User talk:Mrm7171

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

May 2013[edit]

Hi, Mrm7171. It looks like you and Iss246 are having some difficulties. Do you know how to use talk pages to discuss conflicts? All you need to do on this page is to click one of the [Edit] buttons towards the top of this page, and type your comment at the end. Then sign your comment by typing ~~~~ at the end of your comment. The Mediawiki software will automagically turn those four tildes into your account name and the date when you click the "Save page" button (towards the bottom, just like on article pages). Then wait for a while until Iss246 notices your explanation.
It would be very helpful if you would click the edit button and explain what changes you believe should be made to these pages, and why. People at the English Wikipedia are very big on WP:Reliable sources like university-level textbooks, so if you have a good book or a journal article that supports your views, then feel free to tell us what that is. Psychology-related articles tend to have a lot of room for improvement, so it would be good to hear from you about ways to improve them. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks WhatamIdoing, i appreciate your genuine comments and suggestions. I am still learning, and have taken the advice of more experienced editor's when provided to me in good faith. I am today working through how to accurately cite/add references to articles and comments based on Wikipedia best practice. Thanks againMrm7171 (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Psychology sidebar[edit]

What you say here is irrelevant to you going ahead againsty ALL other editors with psychology training, and jamming the occ health psych entry into the psychology sidebar. You say above, ..."Fourth, the business about OHP on the sidebar was settled about two years ago." taken from Iss246

No, it was not settled iss246. That is completely false. According to the articile in the psychology sidebar and applied psych sidebar, at least 5 editors completely disagreed with you. That is, no consensus to include. As one of these editors,. stated, you just went ahead and did it anyway.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not altered this page (yet) before others can be brought back in here. Covering up the facts that there was no consensus, does not change anything. You needed consensus to included OHP in the psychology sidebar. This is clearly the main issue here. It has never been resolved. You cannot just jam OHP into the psychology because you want to against all others. If there is consensus direct me and other editors/administrators to the sections where other editors agreed with you doing it. I cannot find consensus for your actions anywhere. Genuinely please show me where. If you cannot OHP needs to be deleting UNTIL we can get consensensus. It has not been deleted. And i wont delete it until others can see the facts first. Mrm7171 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Mrm7171 (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus was never reached on including OHP in the applied psychology sidebar. It is an open contention.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Just so any other readers/editors/administrators can see this is not just my comments, i have taken the liberty of cutting and pasting from the psychology sidebar, another editors summation of the 4 year consensus against occupational health psychology not being placed in the applied psychology sidebar. I encourage anyone else to read the full set of editor' discussions with iss246 over a 4 year period. The fact is, all other editors, ie. the consensus, strongly disagreed with Iss246 including it. He just went ahead and did it anyway! This was DoctorW's final comments, word for word in 2011.....before it seems he also gave up!Mrm7171 (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

"Anyone who reads the Talk page (including the Archive) will see that the consensus is very clear regarding OHP, and that the consensus was that it should not be added to the sidebar. Such readers will see that you doggedly pursued this issue, arguing for it with the tenacity of a fanatic, insisting on getting your way well after losing the argument. They will see that you subsequently added it anyway. It will be impossible readers who understand the conversation to fail to see the contradiction between your reversion of my deletion of it today and your statement here that "a consensus did develop regarding OHP." I have been editing Wikipedia since 2005, but I have never seen a more blatant example. It's hard to know what to say. I could obviously write a much stronger rebuke that shows great indignation and characterizes your action very unfavorably, but I will leave it at that. -DoctorW 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)"

Occupational Health Psychology[edit]

Thank you for inviting editors to talk on your talk page. This is a good way to work.

At 10:58, May 26, 2013, you changed the following sentence: "Occupational health psychology is concerned with psychosocial characteristics of the workplace," to read as "Occupational health psychology is concerned with psychosocial characteristics of the workplace, as is the broader field of I/O psychology."

I don't think the change is necessary. Here are my reasons:

1. The opening sentence of the paragraph already indicates that OHP was born out of the confluence of i/o Ψ, health Ψ, and occupational health. The debt to i/o has already been acknowledged. Here is the opening sentence: The opening sentence of the paragraph reads as follows: "Occupational health psychology' (OHP) emerged out of two distinct applied disciplines within psychology, health psychology and industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology, as well as occupational health [1]

  1. ^ Everly, G. S., Jr. (1986). An introduction to occupational health psychology."

