User talk:RalphLender

Hello RalphLender, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! CobaltBlueTony 16:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikipedians Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Advocates for Children in Therapy

I see you've reverted Sarner's edits and he hasn't reverted back. Disagreeing strongly with you is something I can't do anything about. If it turns into a revert war, or he starts acting incivil or something, that's different. But I'm not the only admin around here; you can always take it to WP:ANI or WP:3RR yourself. Mango juice^talk 21:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a series of edits to the page in question, which I expect will please absolutely nobody, but which I feel better adheres to NPOV, the manual of style, and Wikipedia guidelines in general. Feel free to check it out. -- H·G (^words/_works) 07:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph. Thanks. It does appear that there is a double standard involved. For example in the Barrett article everything has to be well referenced ,even to the standard of court documents otherwise the so-called anti-quackery editors cry foul and delete everything on sight. Interestingly when they contribute to article on Hulda Clark or people they disapprove of, there is no such requirement for solid references. In fact in many cases there is none provided...NATTO 20:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your observation

That is an interesting observation...maybe it does bear looking into further DPeterson^talk 21:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OKRalphLender^talk 13:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your "vandalism" warnings on my user talk page

As you know, you have recently posted two vandalism warnings on my user talk page. Please stop. I have not been vandalizing anything on Wikipedia, but making good faith edits. I once had an administrator caution me about bringing false charges of vandalism. He said:

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: [1] [2] [3]. 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.

Larry Sarner 23:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation over Advocates for Children in Therapy

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]

Candace Newmaker page

I think you should reconsider the revert you just did to the Candace Newmaker page. In my opinion it is completely unjustified and damaging, and you should undo it. Larry Sarner 20:20, 20 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? RalphLender^talk 13:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request

Sorry, but this is too complicated a situation for me to simply step in and make a ruling. You should work it out amongst yourselves, but if that is proving difficult, you should follow the steps in Wikipedia dispute resolution. Mango juice^talk 00:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Don't make 3RR reports like you did on User:Sarner. It's only a violation if they go *beyond* 3 reverts. Thanks. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy request

Ralph, I've agreed to take on your request for advocacy. Give me a little time to look through the history of the dispute, and I should be able to offer you some suggestions. Thanks, TheronJ 14:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted my initial thoughts at User:TheronJ/Advocacy/RalphLender. If you don't mind, can you take a look at them and respond there? Thanks, TheronJ 14:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph, it looks to me as if Shotwell is withdrawing from the DDP-related disputes.[4] Based on that, I think there's nothing more to do on your advocacy, but will be happy to keep going if there is anything else you would like to discuss. I apologize for not making much progress on the issue before it resolved, but am glad it went well for you. Let me know your thoughts, TheronJ 14:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since he is withdrawing and the pages will remain the same, I think we are done for now. I appreciate your help and will complete the followup section of the advocacy request form. Again, thank you. RalphLender^talk 22:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation from Bowlby

The RFCU was denied because it was filed under a code letter that requires diffs (links to evidence) of vandalism. No evidence was presented and the request was subsequently rejected. This was not an affirmation of the vandalism accusation -- it was a mere rejection.

I said it constitutes a personal attack because the allegation you posted on the Bowlby page has been reasserted several times on multiple pages (all with the same misguided logic). I've previously pointed out the misguided nature of this accusation, yet I still see it popping up.

