Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/October 2006/RalphLender

Wikipedian filing request:



Other Wikipedians this pertains to:



Wikipedia pages this pertains to:



Questions:
Have you read the AMA FAQ?
 * Answer: YES

'''How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)'''
 * Answer: Not following Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures, content dispute, and others.
 * NPOV
 * Civil
 * Disruptive Editing
 * Tendentious Editing
 * followoing Wikipedia dispute resolution procedure and policies
 * adhering to the consensus view
 * adhering to the results of a poll
 * considering mediation or other appropriate form of resolution
 * continued disruptive behavior by continued reverts.

'''What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.'''
 * Answer: suggested a poll, suggested he follow Wikipedia dispute process and take a poll or consider mediation, put suggested changes on talk page to develop consensus before reverting the page.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: either have Sarner stop (He was once blocked for a period of time from the Bowlbypage for this very behavior...or get him to build and then follow the consensus on each page, even if he disagrees with the consensus.

Summary:
On the Bowlby page Sarner has again begun to dispute the inclusion of two listed treatments (Theraplay and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. He was blocked for this behavior previously.  He will not follow the consensus among editors on the talk page.  He refuses to engage in dispute resolution procedures.  It has been suggested he consider a poll or mediation...and he refuses.  He continues to revert the page to his edits from the original page that developed after a long effort to build consensus.

On the Candace Newmaker page he want to exclude all refrences to Advocates for Children in Therapy. However, all other editors see that material as relevant. Sarner is a leader of ACT and is the author of a text cited in both articles. He has an apparent conflict of interest and vested interest here, but refuses to consider other POV and build consensus.

Discussion:
Hi, I think a request for arabation should be filed

Punk Boi 8 05:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I'd have to urge all involved parties strongly against this. Please take a look at WP:DR for help.  It s hugely likely that your case will be thrown out immediately.  Try talking first and finding a compromise, and only if that fails, go to WP:MEDCAB.  Thanks M a rtinp23 23:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note that this has escalated...User:Shotwell appears to be abusing Wikipedia policy and has filed a vindictive request regarding sockpuppet because a question was raised regading his relationship with User:Sarner in these disputes. The mediator found his filing the charge provocative and inappropriate:  See link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07_Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy#Discussion  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RalphLender (talk • contribs)


 * Ralph, my advice is that you let the RFCU go -- you know that you're innocent, and striking back won't help resolve anything. (On the other hand, if you are engaged in sockpuppetry with any of the other accounts Shotwell identifies, and I of course assume you're not, my advice is that you confess, explain that you're a relatively new user and very sorry, and be done with it.  It won't affect my advocacy of you, and coming clean before the checkuser comes in shows good faith.  If that does happen, I'll be glad to advocate for you in regard to that too.)  TheronJ 15:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've started an advocacy discussion at User:TheronJ/Advocacy/RalphLender. TheronJ 15:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This advocacy is wrapped up, and I am closing. For more info, see Shotwell's withdrawal of his objections.  TheronJ 02:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Followup:
When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
 * Answer: Very much so.

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
 * Answer: Yes, he was most helpful to me and kept things on track.

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?
 * Answer:5

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?
 * Answer:5

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?
 * Answer:5

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
 * Answer: nothing

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
 * Answer: probably ask for an advocate sooner.

AMA Information
Case Status: closed

Advocate Status:
 * Punk Boi 8
 * Non-advocate opened. This is going back in the new pile. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk) 23:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take this one. TheronJ 14:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)