2. Your addition makes it seem as if OHP is a narrow subfield of i/o Ψ when it is not. Health Ψ was born out of clinical Ψ, but health Ψ is not a subfield of clinical Ψ. I/o Ψ was born out of social Ψ and psychometrics; however i/o Ψ is not a subfield of social Ψ and psychometrics.

3. I/O Ψ has been dominated by concerns, and rightly so, with such topics as job analyses, personnel recruitment, organizational culture, and so on. I/O-related research on health has been far less common. On reason why i/o psychologists have jumped over to OHP (along with experimental psychologists, health psychologists, and occupational physicians and nurses) is that they are concerned with work and health.

4. I/o Ψ is not broader. It is different. OHP is concerned with blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, the impact of unemployment on health, work-home-stress carryover. It is different. It's not broader or narrower. It's different. That is all. Social Ψ is different from i/o Ψ although i/o has roots in social Ψ.

I know you made a second change while I was writing this, I am going to leave this comment here.

Maybe we can hear from some of the other Wikipedia editors who have posted on your page.Iss246 (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, at 12:20, May 26, 2013, you wrote: "We do need to talk iss246, about this entry and indeed OHP being a separate field within applied psych. Let me know before either changes anything. thanks "

I have written to you above. I will transpose what I wrote above, to the spot below. Please reply.Iss246 (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the change is necessary. Here are my reasons:

1. The opening sentence of the paragraph already indicates that OHP was born out of the confluence of i/o Ψ, health Ψ, and occupational health. The debt to i/o has already been acknowledged. Here is the opening sentence: The opening sentence of the paragraph reads as follows: "Occupational health psychology' (OHP) emerged out of two distinct applied disciplines within psychology, health psychology and industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology, as well as occupational health [1]

  1. ^ Everly, G. S., Jr. (1986). An introduction to occupational health psychology."

2. Your addition makes it seem as if OHP is a narrow subfield of i/o Ψ when it is not. Health Ψ was born out of clinical Ψ, but health Ψ is not a subfield of clinical Ψ. I/o Ψ was born out of social Ψ and psychometrics; however i/o Ψ is not a subfield of social Ψ and psychometrics.

3. I/O Ψ has been dominated by concerns, and rightly so, with such topics as job analyses, personnel recruitment, organizational culture, and so on. I/O-related research on health has been far less common. On reason why i/o psychologists have jumped over to OHP (along with experimental psychologists, health psychologists, and occupational physicians and nurses) is that they are concerned with work and health.

4. I/o Ψ is not broader. It is different. OHP is concerned with blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, the impact of unemployment on health, work-home-stress carryover. It is different. It's not broader or narrower. It's different. That is all. Social Ψ is different from i/o Ψ although i/o has roots in social Ψ.Iss246 (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Iss246

I/O was first established in the 1880s. It was not born out of social psych. I/O subsumes any study of any topic relating to work and psychology. Thus the name work psychology. It is very broad. I/O psych has always studied work stress. In fact, modern theories of stress have evolved from I/O psych.

I/O is moving toward OHS and work safety, that is true. I don't see the point. Are you trying to say OHP invented work stress? Which areas of OHP do you see as being distinct from the broad 1880s field of work psychology? I/O psychs, have been studying every aspect you have mentioned above for decades. I can prove it to you. The researchers would have defined themselves as work psychologists in one form or another.look forward to your points. I do not accept your logic so far. Nor do i accept that our profession or the field of psychology would benefit from substantial duplication.

Talk pages[edit]

Congratulations on starting to figure out how to use talk pages. It's lot like editing an article. To reply to a comment, just click the [edit] button and put your reply in a separate paragraph after theirs. Help:Using talk pages has more details.

The Wikimedia Foundation has plans to create a much less confusing talk page system, but it may be several months or even next year before it's ready to be tested. So for now, just do your best, and if the formatting isn't perfect, then someone else will fix it for you. For right now, I suggest that you click here, and that should (I hope!) let you add your message underneath the most recent ones from Iss246. Type your comments underneath (sort of like adding your comments when you reply to someone else's e-mail message), and save the page. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, this is great that we can have this discussion.

I never said OHP invented work stress. Please don't put words in my mouth. Stanislav Kasl wrote an important article (actually a book chapter) on stress and work in 1978, before occupational health psychology was a term.[1]. There is a journal named Work & Stress that was founded before the name occupational health psychology had any currency. It was Kasl in the 1978 paper cited above who pointed out that the term "stress" is problematic because it can mean at least three different things, the environment, the individual's reaction to the environment, or the circuit of environment and the individual's reaction to it. We use the term stress more because it is evocative rather than a precise term.