I believe that you have a fundamental misconception concerning the term "vandalism" on wikipedia. You've accused multiple people of vandalism when they were making good-faith edits (myself included). Perhaps you should read WP:VANDAL, if you haven't already. The term 'vandalism' is highly loaded here. Notice that the first two warning templates for vandalism don't even mention the word 'vandalism'. If you'd like to see some real vandalism, I suggest doing RC patrol for a short while. shotwell 23:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a silly error above. The second warning does mention vandalism ("adding nonsense is considered vandalism"). However, it does not directly accuse the person of being a vandal. shotwell 23:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I never accused Sarner of being a Vandal. I do point out that he has a history of disruptive edits on the Bowlby and other artcles and was blocked from the Bowlby article for a while because of his actions/behavior. Pointing out these actions is not a personal attack, I don't think. RalphLender^talk 23:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the accusation of vandalism as being implicit to the repeated assertion that RFCU made a "finding of vandalism". I'm not really talking about when you bring up his "history". I was specifically referring to the vandalism accusations. shotwell 00:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comments were put on several pages since the statement by the reviewer seemed clear and seemed to apply to his actions in a general way and would be important for other editors/mediators, etc. to be made aware of as a point of information. RalphLender^talk 12:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schizophrenia article

Hi Ralph, I certainly think a request to unblock the article is a good idea. I guess it's a case of just wait and see what happens after that. If the blanking continues, despite consensus to the contrary, I don't think there's much option but to put in a vandalism notice. - Vaughan 22:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. RalphLender^talk 19:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert warring

Stick to the rules. Read the text carefully. I bolded the rules for you, so you will find the relevant text easily. Do not engage in obviously unjustified revert wars. This is against Wikipedia policy and it can get you banned if you continue.--Grace E. Dougle 20:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cites in attachment therapy

It seems you are well intentioned but your cites are not congruent. The American Psychological Association makes no stands on types of therapies. Call them. The cite you used had to do with child abuse.And the Natl Social Worker Board makes no stand. Yes Utah does. You could state it that way.Do you have an email?Where I live attachment therapy is prevelant. I think it is very harmful.I feel more people should know about it. I am not going to get into and edit war with you. Very many therapists use this therapy with absolutely no sanctions. If you feel it is harmful then you should let the truth be shown in this article.

Fendyam 18:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see that you are now using a user name rather than just the IP address. You are in Lakewood OH and/or Naugatuck CT? The APA and NASW do have positions against coercive and intrusive interventions either explicitly and/or as part of each organization's code of ethics. The APA participated in the APSAC Task force that produced the standard cited in the article. Practitioners of "Attachment Therapy," as defined in this article, which invovles the use of coercive and intrusive interventions is not a prevelant practice, given the various prohibitions cited. If, by "Attachment Therapy" you mean treatments based in attachment theory such as Stanley Greenspans Floor Time, then is probably is prevelant. But this article defines "Attachment Therapy" in a very circumscribed and specific manner. It is a rarely practiced form of intervention, given that one cannot use it an be acting in concert with one's professioal organization. RalphLender^talk 18:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working with the state to have laws changed. I am working undercover. I really feel that much of your info is in error. You seemed concerned about this as I am. I can email you and talk about this but this public arena is not the place. I disagree with you as far as the prevalence. From my research it is very prevalent. I am not going to change the article again. But this is jus playing into the hands of AT advocates. They work below the radar. Hope to hear from you Fendyam 18:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for original research, See relevant Wikipedia policies regarding writing articles. As defined in this article the practice is very rare. Wikipedia is a public forum and so discussions take place on user talk pages and the talk pages of articles. I am happy to discuss issues in those venues. RalphLender^talk 18:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree that there should be no original research here. That is why I an concerned that assertions be cited carefully. You are saying that the Natl Social Workers Boards says some thing and then you cite it with Utah. And I do believe you are in error about the prevalence. Talk to Linda Rosa of childrenintherapy.org. Or talk to any number of the larger state Family Services Departments and I think you will see how prevalent it is. Again I cannot discuss too much of this in a public forum because of the investigations that are going on. Hope you will research these facts as I have indictated. Fendyam 19:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CV

Can you provide a source for the CV you mention here? -- Fyslee/talk 07:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Talk:Stephen_Barrett

I combined your two "support" statements together. I hope you don't mind.

