User talk:DPeterson/Attachment Therapy
Talk page regarding article Attachment Therapy. Notes for: -Will Beback ·:·
My initial summary...trying to be brief
[edit]Initially there was a significant amount of conflict regarding the article from the leaders of the advocacy group, ACT. (See Advocates for Children in Therapy). Sarner and others were unilateral in their actions and it required the intervention of several administrators and Wikipedia dispute resolution processes to resolve this and stop their actions. They were found to have violated several Wikipedia policies and practices.
Link to RfC’s and user pages re Sarner. [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]]
Finally a consensus was reached and the article received some ongoing editing via consensus and was improved.
Recently since mid-march and earnestly since mid April Fainites had begun editing the page. After a lengthy process of building consensus, he became dissatisfied that a consensus had changed regarding the definitions, prevelance, and other sections: [[5]] [[6]]
He then brought in StokerAce and tried to re-engage editors who in the past had been disruptive Sarner. StokerAce has a history of being disruptive and contentious with me in the past. See: [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] StokerAce was also thought to be related to or a sockpuppet of Sarner [[10]]
The current problems now involve Fainites increasingly hostile accusations [[11]] as one example. or [[12]] section for another He is also showing an unwillingless to accept consensus on several points such as the Prevelance section and definitions. While I do understand how “pride of authorship,” can cause one to feel upset when one’s hard work is edited, Wikipedia does work on consensus.
Issues: 1.There is consensus regarding these points, accept that. 2. Try to maintain Assume good faith and not make personal attacks. DPetersontalk 18:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)