Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-18 Sarner's reverts-edits of Bowlby and Candace Newmaker

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Bowlby, Candace Newmaker
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	DPeterson
Parties involved	Sarner, RalphLender

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Bowlby, Candace Newmaker]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Bowlby, Candace Newmaker]]

Mediation Case: 2006-10-18 Sarner's reverts-edits of Bowlby and Candace Newmaker

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

Request made by: DPeterson^talk 13:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?: Bowlby article and talk page; Candace Newmaker article and talk page

Who's involved?: User:Sarner; DPeterson^talk 13:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]; Several other editors, RalphLender, SamDavidson, etc.; RalphLender^talk 16:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]; See previous problems:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-21_John_Bowlby

JohnsonRon 20:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on?: Sarner was previoulsy banned for a while from editing the Bowlby page. He is now beginning again to be disruptive on that page and the Candace Newmaker article. He continually reverts the articles from the consensus views to his and ignores repeated requests by me, and other editors, to consider using Wikipedia dispute resolution processes such as dialogue, polls, or mediation. He clearly will only accept his view, despite being the only voice there. His reverts are disruptive and irritating. Furthermore, the dispute is the same one he was banned for previously.

On the Candace Newmaker he is doing the same thing, but there he has a clear vested interest. He wants all references to Advocates for Children in Therapy removed from the article...but he is the Executive Director of that group and the author of one of the books cited on the Candace Newmaker page as a reference (which is fine, because the reference provides data that meets the Wikipedia verifiable standard).

If you could intervene...or tell me what would be the most appropriate steps for me to follow at this point, I'd really appreciate it.

I support this request. I find it very irritating that Mr. Sarner is acting like a bully and not following Wikipedia policy and practice regarding resolving disputes. RalphLender^talk 16:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support this request. I find that Sarner is not following Wikipedia practices regarding dispute resolution and that he is acting against what appears to be a general consensus on the pages here. MarkWood 13:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was blocked on the Bowlby page and has started with the same issues again and the same uncivil and disrespectful behavior. He is not following dispute resolution procedures or policies.

What would you like to change about that?: Have Sarner either follow Wikipedia policy and abide by a poll, or request mediation and abide by the results of that...or be banned again, but from both pages.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?: No...contact me on my talk page is fine.

Mediator response

Other mediators should be aware that Nwwaew (talk · contribs) has proposed merging the cases for Advocates for Children in Therapy, Bowlby, Candace Newmaker, & Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. Addhoc 18:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am closing this case and merging it with Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07 Advocates for Children in Therapy --Ideogram 10:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

If this case is merged with the on in process regarding Advocates For Children in Therapy and also disputes regarding the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy article and User:Shotwell, that would be best as these are all related issues and disputes. JohnsonRon 21:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]