User talk:Brisvegas/Archives/2006/July

Portal:Christianity
I recently "signed up" on the portal, but my name isn't showing up. Also, I'd like to caution you about Jason Gastrich. Every edit I've read of his, and his talk page (especially deleted entries) show a complete lack of NPOV. He seems to be a very hard line Fundamentalist and any contributions he makes will probably cause edit wars and arguments. Not trying to start anything here, but anytime I find an entry I like, I watch it and it's contributors, and this guy seems to be trouble. As the gaurdian of this portal, I just thought you needed the facts about Mr. Gastrich. --Icj tlc 16:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This is probably a stupid question but, how can I join the Christianity Portal? Reply to my talk page. Thanks, --Josh777 03:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

History of Australia is new ACOTF
Hi, you voted for the History of Australia series as Australian Collaboration of the fortnight. It has been selected, so please contribute in any way you can. Thankyou. --Scott Davis Talk 00:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thanks


BOWLBY PAGE
I would appreciate your intervention here. Sarner has begun a revert war about two listings in the "also see" section. In addtion, his comments, indicate that he will not mediate or discuss any solutions unless they are his desired final outcome....he seems to have no interest in trying to reach concensus or compromise. He seems to not be willing to let others comment and let a growing concensus direct the page. Instead, he seems bent on eliminating all references and material he has deemed unacceptable. DPeterson 17:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am disturbed by Mr. Sarner's reverts and his battle over two Also See links that, I believe, are fine to leave as being relevant and appropriate. I am also disturbed by his apparent battle to control the page as if his opinion is the only one.  Many people disagree with him as the discussion page indicates.  I hope you will step in for those of us who want peace and an end to his battles and endless arguing, as if he can beat us into submission.  Thanks.  MarkWood 21:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Your intervention is needed asap. Sarner has ignored your request to leave the page as is until there is consensus and made unacceptable changes to the page. Sarner have begun to revet and make changes that do not represent consensus, collaboration, or cooperation with the mediation process. Your assistance is needed and will be appreciated. I have watched for a while and not participated until recently. I am very upset by his rigid insistance that everyone must agree with him and that anyone who does not is invalid for some reason or another. His false allegations are also distrubiing. Please make him stop. Dr. Becker-Weidman Dr. Art 22:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the suggestion by sarner can be useful or helpful. Must consensus mean EVERYONE agree, regardless of the validity of their position? (must we include flat earth supporters' comments in articles about earth? Mr. sarner has made clear his agenda to eliminate from wiki any references to Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and related topics, despite the fact that this is an evidence based practice with extensive support in the professional community.  His citations on his website and of his group make that clear.  How would you suggest I manage this and respond?  I'd appreciate your advice.  Thank you.

24.48.176.65 11:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Dr. Art 11:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

-

Interesting that Mr Becker-Weidman has commented here rather than on the Bowlby talk page. I am not surprised that he rejects my proposal. He does have a rather interesting view of consensus, doesn't he? (Consensus isn't arrived at between disputants, it's arrived at by like-minded individuals.)

He loves to say that his beloved DDP is "evidence-based", but the evidence on which it is based is thin, scientifically weak, academically challenged, and not widely accepted clinically. I have valid grounds to dispute its inclusion in the article. Is this why he wants the decision on what goes into the article based on his view of "consensus" -- because his POV may not be able to prevail any other way?

I'm sorry this debate has come to your talk page instead of the Bowlby one. That it has, illustrates why I made the suggestion I did. The playing field is not very level under the groundrules you suggested. I make arguments, and I'm ignored. I make proposals, and they're ignored. The only time I can have any effect is when I attempt to influence the article itself. THEN I get attacked ad hominem.

This is a real challenge for a mediator, I know. As you pointed out, you have no power to enforce anything. But I hope you won't give up on us. I see you as a way to educate all of us in Wiki-ness and maybe (just maybe) find some unique way to resolve a dispute when the parties' positions are as polarized as ours.

(Would appreciate your response on the Bowlby talk page.)

Larry Sarner 18:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult to have a discussion when the other person is so provocative and disrespectful and whose method of approach is to initiate personal attacks. Becker-Weidman is Dr. Becker-Weidman, as I read his publicaitons. sarner is needlessly provoking in his responses and not treating those who disagree with him with proper respect.

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is evidence-based in that there are several publications and peer-reviwed articles in professional journals. Again, sarner is showing his agenda as an advocate of ACT, which is a fringe group (at least if we use OED or Webster to define fringe). He is not a clinician or professional and is not aware of the abundant literature in support of DDP and it's principles. It is clinically accepted and based on sound solid evidence-based principles. For example, relationship is the most evidence-based component of psychotherapy...I won't cite here all the evidence support here, but can do that is it is desired. The approach is widely accepted in the clnical community. As I said on the talk page, I am very willing to discuss these issues, but we should see all of sarner's ideas at once. In addition, it is difficult to discuss these matters when sarner attacks everyone who does not agree with him or ACT.

