User:TheronJ/Advocacy/RalphLender

Introduction

Ralph, I'd be glad to help you with your request for advocacy. Here are my preferences, but please feel free to let me know if you have any concerns.

Where possible, let's keep our discussion on this page, so that it's all in one place. I generally prefer to keep discussion public, but if you have something that you strongly want to communicate privately, let me know and I'll set up e-mail.
I know that it's frustrating when things don't run at internet speed, but in my experience, sorting things out can take a few days.
My recommendation is that you try to minimize conflict with Sarner while we come up with a plan; this is not a requirement or a demand by any means, but it may be helpful. Please feel free to continue editing pages with him/her, but I would recommend that while we come up with a plan, you bend over backwards to be civil in all your interactions, even (actually especially) if he/she doesn't deserve it, and that you avoid anything too confrontational. (I.e., hold off on the requests for admin action). First, if possible, the preferable outcome is always that you and Sarner find a way to work together constructively, so we shouldn't burn any bridges, even if you're right and he's wrong about the underlying issue. Second, if we do need to request admin or arbcomm action down the road, we will want to show that you are firmly and unequivocally on the moral high ground. Thanks, TheronJ 14:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This is helpful, quite helpful. Being reminded to take time is fine...it is "right" and at times reminding me of that is a help. I agree with your advice regarding my approach to and contact with Sarner...and will do my best to follow that advice. RalphLender^talk 20:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Background

Summary of problem

Ralph Lender and Larry Sarner are on opposite sides of a content dispute spanning several pages. (I don't mean to imply that they're the only participants on either side, just that for the purposes of this advocacy, they're the two I'm most interested in).
This dispute centers principally around Sarner's opinion that (1) references to Theraplay and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy should not be included in the John Bowlby page and (2) that references to Advocates for Children in Therapy should not be included in the Candace Newmaker page.

History of dispute resolution

Both sides have engaged in extensive discussion (too extensive to summarize) on the talk pages for John Bowlby and several others.
The John Bowlby dispute was the subject of an extensive mediation. The mediation was closed when Sarner was banned from the Bowlby page,[1] but now Sarner is back, and the dispute has heated back up.
In June-July 06, User:David.Mestel appeared as an advocate in this matter on behalf of User:AWeidman. (See generally here).
There is currently a mediation ongoing with regard to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07 Advocates for Children in Therapy regarding Advocates for Children in Therapy.
User:Shotwell has requested advocacy here, and his advocacy request identifies various objections from his side of the argument.
User:DPeterson has requested advocacy regarding this dispute, here. DPeterson's avocacy request identifies a number of specific disputes with User:Sarner, User:Shotwell, and User:StokerAce.
An October 21 Suspected Sockpuppet Report and October 25 Checkuser Request for Sarner and StokerAce were each declined.
An October 24 Checkuser Request for AWeidman and several editors with similar POVs was declined.

Your needs and goals

Ralph, please feel free to let me know if you think I'm not helping in the way you need. As discussed below, my initial proposal is to focus the dispute on whether you and Sarner can agree regarding the inclusion of a single source to a single article. In that context, I think it will be easier for me to explain the relevant policies and your options (although you already seem to have good handle on them), and for us both to try to work things out with Sarner, or, if necessary, lay the groundwork for some intervention to resolve the issue. Thanks again, TheronJ 15:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Ralph, have I missed anything important or gotten anything wrong?
Assuming I haven't, my tentative suggestion is that we give dispute resolution one more try, starting over from square one, and that we pick a single issue to open debate on. (I.e., one single source in one single article.) At that point, I will be glad to help you to (1) try our best to reach some consensus with Sarner; and (2) failing that, escalate dispute resolution as far as necessary. Thanks, TheronJ 14:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a good plan. What has been so frustrating for me is the sense that the issue will go on forever, with no "road map," to achieving some solution. This is a good approach. Maybe we could start with looking to achieve agreement on leaving the material on Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy in the Bowlby article "legacy" section. RalphLender^talk 20:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ralph, are you happy with the "Legacy" text the way it is today, or do you want a more detailed explanation of the relationship between Bowlby's work and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy?

