User talk:Cowman109

Hello, I am Cowman. Welcome to the void that is my user page. Please add comments to the bottom of the page and sign comments with ~~~~, or click here, or more preferably e-mail me as I am only sporadically active. Thanks! Cowman109^Talk

Archives
November 2005 – April 2006 May 2006 – June 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 September 2006 – November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 – February 2007 March 2007 - November 2007 December 2007 - December 2009 January 2010 - September 2010 October 2010 - October 2011 November 2011 - April 2012 May 2012 - April 2013 April 2013 - April 2014

MedCab help

Hi Cowman, I have been trying to mediate at the John Bowlby article. Although it initally seemed like a compromise could be achieved, both sides now remain stubborn, with one side getting an ever-increasing number of users, all of which are single-purpose user accounts that support one side against the other (very suspicious). Anyhow, I no longer have any more time to assist in mediating this case, in part due to real-life concerns and also due to the feeling that in this case I am simply banging my head against a brick wall - I would rather focus on improving Wikipedia's articles for now. It would be great if you could help find a new mediator to take this case, although at this stage it seems that succcessful mediation will be difficult.

For the record, the dispute revolves around the biography of British psychologist John Bowlby, whose pioneering work in attachment theory has proven highly influential in later psychological work. One party (several "users", including User:AWeidman, User:DPeterson, User:MarkWood, User:JonesRD and with more accounts being created every week) wishes to pepper the article with links to other treatment methodologies inspired by Bowlby's work which have no direct relevance to him (wishing to not only mention dyadic development psychology and theraplay in the Legacy section but also the See Also section). The other party (User:Sarner) wants the article to have little to no mention of these methods, preferring them to be relegated to an article on Bowlby's attachment theory instead.

Since this debate has started, an increasing number of new users has come to support one side against another, in what seems to be like classic sock/meat-puppet activity. I have no more time or desire to deal with the petty squabbling of both sides over an issue which concerns no-one other than themselves, and I prefer to devote my time to more construtive endeavours. I may take other mediation cases in the future, but for now I need a break. I appreciate your assistance and hope you understand.

Best regards, Brisvegas 01:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I will see if I can help out, thanks. Cowman109^Talk 02:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have stated on the page my objection to the allegation that I am a "sock-puppet." I resent this! This continued allegation despite Brisvegas's apology on the talk page makes we question his objectivity. I contriubute to a number of pages of interest to me. My feeling is that just like other pages (Aaron Beck, Freud, etc.) mention and link treatments based on their work, so should this page at least ink in order to be comprehensive and complete. A compromise has been offered and accepted by me and several other contributors and rejected by sarner(keep Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and eliminate Therapy. I don't know about the others, but I am not a "sock-puppet" or "meat-puppet." DPeterson 02:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never said that DPeterson is a sock-puppet, since I have always given him the benefit of the doubt, per WP:AGF. I am referring to later user accounts, such as JonesRD, whose initial edit and subequent contributions have been almost exclusively related to this dispute. While I may be wrong, the balance of probabilities is rather strong as to make me suspicious. I do not wish to take any more mediation cases which involve a sudden influx of new users whose purpose is to push the agenda of one of the main parties in the dispute, as this is unhelpful and is a waste of my time and effort. I am delisting Bowlby from my watchlist and shall avoid it for now. Thanks for your help. Brisvegas 03:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I misunderstood the comment and apologize. DPeterson 03:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

However, it can be said that DPeterson's [[Special:Contributions/DPeterson|contribution record] is very nearly identical to that of JonesRD -- no contributions beyond the narrow interests of this dispute. He has the added known characteristic, shown by several login failures, that he has the same IP address as User AWeidman. The benefit of the doubt may have been given to the one user who has the most damning evidence! Larry Sarner 07:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It are these continued false allegations, purposeful disrespectful tone, and irrelevant, diverting arguments, that cause us to require some directive administrative intervention; the continued false allegations, off-point arguments, and rigid stance against compromise, collaboration, or consensus. The fact that Mr. Sarner is a leader of the fringe group ACT, and is representing their view and agenda, may be part of the problem. DPeterson 14:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Cowman, thanks also for your recent help with my MedCab request (unrelated to tge above). I'm new to the process and appreciate the assistance. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 02:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Bowlby Page

Many contributors feel that the Theraplay and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy references remain in the also see section. One, or maybe two others (both members of the same group, ACT, do not want those references to remain. A compromise was proposed by a Wikipedia administrator --David.Mestel-- in which Theraplay would be deleted and Dyadic Developmental Psychotheray would remain. Seven contributors supported this. I appreciate your intervention. The dispute has been going on for a long time and it appears that sarner (and mercer) are unwilling to compromise or waiver from their agenda. Both are representatives and leaders of a fringe group, ACT (you can find it on the web) dedicated to elminating any reference to attachment-based therapy. Sarner has been unwilling to accept any compromise or to collaborate and work with the clear consensus. Your help here will be much appreciated. DPeterson 02:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

---

What you've just read is indicative of the problem on the Bowlby page. The argument constantly is being taken to other venues instead of keeping it on the Bowlby talk page. (Just look at the discussion section of the mediation request, and the "Bowlby Page" section of Brisvegas's talk page!)