I wish you would comment how these facts somehow overrule all the policies brought up in the discussion, especially policies specifically about not including facts out of context that are not properly sourced. Otherwise, it seems like you're missing the meat of the arguments here. --Ronz 15:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to clarify my basic point. RalphLender^talk 17:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Mediation Cabal case

Good afternoon (GMT time); I have accepted a Mediation Cabal case - requested by Levine2112 - to which you are listed as a party. Mediation has commenced at the case talkpage, where you are invited to participate.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via email, IRC or my talk page; I will try to answer all your questions as fully as possible in so far as it does not compromise my neutrality.

Kind regards,

anthony^[review]
00:33, Friday November 22 2024 (UTC)

Merging articles 'Child Abuse' and 'Child Sexual abuse"

Hi,

There are these 2 different articles in wikipedia, Child abuse and Child sexual abuse. I think the Child sexual abuse should be redirected to Child Abuse and releveant information form Child sexual Abuse article should be appended to Child Abuse.

Child Abuse would be the main article and info about all types of child abuse including physical, emotional and sexual be added to it.

What do you say?

BB Blessingsboy 19:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good idea. RalphLender^talk 14:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep reverting my changes

You reverted a perfectly good article paragraph. I really do not understand why you think you have the right to do that. FatherTree 16:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, based on discussion on the talk page among a few editors. Please Assume Good Faith. RalphLender^talk 16:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did not answer my question. I put in that in most states there are no laws against rebirthing, coercive etc. Why is that not true? And why did you revert what Fain did? Please answer why? Lets discuss. FatherTree 16:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are making changes to a consensus version without first discussing proposed changes on the talk page as the tag suggests and developing consensus. Changing consensus versions is not productive and that is why the page is now locked. RalphLender^talk 14:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was blocked because DP was not getting his way. OK lets discuss. Why is the unsourced statement that the Natl Social Workers Board has made a statement against AT present in the article? FatherTree 15:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the talk page. The issue is fully explained there and that is the proper venue for discussing the issue, not here. RalphLender^talk 15:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me where I cannot discuss YOUR reverting of my edits on YOUR talk page. Really it seems like you are purposefully trying to be uncooperative. FatherTree 15:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are now harrassment, please stop now. If you wish to discuss the topic, discuss it on the article talk page and leave me alone. RalphLender^talk 15:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then stay off my page and quit harrassing me. This is just a ploy so you will not have to discuss the issues. FatherTree 15:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Assistance autoblock in error

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): There has been an issue with autoblocks today; it should be fixed now. Request handled by: —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Attachment Therapy

Well, looking over the opening section and the first part of the second section, what I find is:

It is written by someone who doesn't like Attachment Theory. It is never good when you can easily discern the opinion of an article's writer(s).
It is written by someone who really really believes that the term "Attachment Theory" is undefined (and undefinable?) and wants to make darn sure that, if the reader comes away with nothing else from the article, he will come away with that bit of knowledge.

This second strikes me as quite odd. Why should the term "Attachment Theory" be inherently undefinable? Would it not be possible to say something along the lines of 'Defined by ___ as meaning X, but defined by ___ as meaning Z and ___ as meaning Y" (adding as many "and"s as necessary)? When a person (writing in a journal or whatever) uses the term "Attachment Therapy" or related terms, is he maybe talking about the Earth-Moon system or the theories of Machiavelli or God knows what? Can't some attempt be made at at least a general definition?

"It is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual nor in generally recognized texts on treatment modalities, such as Bergin & Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change. There is not any specific text that describes this treatment approach."

Is this last sentence really true? If I go in for Attachment Theory, may I assume that the practitioner is just making it up as he goes, since "There is not any specific text that describes this treatment approach"? Why doesn't someone write one, then, for goodness' sake? There'd be some money in that, you'd think.

I will write more on the article's talk page. Herostratus 22:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Attachment theory is well defined. But I don't see the reference to Attachment Theory in that first section.