You date i/o psychology to the 1880s. That is a little too early. Some thinkers believe i/o psychology began in 1901 with Walter Dill Scott's work on improving the effectiveness of advertising. Others suggest that Hugo Munsterberg fathered the field with his 1913 book on psychological efficiency in the work place. Munsterberg is part of the Taylorist tradition, which flies in the face of OHP. Ironically, you can say, i/o psychology always studied work stress because Munsterberg's efforts, like Taylor's, caused so much stress in workers--I am using the term stress evocatively here.

Social psychology comes into the picture because i/o psychology is very much concerned with social influence in the workplace. For example, research on leadership owes a debt to social psychology. Leadership is one of the bread-and-butter areas of research in i/o psychology. You can also see the influence of social psychology as the human relations movement took hold in some corners of i/o psychology. The journal Human Relations was founded by social psychologists and psychoanalytically oriented psychologists at the Tavistock Institute in the late 1940s. Of course, i/o psychology owes a great deal--an enormous amount--to psychometric psychology: selection tests, performance appraisal, etc.

Bear in mind that i/o psychology is an applied discipline. Like engineering. The basic science comes from somewhere else. Physics and chemistry provide a foundation for engineering. Social psychology and psychometric psychology provide a foundation for i/o psychology. This is not an insult to i/o psychology. That is what an applied discipline is. It applies principles from basic science. OHP is also an applied discipline. Its foundation is built on i/o psychology, health psychology, occupational health, and, I dare say, with its burgeoning interest in the influence of psychosocial working conditions on cardiovascular disease (CVD), internal medicine. I add at the recent Work, Stress, and Health conference in Los Angeles there were several papers that concerned the relation of psychosocial working conditions to CVD.

I wondered if you are a college student, which I think is great. I'm a college professor who writes and lectures on OHP, a topic I love. I did not come out of i/o psychology although I have OHP colleagues who have a background in i/o. I come out of developmental psychology and epidemiology. I think it is great that you have so much passion for i/o psychology. I had a hypothesis that you became very interested in i/o psychology, and plan to have a career in it, for which I wish great success.

Please don't get upset if I tweak the opening of the OHP Wikipedia entry. Iss246 (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks iss246...firstly please don't change or undo any edits as the OHP entry currently stands, until we can resolve this situation, and come to a mutual agreement. You are much more experienced with wikipedia. I don't want to be involved in an 'edit war,' now I understand a little more about wikipedia. Please don't be upset about this request to simply discuss things with me, before you go ahead and start undoing my edits again please. thankyou. will respond more fully when I can.

Also, I am not a student. Have many years experience with what I'm talking about and the profession. Importantly please iss246, you have not responded to my point about not creating "duplication within psychology." This is particularly important as it relates to the entry of OHP as a distinct field of applied psychology and currently listed in the sidebar. If you don't engage in a discussiuon relating to the psychology sidebar i am going to edit it accordingly based on Wikipedia best practice and trustr you won't just again delete or 'undo' my entry, given you have not wanted to engage in discussion here. My underrstanding is that would be disruiptive and I want nothing of an edit war please ISS246, I'm sorry.

Please don't get upset over this but I am slowly learning the rules that a very long term user like yopurself already knew and perhaps takes advantage of? Discuss with me here instead, like you professed please ISS246, rather than deleting my entry i am going to make with the applied psychology sidebasr which corrently includes OHP. This is very contentious, and does nothing good for the science or application of psychology as it is not. I can prove this as far as an overall acceptance and standard within the psychology profession. That is, not 're-inventing the wheel' so to speak.

Work Psychology, is in fact, 'anything' involving work and human behaviour (psychology) as I'm sure you would agree ISS246 being a psychology professor. As such I/O or Work psychology is the overarching, major discipline within psychology, which deals with anything involving work and psychology. This is an accepted fact. Please don't pigeon hole this broad field of applied and psychology by inserting only recruitment, job deign etc..its simply not a valid argument and appears to come from a limited knowledge of the profession and professional and research based work psychology. Please ISS246 instead offer any evidence, empirical or otherwise, to refute this statement above, first of all. Then we can move through this logically. As I am concerned your obvious passion for OHP is somewhat blurring the objective facts here... with all due respect and as sometimes happens.