Then there are the personal attacks, such as those above. How many can you count in just one paragraph? I scrupulously avoid such attacks -- and it's very, very hard to keep from responding in kind -- and they just keep it up.

You will find vandalism on the Bowlby page; bizarre, illogical arguments; violations of fundamental Wiki policies (such as Reliable Sources); claims about consensus, collaboration, and compromise that bear no relation to reality (not even Wiki virtual reality); lies (such as above, saying Mestel proposed a "compromise" as an administrator was done as an "advocate" for their side); ballot box stuffing, stalking horses, sock puppets -- you name it, it's all there.

Anyway, I hope you will tell all of us (myself included), to keep the argument about the Bowlby page on the Bowlby talk page where it belongs and not here or the mediation request page.

See you there! Larry Sarner 07:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sarner continues with his personal attacks by making false allegations and being disrespectful to various contributors if they don't agree with him. For example, claims of "ballot box stuffing," sock puppets," and "stalking horses" are false and he has been told that, yet he continues, perhaps because he will only accept view and opinions that he forms and is not open to new information, collaborative consensus building, or cooperation. DPeterson 14:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

See what I mean? I have to go all around where these little horseapples to keep things balanced. On a more important matter, you might visit the Bowlby page, where you made a couple of errors in the statement of the controversy, and DPeterson reverted my corrections. Larry Sarner 19:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Question for you regarding Bowlby

Your requested that questions be directed directly to you and not put on the Bowlby page, so here goes. Since mercer and sarner have a finacial connection with each ohter (wrote at least one book together and are leaders of ACT, which is a fringe group (meaning not recognized or accepted by any mainstream organizations in the reserch community or professional community, such as APA, NASW, etc)) should they and their really be considered as two separate individuals for the purposes of this discussion? regards DPeterson 23:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

More relevantly, if two users use the same IP address, have exactly the same opinions on every subject, make the same word choices, even misspell the same words, and have never been seen in the same Wikispace at the same time, shouldn't they really be considered as the same individual for the purpose of every discussion? Best regards, Larry Sarner 00:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Sarner, please do not make these personal attacks unless you have evidence. Either request checkuser, or drop these allegations. --David.Mestel 15:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course I have the evidence for the case I'm thinking of. Checkuser is for when you don't have the evidence. And it how can it be a personal attack when I haven't named anyone? Larry Sarner 15:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Bowlby concerns

I am rather concerned by your comments on the Bowlby page threatening to delete comments referring to the backgrounds of users. Where is this mandated by policy? --David.Mestel 15:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this suggests that someone wants to keep the arguments on a personal level? Larry Sarner 15:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, just that "someone" doesn't want to have debate stifled. --David.Mestel 17:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no policy that specifically supports that. I simply have a strict stance of following WP:IAR, and thus WP:RPA. Personal attacks, or otherwise comments that can be interpreted as personal attacks (such as people questioning the backround of someone out in the open to their face, thus questioning their merits as an editor) only stall dispute resolution, turning the aim away from the article's content to the contributer. WP:NPA specifically says that one should comment on content, not on the contributer. It appears that there have not been anything serious enough to mandate refactoring or removal, but I admit the current conversation going on in the talk page does seem to have an underlying tone of focusing on the content, rather than the administrator. If there are beliefs that someone is clearly biased and is reverting a common consensus, there are other methods to handle that such as WP:3rr. At the moment, however, the John Bowlby issues appear to be contained within a group of people directly related to his studies, thus making the disputes more complex. It seems like the only thing that will move things forward at the moment is a neutral third party commenting on the manner. Cowman109^Talk 16:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I certainly do not support personal attacks, but I think that one should be extremely wary of removing other users' commments. I'm not sure that a third opinion would be appropriate in this case, as they are more orientated towards disputes between just two users. Perhaps an article RfC would be better. By the way, I think that a "srict stance" on WP:IAR is something of a contradiction in terms. --David.Mestel 17:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Bot

Hi. To answer your query I was adding welcome messages to some new users (something I very rarely do but decided to this afternoon as I had some free time). As you would notice if you looked furhter back in time I have done many larger edits as well. I am also a frequent RC patroller. --Newton2 17:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, alright. Well it's probably best to not make so many edits in a minute in the future, as people may mistake you for a bot. Waiting 30 seconds to a minute between edits at least is usually best. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 17:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the tip and I will do so in the future. --Newton2 20:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