I hope you will continue to stay invovled as your efforts have brought some civility and rationality to the debate and have halted the needless attacks and rigidity. Thank you.

DPeterson 00:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read several (four) articles in peer reviewed professional journals and several books about this approach and find it credible. It is based on sound solid evidence based principles of treatment and basic accepted principles for the treatment of complex trauma. I think stating otherwise just ignores the facts and calls into question the knowledge base, expertise, and motives of Larry Sarner. In reviewing facts and material I do think the person's expertise does matter. I don't believe Sarner has a Ph.D., is a licensed mental health professional or has a degree in psychology, social work, marriage and family therapy, or any other directly related field. If I am wrong I will apprecite being corrected.

MarkWood 18:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

-

The evidence keeps mounting that user "DPeterson" is either really user "AWeidman" or a colleague at his clinic (either a sock puppet or a stalking horse). He shows up when Mr Becker-Weidman wants either to push himself, make arguments that would be too gauche to make himself, or wants to stuff the ballot box.

I don't intend to carry on the debate here on your talk page. That would be discourteous. I will say this much, however: the above arguments are advertising; they can and will be refuted. You or any visitor to your page can go to Bowlby talk page and follow the discussion there.

Larry Sarner 13:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

-- Gee, Larry Sarner sure seems angry. I've read his comments here and elsewhere and find his approach to be antagonistic and counter-productive. Why does he discount Dpeterson and others? I just don't think this is productive. Why are the arguments of DPeterson advertising? I think the comments about the therapy are appropriate. The comments present evidence and arguments and are to the point. He talks about ad hominem attacks, but that is exactly what he is doing in the previous comment. However, I do agree that the discussion may better occur on the bowlby page. The mediator should address this.

JonesRD 19:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

TO THE MEDIATOR: Again, I think your intervention is needed. Sarner should post all his ideas so that everyone can review them at once. His refusal to do so is clear building increased suspicion and recalcitrance and is not conducive to consensus building.

MarkWood 18:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

- My sympathies to the mediator for the apparent misuse of his talk page by the other side. Larry Sarner 21:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Sarner is not interested in building consensus or developing a cooperative and collaborative relationship with the other contributors. My sympathies to the mediator regarding this difficult problem.

66.238.223.87 21:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is time to implement the solution of the advocate and end this...it is just plain valueless to allow a zealot to hold hostage a page and to require to continue monitoring of several contributors. Don't you agree?

DPeterson 02:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I wish I could, but this would not resolve the dispute. I have already offered a compromise where both DDT and Theraplay could be mentioned in the article, just not in the See Also section. I still believe this is the best way forward, although I respect the advicate's suggestion (keep in mind that it is his duty to be biased in favour of his client, while I am striving to listen to both sides). Brisve gas  03:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that as far as sarner is concerned the dispute will never be resolved untill all references to DDP and Theraplay and all attachment-based treatments are removed from this and all other Wiki pages. The fact that he is so adament seems to bear this out, as well as the fact that he refuses to state all his proposed changes in one spot.  Your suggestion will not end this and will only lead to sarner's continuing the &quot;battle&quot; elsewhere.  I think the advocate's proposed solution is a good compromise, the best one, given sarner's secreacy and refusal to build consensus.

DPeterson 21:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that "DPeterson" (whoever he is), with little or no Wikiquette, keeps spilling over this debate into other venues where it is inappropriate. Rude. In addition, these ex parte conversations with a mediator are hardly in the Wiki spirit of openness. But, of course, whenever I point either of these out, I am accused of trying to change the subject. Larry Sarner 17:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with many of the comments and questions of others here. It does appear that sarner's continued personal attacks and unfounded allegations suggest that he does not have a real interest in consensus building and collaboration. It appears that he will not tolerate any disagreement with his POV and acts as if he must rub out POV and comment he disagrees with. Differences can remain as differences for the page reader to sort out. Yes? MarkWood 21:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Look at the size of this section! Every one of these comments belonging on the Bowlby talk page and not here. The same was done to the mediation request page!! I can't blame the mediator for resigning. Good luck to you, sir. Larry Sarner 06:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 10th
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Signpost delivered by: RoyBoy 800 04:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 17th
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. --Michael Snow 05:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 24th


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. --Michael Snow 04:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Research Survey Request
Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 23:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC) PARC User Interface Research Group