Mrm7171, I appreciate your placing these words on my page, Categories:Added new comments. I thank you, but there is no such category. In Wikipedia, the term category has a specific meaning in the context of the regular entries, that is regular entries that bear on some over-arching category. The psychology entry lists three categories on bottom of the page, psychology, neuroscience, and behavioural science. Go to category:psychology, and you will see many subcategories and links to psychology-related entries.Iss246 (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Another thing you may want to consider is your User page. This is your user talk page. You also have a user page, which I noticed is blank. Editorial questions get hashed out here. The user page is a little different. On your user page, you can write about yourself, your interests. What you bring to Wikipedia.Iss246 (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

okay thanks...still learning...just want to comply with wikipedia's rules...anyway have left detailed comments for you iss246. We need to work through this logically with our heads and the objective facts. how things are in psychology not how we would like them to be. As I said, please don't make changes until we have fully discussed all of these matters. That's the main thing, and that we dont come close to edit warring. Hope this sounds fair.

It is very clear that all other editors for a long time, clearly objected to you plaing ocuupational health psychology on this page under applied psychology?

Anyone in the wikipedia community, is encouraged please, to view the history over 4 years between you and other editors disagreeing, sometimes very strongly on the psychology talk page over this exact matter of placing ohp into the sidebar against the wishes of everyone else. You just went ahead and added it in anyway.

Then when it was deleted by other editors, (rightly so, if against all of their wishes), you undid the deletion and so it goes on....and seems to have gone on for years and years, this pattern.

This critical issue of deciding on the deletion of occupational health psychology from the psychology sidebar, should be decided by an independent process here not a single editor. Clearly. That is the only fair way and consistent with Wikipedia principles.

Please understand that I do not wish to personally engage in edit war with you. Please stop also your personal attacks toward me and focus on the deletion of the occupational health psychology entry and the long and checkered history it has so far. All I can ask is that you stop undoing my edits and participate here please. That's up to you obviously. This is not a private website but instead is a community project and has no room for personal agendas, Thank you. Mrm7171 (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mrm7171,
I'm glad that you're figuring out Wikipedia a bit more. It really is complicated—perhaps even overly complicated.
I don't know much about this issue at all, but I do know something about Wikipedia: we care more about what published, reliable sources say than about what individuals like you and me believe to be true. So rather than just saying "IO is not social psychology" (or whatever), the path to successful resolution is usually to find and list some recent, reliable sources that say this. Then its not just Editor #1 saying "No, it isn't!" and Editor #2 saying "Yes, it is!" The more gold-plated the source, the better. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

− As is required of dispute resolution, my understanding is that thorough discussion, on article talk pages, needs to have occurred first, before seeking it, given limited resources. My request will be for the sake of objectivity, and the greater interests of the community, to have articles free from bias, political endeavors, be current, accurate and based strongly on 'group consensus,' on these important articles posted on the www and all other Wikipedia articles. I have not, and will not enter into an edit war or delete other's work, but expect the same respect. This is Wikipedia, not individual's own websites Mrm7171 (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Iss246, it was simply an objective 'copy and paste, of all the editor's you have fought with and avoided coming to any consensus with since 2008. That was all. If that is not allowed on a talk page, for editors to more easily review, fair enough.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi itszippy. Thanks for your suggesstions above. But as an administrator, I am asking your opinion and direction over a separate matter, where i have a major concern about iss246's personal attacks toward me, over an extended period, and completely false and baseless, ongoing accusations of bad faith toward me, which have not stopped, from iss246. Iss246's most recent angry tirade, he left on the talk page, came after i attempted to provide readers and other editors a straightforward 'transcript' of the last 5 years of discussions, iss246 has had with many editors, and most recently with me, about the applied psychology page. Anyway, that aside, the serious concerns I have relate to the ongoing multiple personal attacks iss246 has made, I've had enough, and I now don't think they will stop, as iss246 has been warned multiple times, and as a very long term active user of Wikipedia, he clearly knows the rules on personal attack, and protocol of Wikipedia, and blatantly ignores it. His comments remain on talk pages. Iss246 also continues to ask about me personally and only want to focus on me instead of us discussing the edits and coming to some compromises, which now need dispute resolution. He has recently made comments and assumptions, on the talk pages, about my country of origin, my gender, my efforts on Wikipedia etc. I have also kept requesting they stop, but iss246 ignores these requests. I am considering disputre resolution now, but what do you suggest regarding this personal abuse and constantly seeking my identity, qualifications, gender etc? What can be done? Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Learning your way around Wikipedia[edit]

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm! Face-smile.svg

If you haven't looked around Wikipedia very much for help and advice on editing, you probably missed this manual and this overview. I wish someone had pointed them out to me when I first started editing. --Ronz (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz. Appreciate the information. The other editor iss246 has just gonme straight ahead and deleted your trimmed version which is where consensus was before I had a chance to add a great source? So, not sure what to do. Mrm7171 (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Find sources. There's no rush. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz. I was in the process of reading your information sent to me and had found a great source. I would have added any source much earlier, but the conversation with you, as a fellow editor, indicated getting the best source? Then, while i was doing that, wham, bam in came iss246, and blanketed mine, and yours, and other editors hard work. Without any discussion. Again. I calmy re-typed, yours/my combined edit, ie. your accepted through consensus, trimmed edit. Bang, iss246 deleted again. Then wham, I was blocked.