Attachment Therapy is rather ill-defined. Bergin & Garfield, one of the bibles on therapeutic schools or approaches and outcome reasearch, has no definition for this term. The term most often means some form of coercive intrusive intervention, aka rebirthing, holding, etc. However, there are some therapists/therapies that are not coercive that also use the term to been treatment for children with the psychiatric DX Reactive Attachment Disorder (313.89). I think the point is that there is no commonly agreed upon definition for it, in the same way that there are more clear definitions for CBT or Psychoanalysis, for example. The article is an attempt to define it. RalphLender^talk 14:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FormalMediation

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 19:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need only to indicate whether or not you agree to mediation. There is no use in debating on the mediation request, we can do that after mediation begins. shotwell 20:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't add additional points to be mediated? RalphLender^talk 20:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely you can. I was talking about your comment on the mediation request about past mediation attempts. Also, please move the issues you write to the section, "Additional issues to be mediated". That heading is for additional issues not listed in the original request. shotwell 20:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, I was talking about this comment. shotwell 20:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and moved your issue to the heading "additional issues to be mediated". I hope that's ok. Note that the mediation committee is not likely to mediate that issue. I would suggest filing an RfC if you believe there is a user-conduct issue. shotwell 20:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Attachment theory

I'd be glad to help...but how do I add articles to the category? For example, I'd probably add Harlow and Rutter as two additonal prom. theorists. RalphLender^talk 13:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just go (1) to whatever article you feel falls under the category of "attachment theory"; (2) click the edit button for that article; (3) paste the following code Category:Attachment theory (but without the first colon ":" to the left of the word Category) at the bottom of the article where the other "category" codes are. Thanks for the help: --Sadi Carnot 00:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. RalphLender^talk 13:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

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 message delivered: 04:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC).

RfM Stephen Barrett

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/Stephen Barrett, 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. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment therapy

I don't think this edit's comments are very civil. Actually, editors do have the right to move discussions that interrupt the discussion. Please see WP:TPG#Editing comments. Your comments were so long, they shouldn't have been placed in between other comments. A short, "yes I agree" would not have offended anyone. But you started more discussion, which really destroys the flow. So your response in the edit summary, in big caps, was pretty uncivil. Orangemarlin 20:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your placing your comment there was ok. You were responding directly to Orangemarlin and the wikipedia policy on talk pages suggeest that and the use of indents to signify comment relationships. JonesRD_talk 21:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, I had already replied to Orange first and Jones interposed his comment leaving mine stranded. This is definately not considered good Wikimanners. Fainites 22:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JonesRD. Ralph was respnoding to Orange and not you, therefore putting a post in and indenting it more than yours was is the correct format. You really need to learn how to use the indents to show to whom you are responding...like here..you should have indented your comment, otherwise it seems like a new one. You really do seem to have a problem with this simple convention and it creates confusion for other editors, as you see. DPeterson^talk 22:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously saying that it is OK to interpose a lengthy comment above an editor who has already replied to the previous editor? That is just to silly for words. Ralph has leapt in with his admonishments too soon, obviously forgetting that he in fact effectively moved my reply to Orange by interposing his own and for some reason you all feel obliged to leap in and attack me. End of. I'm not discussing this nonsense any more. Fainites 22:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would read the wikipedia policy on talk page you would see that if you use formatting properly and indent appropriately, that one can do that...and I see that you did just that on the talk page for the Attachment Therapy article where you put a whole section out of order. RalphLender indented his comment so it is obvious it is a response to Orange's...if you'd use the indents properly you'd not have a problem here. DPeterson^talk 23:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't move my posts

'DO NOT MOVE MY TALK PAGE POSTS. That is unacceptable talk page behavior. RalphLender^talk 20:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)'[reply]