Yes, the text in the "Legacy" section of the Bowlby article is just fine. It lists several treatment methodologies that flow from the work of John Bowlby.RalphLender^talk 16:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Reading the article, my first thought is that falling back on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding verification by reliable sources may resolve the dispute finally. If you can find an article or textbook by an expert discussing the relationship between Bowlby and DDS, we can add that citation to the Bowlby article and hopefully resolve the dispute. Thanks, TheronJ 16:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There are several sources in the reference section of the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy article that discuss the relationship between Bowlby's Attachment Theory and DDP, specifically:

Becker-Weidman. Treatment for Children with Trauma-Attachment Disorders: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. 23(2), April 2006
Becker-Weidman, A., & Shell, D., (Eds.) (2005) Creating Capacity For Attachment, Wood 'N' Barnes, OK. ISBN 1-885473-72-9
Becker-Weidman, A., (2006b) Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy: a multi year follow-up. in Sturt, S., (ed) New Developments in Child Abuse Research. NY: Nova
Hughes, Daniel, (2006) Building the Bonds of Attachment, 2nd edition, NY: Guilford Press

I can get a few more by Hughes if necessary. RalphLender^talk 16:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's plenty. If it were up to me, I would rewrite the "Legacy" section so that it clearly attributed comments to sources, something like the following:

Several modern treatment approaches are based in large part on Dr. Bowlby's work. For example:

As discussed by Foo and Bar in their article Dyadic Development Psychotherapy: Thanks a lot, Dr Bowlby!, "Dyadic Development Therapy is essentially based on the concept of 'Attachment' proposed by Bowlby, 1969". [Citation]. See also Baz, Bowlby's Grandchildren - Dyadic Development Psychotherapy, [citation] at page 2.

Do you want to try to write something up that cites to specific pages of a couple articles? If you want, I can create a subpage here for where we can develop a draft. Thanks, TheronJ 21:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

How about the following: 'Several modern treatment approaches are based in large part on Bowlby's attachment theory, incluidng the following: ("Parent-child Psychotherapy"), Stanley Greenspan ("Floor Time"), Daniel Hughes ("Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy")(ref: Becker-Weidman, 2005, "Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy: The Theory" in Creating Capacity for Attachment, (Eds) Arthur Becker-Weidman & Deborah Shell, Wood 'N' Barnes, Oklahoma City, OK, 2005, pp. 7-42.), Mary Dozier (autonomous states of mind), Robert Marvin ("Circle of Security"), Phyllis Jernberg ("Theraplay"), Daniel Schechter (intergenerational communication of trauma), and Joy Osofsky ("Safe Start Initiative").

These approaches used tested techniques which were not only congruent with attachment theory, but with other established principles of child development. In addition, nearly all mainstream approaches for the prevention and treatment of disorders of attachment attachment disorder use attachment theory.' RalphLender^talk 12:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's great. In the Becker-Weidman article, what do they say specifically about Bowlby or attachment theory? (My thought is that the more specific we get, the less there will be to argue about). Thanks! TheronJ 14:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Shotwell has created a page to discuss the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and Advocates for Children in Therapy articles. I'd like you to take a look at that, and my comments there, and let me know what you think and how we should move forward. RalphLender^talk 15:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shotwell/DDP_and_ACT

Related Issue

It now appears that Sarner has disengage and User:shotwell and User:StokerAce have taken up the dispute on the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy article (regarding many of the articles referenced statements), Candace Newmaker regarding unsourced unverified statements, Advocates for Children in Therapy. What is the best way to address these related concerns. It appears to be part of a concerted and organized attack on these as related pages. User StokerAce only became active when Sarner disengaged over the summer and his address is in the same city as Sarner...Shotwell is clearly his own person, but does write and use the same arguments and strategies as Sarner. So, how can we address this...the issue is most heated in the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy article. Thanks. RalphLender^talk 12:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at DDP. I have some overall advice I'm preparing, and should have for you soon. TheronJ 14:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Also take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shotwell/DDP_and_ACT RalphLender^talk 15:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Shotwell is withdrawing his request for mediation 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 22:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

General principles

Ralph, I've looked over John Bowlby and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, and my initial thought is that you and Shotwell may be able to reach some common ground, and that your compromise may even improve the articles. Here are my thoughts on the policies that apply.