The minor addition, with the source I found, is much needed by the way, contextually, and of real value to Wikipedia readers interested in this professional psychology article with a long, long history between iss246 since 2008, with numerous other editors who obviously gave up, through exhaustion, and now me in 2013. It is obviously a very important professional debate. If interested read the 'walls and walls' of debate between iss246 and many other editors since 2007/2008 in the archives.

Anyway, I would be interested in your feedback? Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Any source is a good start. It gives everyone something to work from. --Ronz (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

My perspective has been to present the facts, not my way, just the facts as I understand them at least, regarding the current international status quo on these issues in psychology. Unfortunately in my attempts I think I have come across pretty poorly, to other Wikipedians who may, or may not be familiar with the topics we were discussing and much of what I was saying was unsourced due to my lack of editing and technical skills at the time. Apologies for that. Anyway for what it's worth, there it all is.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Relationship to I/O psychology section[edit]

I have had no clear advice on how to re-introduce this brief section? So based on everything I now know about Wikipedia protocol I have 'tentatively' added it, subject to other editor's input, and now with numerous sources added, based on current literature available in the field.

However I need to make my perspective clear as far as this minor edit goes and moving forward. That is, if after making this addition, if another editor wishes to delete it, I may not agree, (given the significant reasoning and basis for it I have now presented), but I will NOT undo or revert that editor's delete. I say this so as to maintain civility and working toward a consensus on this whole article, rather than going back over past discussions. I also will not enter into edit warring over this. That defeats the purpose of Wikipedia and works against group consensus and "ideally on a version that everyone involved can agree on, and as a second best a version which everyone involved is willing to accede to." as JamesBWatson recently stated very succinctly.

Alternatively it may be that my brief addition (and the basis for it outlined below), is okay with other editors? In that case, it could remain? as it is very well sourced. However that is my opinion, based on the current published literature in the field of psychology.

I also believe and have attempted a compromise on this matter. Although this Wikipedia article it is a very confusing one, in my opinion and based on the long history iss246 has had, with many editors over the years (since 2009?) so my addition tries to provide both perspectives.

That is, it gives I/O psychology the credit for its major contributions to the psychology of occupational health, safety and wellbeing. Particularly in the area of occupational stress. And it also separates what seems to me now, that 'OHP' governed by a couple of societies, is an entirely distinct area from psychology profession that being the 'OHP' profession. This is based on iss246's insistence that 'OHP' is a multidisciplinary field, not part of the formal psychology profession. 'OHP' and the 2 groups, SOHP & EA-0HP involves as iss246 have stated, nurses, sociologists, doctors, economists, engineers etc.

Whereas psychology is psychology. And I/O psychology is I/O psychology.

It is just that 'OHP' and I/O psychology both study and apply the same areas, primarily work stress and the psychology of occupational health and wellbeing.

So based on all of this, my reasons for today's re-inclusion of this brief section follows and can also be found on the article's talk page.

Given the significant past and growing contributions of I/O psychology to occupational health, wellbeing and safety, I have re-included a brief entry in the article index that had been deleted as it was not sourced at the time. This current entry was the one edited/cleaned by three other independent editors. However it is now heavily sourced, with 4 citations included. Although I/O psychology is as iss246 states, in the first paragraph, this entry is still much needed, given I/O psychology's significant importance to the areas of work stress, particularly.

Also the bulk/majority of postgraduate programs, that do carry units/subjects in occupational health psychology, are part of, a Doctoral program in I/O psychology at various universities as specialised units. Whereas no Doctoral program in OHP currently exists in the world. Students receive their qualification in I/O psychology after completing these courses. Leaving this out from the article for all of these reasons now it is sourced, and very brief, does not make sense. It provides context to the study of occupational health psychology and adds genuine value to Wikipedia.