I moved your post because you interposed your post between mine and the editor to whom I was replying. That is very rude and also is in effect moving my talkpage post. Please stop doing it. This is the second time I have had to ask you this in one day. Fainites 20:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should not move another's comments. You have a long history of doing that and it is rude. It is hard to tell who you are responding to since you don't seem to understand the use of indents to signify that. You have no business editing another editor's comments and RalphLender is correct to critique you for that rude behavior. JonesRD_talk 21:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you guys have a long history of interposing comments, moving comments, altering quotations, altering proposed edits on talkpages and obsession with indentations. I have a long history of complaining about this but obviously to no effect. Would you like me to provide all the diffs? I can you know so please don't make false claims! Fainites 22:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph and Jones, please, this isn't worth it. You aren't suppose to interpose comments, and as long as Fainites was not deleting the comments, there is assumption of good faith on his part when he moved it to continue the flow of the conversation. Being uncivil is not helping. Orangemarlin 22:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think Ralph and Jones were correct. The use of indents is to indicate a flow of dialogue and response. Putting a comment in after the editor to whom you are responding, but using the indents to indicate that is proper form in Wikipedia. Yes, assuming good faith is important. It is hard when others make false statements. For example, Fainities was the one, in a set of editing, who suggested making comments on proposals with the (xx) form...now he is complaining about it. But, I agree and will continue to hope that mediation can be successful and assume that all involved are doing so with clean hands and clean hearts. DPeterson^talk 22:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis movie

So you guys would argue that DDP has no relationship to Foster Cline's approach? StokerAce 02:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Stephen Barrett.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]}

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

Arbitration

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 11:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy

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) 17:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NLP

Just a courtesy note, following a recent edit,

The NLP article is one of several targetted by internet trolls and vandals. Views, including cites from research, should not be trusted (sadly) unless you check them yourself personally, and in full, and in context, and ensure you understand them. There are strong views both sides, and you're treading in an area that's been heavily vandalized in the past.

I therefore strongly offer advice that you do your own research on the subject, ignoring initially what other editors say, and check for yourself with google. There are many sources on both sides, but history suggests that at present, some got cited partially and selectively, and you are therefore likely to fall foul if you follow the lead of others representations here (positive or negative) on the topic before gaining any of your own research and understandings from your own sources.

Rather than purport to say "I can tell you what to think" (which I can't), I would rather say, do not assume that you know much, until you have read it up yourself. Then, tread a toe carefully, testing whether your view is actually a neutrally balanced one, on the grounds that whatever might be verifiable and balanced, that is probably your best way to find it.

Hopefully this will help give you a good starting point, even though it is a most uncommon "heads up". It's been an unusually warred-over article. Thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you...good points. I will. RalphLender^talk 13:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy note, please read.

Dear 'RalphLender',

I am in a position where I feel it necessary to spell out where I see you as being, so that you understand my perception. Please note this is my view only, but take it seriously.

There is a significant trail of evidence to support the concern that a lot of your wikipedia editing either has been (or has been closely connected to) issues such as POV warring, personal attack, breach of NPOV, breach of OR, breach of TE, breach of DISRUPT, breach of AGF, and breach in short of most core policies we have on Wikipedia. Your case is presently being considered (along with the conduct of others) at Arbcom, where five puppets of one user whom you edit in common with have already been identified as being used to control and dominate debate for OWNership and POV warring and bad faith allegations, have been noted, and where arbitrators have removed "sock supporting sock" texts.

You have not received a temporary block or ban pending the arbcom case to date, but you are at risk of editing in a way that does not follow policy or further constructive mutual neutral editing, considering all views.

I hope you do not do this, but along with sock-master user:DPeterson, I would like to ask you to read the following items from block/ban policy, so that you understand how activity of that kind is viewed on Wikipedia, so that you can take measures to review policy and no longer tread the edge of problematic editing:

A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to:

persistent vandalism;
persistent gross incivility;
persistent harassment;
persistently posting material contrary to the biographies of living persons policy;
persistent spamming;
edit warring or revert warring;
breaching the sock puppetry policy;
persistently violating other policies or guidelines, where there is a consensus among uninvolved users that the violation is disruptive.

