydevelop.com/

Also, user AWeidman has edited IP 68.66.160.228's contributions (on ACT and Becker-Weidman's center) within minutes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reactive_attachment_disorder&diff=42336513&oldid=42335942

I'll let you draw your own conclusions. DavisThom 20:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw it too. I remember seeing an allegation somewhere before that AWeidman and DPeterson had used the same IP number. I think Shotwell asked for a checkuser but it was declined for some reason. The diffs don't actually show AWeidman and DPeterson using the same IP, but it certainly warrants a checkuser if it comes within checkuser rules. It would certainly explain alot about this puzzling obsession with inserting Becker-Weidman into the AT article in a misleading way. Its difficult to think of a rational reason for it as he's neither notable nor particularly relevent. Also, when you look at AWeidmans edit above, the style is very familiar! Like you I tried very hard to get the AT page away from the Becker-Weidman/ACT feud, but it's so entrenched it's like its on automatic!Fainites 22:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the things that make me wonder if maybe it is me that's mad after all are the dead link thing and the continued insistance that Chaffin was written in 2000-3 and the November 2006 Reply doesn't exist! Well I hope you're going to continue taking part. Maypole seems to have got up to speed pretty quickly. The trouble is the page just stagnates as they just revert everything however well sourced and obvious it is.Fainites 22:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comparing edit histories right now, and to me, it looks like Shotwell is unrelated, but I think Sarner and StokerAce may be related. If Sarner and StokerAce agree, I'd like to call for a CheckUser. Nwwaew(My talk page) 13:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost certain now that Sarner and StokerAce are related- both of them have edit histories in all caps regarding talk pages. I'm going to file a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Nwwaew(My talk page) 14:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Request filed here. Nwwaew(My talk page) 14:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I put this here as an indication of past problems. DPeterson^talk 01:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on the talk page of Attachment Therapy may constitute Personal Attacks and harrassment, please stop. This is a warning. If you continue, you may be blocked. DPeterson^talk 00:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Attachment Therapy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DPeterson^talk 00:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comment on my talk page: :::::You already know the response to this from an RfC filed that was noted on your talk page, so your request is a disingenious and deceptive. Again, for the 'third time', please STOP making false allegations and Personal Attacks. DPeterson^talk 01:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did DPeterson make a 3 revert request and if so, how do I find it? Fainites 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Found it. By the way, T.Cobbly et al are asking for mediation. I'd prefer arbcom myself if at all possible. What do you think? Fainites 17:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about RfC? Fainites 17:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it's up I don't want to fiddle with it too much, but perhaps you could post it on the talk page. shotwell 03:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. shotwell 19:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, everyone has now signed up to mediation. Fainites 21:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This was the offensive comment that includes inaccurate statements and which is inflamatory and provocative:

Yes, revealing isn't it? Robert Zaslow was the advisor on this subplot in the film. A couple years later Zaslow lost his license for doing this kind of stuff. Zaslow was the godfather of Attachment Therapy, who introduced Foster Cline to the approach. Cline is the one who developed it into a cottage industry, popularizing the concepts (and techniques) which led to all the rest: Welch (Holding Time), Hughes (DDP), Keck, Post, et al. And all without a lick of reliable evidence! (Still doesn't have any.)

I see you're back after a long break. DPeterson^talk 01:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lumping of DDP etc. and the "without" RalphLender^talk 20:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks right to me DPeterson^talk

So you guys would argue that DDP has no relationship to Foster Cline's approach? StokerAce 02:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment speaks for itself and is clear in its intention and purpose. DPeterson^talk 02:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be clearer, ok? I'd guess that if you use your good brain and a little empathy you will be able to see why the comment is offensive and contains inaccurate statements that are inflamatory and provocative. However, if you really cannot see that, then I'd be glad to elaborate during mediation and spell it out for you when we discuss editor behavior and what will be helpful to mediation and what behavior will hinder mediation. Sound fair enough? DPeterson^talk 11:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed an arbitration request concerning Attachment Therapy and listed you as an involved party. You can provide a statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Attachment_Therapy. shotwell 11:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have performed cosmetic edits to wiki-fy your links. For future reference, using single brackets to link to a URL makes the page look simplifier, as it only displays a number rather than the whole URL on the statement (and you can change the name of the link that way too). Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration and this (although an even shorter way to link would've been [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration]] which makes Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to trim the wordy parts of your evidence. Rather than so many words, shorten the statements and provide diffs as evidence. The charges were made and arbitration accepted the case. I believe you are requested to limit to 1000 words. Peace.Lsi john 17:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did a word count and am at 970, so I think I'm OK. StokerAce 22:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 17:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StokerAce. I see you proposed two remedies. First of all, please don't forget to propose findings of fact and principles to go along with the remedy. The arbitrators won't accept remedies that do not have the corresponding FoFs and principles. Second, could you please split your remedies into multiple separate remedies. The deletion should be one things, and what each editors is banned from should all have their own headers. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar for an example of what these things will look like if they pass. If you have any more questions, please ask me. Thanks. Picaroon (Talk) 01:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do. StokerAce 01:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) 20:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you're still around. We finally got featured article (which includes sound content) on this one at least so it was all worth it in the end. Fainites ^barley 15:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]