I look forward to any other editors genuine comments and input toward a group consensus, and or resolution and then moving forward! I have also been working on improving the I/O psychology article. Most recently collaborating and working with other editors, on the occupational stress section of the article, which I believe is now very well sourced and reads well. I intend to continue these efforts.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. What you added looks fine to me. The issue of dispute in the past was whether or not OHP is just a topic within I/O or was a separate subfield. You are correct that most (but not all) OHP graduate training takes place within an I/O program. I don't object to adding something like that in this section. I wonder though if it would fit better in a section on training in OHP that would talk about how/where one gets trained in OHP. Psyc12 (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Occupational health psychology, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Ibadibam (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Ibadibam, will only use minor edits as appropriate in future.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments on Civility[edit]

I recommend you get leave the article alone, stop focusing on other editors, and choose a new dispute resolution method to follow from WP:DR. I think I saw someone mention mediation. I'm not sure there's been enough attempts at noticeboards or the like, but it's worth a try if you feel it's best. --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Ronz. Tried the approach you suggested, by taking the time to clearly outline the few issues of difference in the article. I thought you made a pretty good suggestion to get things resolvede in a civil manner.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community has never placed civility as high as the relevant policies/guidelines/etc suggest. The community is mixed on what civility is, how important it is, and how it should be enforced. My suggestion, which I try to follow, is to be civil yourself, don't expect nearly as much civility from others as you'd like, focus on content rather than individuals and their behavior, and take time to deescalate behavioral problems when they get disruptive (even if it means putting aside content disputes in the meantime). --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

That is a shame. Consensus should be reached in a civil manner. But thanks for your input Ronz. Its appreciated.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, Mrm7171, I am very glad to see you removing un-necessary praise in Wikipedia's voice for quoted studies. If sources are of poor-quality, we shouldn't use them in the first place. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

And, as a general comment, this article seems to be overloaded with details about what exactly OHP researchers have done, and how they have done it. For example, I'd be happy to mention that OHP has used both qualitative and quantitative research methods, with a hatnote, but the two present sections on the subjects seem overblown. What do others think? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Mrm7171 made some apt edits. I tip my hat to him. I'm not absolutely sure with regard to my thinking about the research methods section but on balance my thinking is that the section is helpful to readers because the section, which includes internal links, gives a reasonable idea of the tools OHP researchers employ when investigating the relation of psychosocial workplace factors to disease. Iss246 (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. However, to my eye, the section is not really what I'd find most useful in an encyclopedia, and were I to take to wikilawyering (perish the thought), I might think that it relies rather too much on primary sources. Will you indulge me, if I try a bold edit, by leaving it for a few days to get other opinions? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The occupational health psychology article is still very bloated and overloaded in my opinion as well.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi psyc12, have just left a reply on itszippy's page. Sorry you could not be more compromising over this article. I was willing as my post to you clearly showed. There is a lot of evidence of me being personally attacked and I will take the time to show exactly what has occurred, based on diffs, and quite frankly I have had enough. Dispute resolution is now the only way to get some neutrality and much needed changes and additions to this Wikipedia article and streamline as Richardkeatinge suggested, research sections of this overloaded article written entirely by one editor. The article requires some significant changes. We are talking about psychology and psychologists here and many of the views presented are not supported in published reliable sources, nor are views held by the international psychology community. These are important matters and this article is terribly biased and I wish only to make it a better article for Wikipedia.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Occupational Health Psychology[edit]

Unfortunately this topic of occupational health psychology has been the issue of a very very long debate between iss246, and other editors since 2008 and on several different articles including the debate iss246 had with 5 or 6 other editors over the applied psychology sidebar issue. I only entered the scene in 2013. Readers can read the archive dating back to 2008 with iss246 battling it out with other good faith editors editors here:

Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1

I have not wanted to expend Wikipedia resources, but feel that the only way forward now is to stand back and have someone completely 'independent' sort this dispute out. As Wikipedia says: "Multiple-editor ownership. The involvement of multiple editors, each defending the ownership of the other, can be highly complex. The simplest scenario usually comprises a dominant editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership. This is often informally described as a tag team, and can be frustrating to both new and seasoned editors. As before, address the topic and not the actions of the editors. If this fails, proceed to dispute resolution, but it is important to communicate on the talk page and attempt to resolve the dispute yourself before escalating the conflict resolution process.

There are a small number of points I have ready for dispute resolution and then everyone can move on. Primarily that other major, published sources are able to be cited in the article or at the least an opportunity to present them in a fair objective neutral environment. I am positive now that we have exhausted all attempts to resolve it in a civil manner. When members are all representing the same viewpoint, for example from the same 'community' like the OHP community, their edits cannot count as independent.