Civility: You and Shotwell have been doing a pretty good job keeping cool, and requesting dispute resolution is exactly the way to go. Keep it up!
Dispute resolution and consensus. Per WP:CONSENSUS, "Consensus works best when all editors make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject." The bottom line is that if you and Shotwell both try your best to make sure that any verifiable ideas from the other person's point of view are fairly represented, the article will improve. More specifically, the major policy in question is:
Neutral point of view: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so its goal is to fairly represent all sides of any issue that are verifiable by reliable sources.

My general suggestions to try to resolve the disputes is:

Attribution: In general, if we attribute the claims about DDS to specific authorities, (1) the claims will be more difficult to dispute; and (2) the article will be more helpful to readers. For example, if instead of: "Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is based on principles derived from Attachment theory and research, grounded in the work of Bowlby", we write "According to its developer, Daniel Hughes, and others, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is based on principles derived from Attachment theory and research, grounded in the work of John Bowlby [cite to Hughes and Becker-Weidman]", then (1) the statement will be less controversial, and (2) the ball is in Shotwell's court to come up with verifiable, reliable information countering that.

Do you think that's likely to be helpful? If so, I'll try to work with you, Shotwell, and the other editors at the DDS page to apply the WP principles above. Thanks, TheronJ 14:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the statement that "'Dyadic Developmental Psychotherpay is based on principles derived from Attachment theory and resarch....grounded in the works of Bowlby'" is a valid statement. The sources (articles and texts by Dr. Hughes and Dr. Becker-Weidman) support that statement. As I read other psychology articles, that is usually how things are stated: A statement with citations to support the statement. It would still be in Shotwell's court of come with with verifiable and reliable sources to counter that. RalphLender^talk 18:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that he is the only editor with a concern and there are a number of editors who disgree with him, I am having some difficulty seeing that significant changes are called for. Your thoughts and suggestions would be appreciated on this question. RalphLender^talk 18:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair point, if there is no serious scientific dispute about the statements in Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, then there's no requirement that the statements be attributed. The relevant policies and guidelines are, IMHO:

Neutral point of view: "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. . . Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all."
Verifiability and reliable source.
Dispute resolution

One note, however, is that it's probably not that important how many editors are critical of DDT, unless they can support their criticism by use of verifiable, reliable sources. (On the other hand, even one editor should probably be heard if she has reliable sources for her criticism).

IMHO, if you're confident that the DDP article as it's phrased now is a fair representation of the literature and authorities, we should probably move the ball into Shotwell's court, and ask if he/she has any specific authorities that challenge the statement. If so, we can consider whether there's a way to incorporate those authorities into an appropriate place in the article. If not, we'll have that much more support for any future dispute resolution, including an arbitration case if necessary.

I think I understand things well enough to advocate for you at this point -- Is it ok with you if I appear in some of the mediations and talk pages as your advocate and ask Shotwell & Sarner to explain their sources and policy arguments? Thanks, TheronJ 19:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! Thanks for the quick and thoughtful reply. Actually most editors are supportive of the article as written, based on the references provided. On the DDP talk page a few other editors have already asked him to present his views about that page and all the other related pages/disputes (DDP, Bowlby, Adovcates for Children in Therapy, and Candace Newmaker). He's not yet responded.

Yes, that is fifne if you being to make an appearance in some of the mediations and talk pages as my advocate and to ask for their specific recommendations, suggestions, changes, edits, deletions, etc., and the sources and policies that support what they want. Again, I really do appreciate your help. RalphLender^talk 20:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)