NPR Mediator AWOL

[[1]] is not going anywhere, as the mediator has appeared to have disappeared, and has not replied to posts left on his talk page. Not casting any blame on the mediator, but we need a new one, and I'm not sure how to ask for a new one yet. - MSTCrow 03:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 10th

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 28	10 July 2006	About the Signpost

Reuters tracks evolution of Ken Lay's death on Wikipedia	Creating stable versions using existing software proposed
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	News and Notes: Blocking changes, privacy policy update
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

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 04:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Locust43/Cola2706

He is back but now using the IMac4ME account name. He has started deleting the same content as before from the Sprint Nextel profile, with the same MO. Can you please watch IMac4ME to make sure he doesn't go back to his old tricks?

• IMac4ME (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Locust43 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cola2706 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Look at his edits, they are always the for the Sprint and Cingular. They are always for the same topics, and always deleted for the same reasons.

CDMACORE 21:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I really do not know what is going on here but CDMACORE has been harrassing random people with random IP's and has now been blocked because of it. I have done nothing wrong whatsoever and he keeps threatening me on my talk pageIMac4ME 23:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

IMac4ME is now changing misspellings just like he did before. He changed "configured" to "conficgured". Just like he did with "used cell" to "used-cells". This is proof that it is the same person. Who else would change a correctly spelled word to an incorrectly spelled one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sprint_Nextel&diff=prev&oldid=59368123 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sprint_Nextel&diff=63472243&oldid=63470367

CDMACORE 20:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

CDMACORE Causin Problems

This user CDMACORE does not agree with proven like Cingular has the largest digital Voice and data network as it says on their site they are and keeps adding Bias information like on Sprint, CDMACORE keeps adding the prices that even other members dont agree with. I really dont think I am "Harassing", thats what CDMACORE is doin in the editing nots of these articles. If your an Admin and you really think I am vandalising something please discuss it on my talk page rationaly with me. Thanks IMac4ME 22:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What members are deleting the pricing data? The entire time you were gone, no one deleted any of that. They only added their own knowledge. Cingular does not have the largest digital voice and data network in the nation. Look at it like this: Both Verizon and Sprint claim to have the largest EV-DO, right? Verizon's reaches 148 million people in 181 markets. Sprint is 152 million in 220 markets. Sprint is larger, but Verizon keeps claiming to have the largest. They base it on some odd measurement. Verizon, Sprint, and Alltel all have larger digital voice footprints then Cingular. And they all include roaming into that coverage area, just like Cingular. But Cingular makes their claim based on their own odd measurements. Same with Alltel now claiming to have the largest network. They all claim their own things, but you keep wanting to add something to Cingular profile that is incorrect. I don't have a problem with Cingular, but I don't think we should go around quoting their own claims, when the info from other carriers puts those stats in doubt.

Can't you just add content to these profiles that is proven vaild, not based on that company's own research? Can we just move past this whole profile war?

CDMACORE 23:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This discussion should probably continue on the talk page of the article in question, so other people can put in their own responses. Agreed? Cowman109^Talk 01:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

We worked it out now. Both of us came to a compromise on the whole profile altering. There will not be anymore problems between us. So you don't have to take anymore action.

CDMACORE 04:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Neutrality Project

Greetings. I need some advice concerning the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, and I've decided that asking you would be the best way, since you have experience with working towards the same goals. However I'll as well appreciate links to specific pages or to users who might be better able to help, or comments from other users.

The Wikipedia Neutrality Project started just a couple months ago, with Wizardry Dragon being the initiator, and me the first supporter. Unfortunately, he has real world problems, and I as well was short on time (and later actually just forgot), so the project became inactive. I'm going to revive it, however with major changes in the methods, and would prefer to do it with some advice rather than completely alone, and you seem an experienced person. I've posted a quite lenthy suggestion on WNP talk page, and won't clutter this page with it, but, if you have time, checking WNP page might help.

First, I'm going to make WNP the primary method for addressing POV-relating templates and deciding whether they are needed on a specific article. Of course, we won't have any special power, but de facto will have a degree of control, and I'd prefer to be sure it is appropriate. In my opinion, an independent team is better than constant doubt in editors or conflicts, but we're not the ones to ivent the templates, so if there's anything inappropriate, please tell about it.

Second, I'm in need of advice for the methods. Generally, I've noticed that groups with similar goals usually have some kind of coordinator. Therefore, I think on electing one or two coordinators in WNP, who would decide when to summarize a discussion and suggest action, however with no power, so the debate can continue if the suggested resolution isn't accepted by everyone. This might have the other side, though, as a coordinator might influence the decisions; but a de-facto leader would emerge anyway, and he would be as well able to do it. Well, there's a lot of things to consider. What do you think on this?