Much has been achieved through persistence in the article to date. But more needs to be done. And I feel the only way forward now is to step back and initiate formal dispute resolution. Mrm7171 (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Feel free. But in general, the only way you will get any useful result from dispute resolution is to have a specific issue to resolve. You need to be able to clearly state "this is the source I want to use, to add this claim". If you can't do that, you won't have much luck with most of the process. - Bilby (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It is complex when ownership behavior is at play. The other difficulty here is that iss246 enlisted support outside of Wikipedia at a crucial point in June this year. One of the many editors who suddenly all 'joined up' and then ganged up on me, was psyc12. All of the others have dropped off. Psyc12 has remained.

Iss246 & psyc12 are not independent editors. They are close friends, outside of Wikipedia and part of the small OHP society. Iss246 has also used Wikipedia:Canvassing to help support his viewpoint. Given that occurred and iss246 went to those lengths already, who knows if another long term Wikipedia editor, who is also affiliated in some way with the 'OHP' societies, outside of Wikipedia, has also been canvassed Bilby?

So, I think standing back and getting formal dispute resolution is the only way forward.Mrm7171 (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

All other editors iss246 has battled with since 2008 have fallen by the wayside. I don't say any of this lightly.Mrm7171 (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view??[edit]

I have attempted to bring some NPOV to this section in the third paragraph, we have been discussing. Journals such as Organizational Behavior, founded by Cary Cooper, as well as major international journals like the European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology which similar to the work & stress journal covers many occupational health related topics including work stress, coping, occupational health, bullying etc and should be represented in this article.

The 2 smaller journals that are 'associated' with the 2 'OHP societies' should not be the only journals mentioned in this article on occupational health psychology just because they are 'associated' with the 2 'OHP societies'. That is not NPOV in my opinion. I realize I run the risk of editors like psyc12 & iss246, both members of this "OHP society" and close friends outside of Wikipedia, attacking me again, and 'muddying the waters' on this issue, simply because I am trying to bring in some NPOV, but that is why I have opened a formal dispute resolution process.

Occupational health psychology the topic of this article, does NOT equate to the '2 OHP societies.' Occupational health psychology is a valid area of study within psychology. It does not belong to the 2 'OHP societies' and only a restricted set of published sources used. The publisher of work & stress even states their journal is directed at occupational health psychologists, work and organizational psychologists, those involved with organizational development, and all those concerned with the interplay of work, health, and organizations.Mrm7171 (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I may be beginning to grasp the nature of your concerns. I am not a professional psychologist and I am looking to this article to provide an encyclopedic overview of current OHP, a newly-defined subdiscipline. Since the societies have done so much to define OHP in the first place I would not be surprised to see references to them or to work published by them. I don't see a need to define every overlap with other subdisciplines either in journals used, in training, or in subject matter; I would simply expect that such overlaps exist and might be alluded to if relevant. I wouldn't ever have expected OHP work to be published in just two journals though it strikes me as reasonable to mention two journals that do focus on OHP. I wouldn't want to see a list of other journals in the article, I don't think it's even important enough for a specific external link, though in a reference, as we now have it, it may be useful. In short, to the extent that I understand your concerns, I don't find them particularly useful to an encyclopedic article.
In Wikipedia terms these issues are not mainly a matter of NPOV, but of good writing skills, appropriate weight, and editorial judgement expressed through consensus. I hope for your contributions in these forms. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I beg to differ RK, although I understand your points made. My aim in this article is to present the major published reliable sources and in this case major contributors to the field of occupational health psychology topics. Take the clinical psychology article for example. The main published reliable sources, journals and books are mentioned throughout. If only 2 journals associated with 2 Clin psych societies were mentioned to the exclusion of all others it would be a very biased psychology article. I'm positive medicine is the same. In this psychology article the sentence says: "There are two journals that focus closely on OHP research Journal of Occupational Health Psychology and Work & Stress" Full stop. That is just not true, there are several other major reliable sources which also focus closely on occupational health psychology topics. My view is that a few of them should also be mentioned in that section. I thought the way I re-wrote it was pretty diplomatic. I hope that makes more sense RK? I would be interested in your comments?Mrm7171 (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No reply from any editors to my good faith comments above relating to the editing of this biased occupational health psychology article?