(WP:BLOCK)

The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment. The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption is to reduce administrative burden; it is under presumption that such users are likely to cause frequent disruption or harm in future [emphasis added]. Administrators should consider:

the severity of the behavior;
whether the user has engaged in that behavior before.

[...] While the duration of a block should vary with the circumstances, there are some broad standards:

incidents of disruptive behaviour typically result in 24 hours blocks, longer for successive violations;
accounts used primarily for disruption are blocked indefinitely;
protective blocks typically last as long as protection is necessary, often indefinitely. [emphasis added]

(WP:BLOCK)

A Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent. Blocks may be used to enforce bans.

(WP:BLOCK)

Partial bans are sometimes used when a user's disruptive activities are limited to a specific page or subject matter. For example, a user may be banned from a single article or an entire subject area. Users who violate partial bans are blocked temporarily to enforce the ban. Where appropriate, partial bans may extend to include talk pages.

(WP:BAN)

I would not like to apply any of these, but you need to know patience is running low with the accounts you edit alongside and in common with, and these are the options the community has sanctioned when patience expires. Even minor repetitions are becoming tiresome over a year of repetition, and should not have to be bourne by others or the editing community as a whole.

Please do ask me if you need help understanding any policy matter, or have a question, but do not continue editing in conflict with policy, even if you are sure your activity is okay, when in fact it has been clearly noted by multiple users that it really isn't. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are abusing your administrative status because of a dispute regarding NLP and Attachment Therapy. RalphLender^talk 15:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked for 24 hours, for tendentious editing in respect of this edit.

As you are aware, both you and user:DPeterson (behaviorally evidenced sock-puppets of the same sock-master) are being considered at Arbcom. You have been told numerous times to edit non-disruptively and following policy-based neutral editing processes. You have not done so.

At 18.19, DPeterson was blocked for 24 hours (a mild block in the circumstances) for repeating the insertion of this edit, which breaches WP:POINT, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPOV, probably WP:DISRUPT, probably WP:OR, WP:CONSENSUS, and a few others. You know well, these are disputed edits with concerns over neutrality, synthesis, or other concerns, and that the appropriate action is to discuss, not repeatedly reinsert. At 18.43 (under 1/2 hour later) you -- a behaviorally demonstrated puppet of DPeterson -- re-added that edit, following that block. You had been told several times to edit in a communally-sanctioned manner, that is, following policy, constructively, and not Wikipedia:Gaming the system. You have also been told (see above) that WP:BLOCK provides for protection of the project, by imposing editing restrictions on editors who cannot, and will not, self-regulate their problematic editing. You had further also been told that these stood, regardless of bad faith allegation. Therefore you too have been given an identical 24 hour block.

Full details are at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Attachment_Therapy/Evidence#Basis_of_block. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment Therapy

This article is the subject of a current ArbCom proceeding. If there is improper behavior regarding the article you should report it to the ArbCom. I don't see enough trouble at this point to protect the page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked: 1 year. You continue to edit disruptively, edit-warring over the insertion of material for which you have been repeatedly blocked in the past. As you show no signs of moderating your behavior, are intentionally pursuing a disruptive editing strategy, and are, by evidence of your behavior, working with DPeterson (who is likely to be blocked for one year by ArbCom) and pursuing the same disruptive strategy, I have blocked your account for one year. Thatcher131 16:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Review

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RalphLender (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I made one edit recently to the Advocates for Children in Therapy article to add in material that is sourced (WP:Verifiability) and factual. The ACT leaders (Sarner and Mercer have been editing that page to reflect the view off their organization without regard and have reverted my edits whole-sale without explainations. They have acted disruptively and began the edit war by deleting additions I made without cause. I see Sarner, Fainites, StokerAce, Mercer, FatherTree, and others, working together to add false material and POV material to this and Attachment Therapy and Dyadic Developmental Psycohotherapy articles.

Decline reason:

As per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Evidence. — Yamla 18:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request ability to edit on the ArBCOM pages

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): You are restricted solely to the arbitration pages and this talk page. Request handled by: jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]