Finally, there's a simple problem that the WNP needs people. I'm pretty sure there are users who would like to join, since there were people originally, but, having only the list of proposed wikiprojects to inform editors about WNP, it is unlikely more than a few users would ever know about it. I could add Wikipedia Neutrality Project (or would another name, like Team, be better?) to the Dispute Resolution template, but I'm not sure it's correct to clutter a general template with link to a team not yet having a good number of users and a good history of successful resolutions, despite the possible benefits. What can you suggest to attract interested editors to the Neutrality Project?

And, in general, please help with any ideas concerning the WNP, or even some participation, as it can become either very useful or forgoten, depending solely on how the things are done. CP/M 19:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Protest about Bowlby

Hello,

I want to protest most strongly the placing of opposition comments on my reasons (for deleting the links on the Bowlby) as part of my reasons. Boy, not even their advocate, who should know better, can play square. I would move it, but I was accused of vandalism the last time I did that.

They are doing the same thing on the user comments about AfD page on Attachment Therapy. A pattern of sabotage (if not strictly vandalism) on the part of these people is becoming apparent.

Since the "Reasons" section -- and its format -- is at your request for a specific purpose, can you do something about this sabotage? If the advocate is allowed to get away with this, you can bet the others will follow suit. If they do, your entire purpose for creating this section (a clear statement of the various sides for consultation by the others) will be subverted by this conduct.

Thank you, Larry Sarner 19:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a one-line comment to clarify an ambiguity in your wording, which I signed. --David Mestel^(Talk) 21:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It was obviously more than that. There was no ambiguity to clear up. I was referring to my original proposal, which was I considered a compromise between 1 and 5 sources. It certainly had nothing to do with "consensus". Who cares that you signed it? If you didn't understand, or chose to dispute it, the proper place would have been in a new discussion, not interfering with me making my case. I hope the mediator agrees. Larry Sarner 22:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As I predicted (or perhaps because he or his advocate read it here), Mr Becker-Weidman inserted a comment into my reasons for keeping Theraplay and deleting DDP (not only muddling the presentation with his commentary, but also by breaking the numbering). Was my previous request/protest unworthy of even a refusal from the mediator? Would you consider it vandalism if I moved these and future comments on my own? Larry Sarner 16:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it seems this has grown into quite the confusing mess. I think everyone should just take a deep breath and assume good faith of eachother. Everyone is much too tense and we are all a bit too quick to jump to conclusions about these edits. It is good practice to not edit the comments of others though, especially if you are currently involved in a dispute with them. I don't think this issue should be so complicated - at the moment we're just arguing over see also links, which I'm sure you can all admit is silly. I will leave some notes on teh talk page of the article.. Cowman109^Talk 16:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Cowman. Since Sarner has been banned from editing the Bowlby page I suppose the dispute is now over and the Also See section can remain as is; unless others wish to add related links. True? Does the ban on Sarner allow him to continue to add comments and continue his "fight" on the talk page of this and other articles? thanks DPeterson 18:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As I read that talk page, Dr. Becker-Weidman placed a comment after Sarner's listing. DPeterson 18:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi again Cowman!! Thanks for restoring my user page. What's with all the vandalism, do you know? jgwlaw 07:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

MedCom vs MedCab

Thanks for clearing that up about Ideogram. I'll strike my comments from the ArbCom case. -^demon^{[yell at me]}_{[ubx_war_sux]} /12:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

End of Dispute on Bowlby Page

Thank you for your time and attention to this dispute. I appreciate this alot. Since Larry Sarner has been banned from making changes to the Bowlby page, can we now assume that the Also See section will remain as is and other editors/contributors who wish to make additions to enhance that section may do so freely? JohnsonRon 16:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and just after I made a comment trying to calm things down. I guess that's settled, then. I will close the medcab case (I'll keep both the talk page and the case page in my watchlist though, so if anything else pops up I'll look into it as well). Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 16:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 17th

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 29	17 July 2006	About the Signpost

Library of Congress, Holocaust Museum negotiate with Wikimedia	Issue of article subjects requesting deletion taken up
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	News and Notes: Blocking changes, single login
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
The Report On Lengthy Litigation

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. Treebark (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Manchukuo

I put a new edition of the introduction for Manchukuo. What do you think? I hope this will make everyone happy. P.S. From the history of Manzhouri who did the previous edit, I don't trust this man's intention or judgement on Wiki.--Manchurian Tiger 04:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering where or who i could ask to help out with mediating (as edit wars are taking over all of the talk pages). Please let me know on my talk page.Dan 12:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)