Invitation to discuss content not behavior[edit]

Hi RK. I have had the 2 'content' questions on the base of the talk page for a day or 2 now. If interested in adding your comments, please do. I am only interested in discussing content, moving forward and making this article what Wikipedia wants it to be. I'm sure you would want a Medical article to be just as encyclopedic. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC) RK, when you have time, could you please assist with archiving some of the talk page as has been done previously for edits older than 30 days. I have tried but failed in my own attempts and lack of technical competence with code. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi RK. You just deleted without discussion, 2 reliable sources. In other parts of the article there are 4 sources for a statement. The two sources were not needed to be removed. Do we really need to go to an administrator just to get this ridiculous situation sorted? There were originally 10, now you remove all of them? and say no reliable sources are needed? Wikipedia is based on reliable sources RK. Please feel free to reply on my talk page or the article talk page, as required.Mrm7171 (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary could you please discuss before 'blindly reverting' without any discussion, only days after dispute resolution and with obvious editor conflicts on the OHP article. I would appreciate it if you undid your revert please RK. So we may have a civil discussion first. I will not engage in edit warring and therefore have not reverted it again. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it was necessary. - Bilby (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
How was pointing out with a reliable source, that the Society for Occupational Health Psychology is a paid or commercial 'sponsor' of a conference. Wikipedia is about facts and reliable sources. Any organization, if they pay money to sponsor someone or something can put their name to it. Why do you not want Wikipedia readers to know the truth that this Society for Occupational Health Psychology pays' for all of its publicity?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
This is better handled on the talk page. At pointed out there, though, you have not provided a source stating that they are a paid sponsor. You have presented a source stating that they are a co-convenor of the conference, and a sponsor along with the two other co-convenors. This does not necessarily entail that the sponsorship is financial. - 00:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The American Psychological Association has confirmed that the sponsorship was 'paid' for financially. That is the Society for Occupational Health Psychology pays money for all their publicity. The reliable source was actually clearly posted on the talk page too? In fact, I just used the single word sponsor in the article, not even sponsor (commercial) as you insisted. I was wondering why it was deleted without any discussion or reasons provided, that's all? Here it is again and sponsors are clearly on the right hand side. It is just one word? Why do you and other members and affiliates of the OHP society, desperately not want readers to know the truth that Society for Occupational Health Psychology pays money for their publicity? That's okay, you are probably also connected to the Society for Occupational Health Psychology similar to all of the other editors? That's your business Bilby. That's fine, will continue this discussion on the talk page then. Probably better that you also don't post on my talk page then, like you have been doing in the past. That would be appreciated too. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes[edit]

I will not engage in edit warring with you iss246. The minor 'good faith' changes I made were based on Wikipedia policies. I stand by that. The edit history can clearly see that. I have not engaged with you, by getting into an edit war. I will not. I asked you to please discuss why you were 'blindly reverting' my changes again today, and this time all within 30 minutes, and on no less than 5 separate occasions. I will not comment on you personally. I am commenting on your violation of Wikipedia policy. I will leave the interpretation of your conduct today to the administrator's of Wikipedia. I regret that you continue to engage in edit warring and attempting to drag me into an edit war with you. I will not. I wish to keep editing on this article civil and based only on content and Wikipedia policies.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply to iss246's defamation[edit]

On iss246's talk page he has this fielth still posted. Nice guy!Mrm7171 (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"Here is what we know about you Mrm7171. You are an internet troll. You have a bachelor's degree. If you earned a degree, I don't think the degree came with much distinction. You don't have a Ph.D. You didn't complete a post-doc in anything. You like i/o psychology perhaps because you took a course in it. You think you are smart but you lack understanding. I write that you lack understanding because you selectively ignore what I write. For example, I write that Tom earned a Ph.D. in behavioral pharma yet you ignore that fact although the fact is in Tom's page on LinkedIn. Or you assert I don't like Tom because I objected to your using a reference found in a blog. That does not translate to dislike. But you did the translating (better to call it mistranslating; intentional mistranslating). Good thing you don't work as a translate or at the U.N., then you would really ball things up. You are not that smart." courtesy of iss246

Wow, thank you so much iss246, for your kind words. For the record. No, I am not a troll. I also do hold a Doctorate in Psychology and almost 30 years experience. But really, who cares! Seriously I don't care. Nor is that relevant. In fact, unlike many others I have known I don't even use my Dr title anytime. The only reason I mention this now, on my own talk page, is that iss246 refuses to delete his defamatory, baseless, childish comments about me above still posted on your talk page. So, self defence I guess.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines re: Bold[edit]

Please read the talk page guidelines about using bolding in comments. (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, no problems. Thanks for the bold section. Very rarely have i usede capitals. After being personally abused by another editor iss246 for almost a year I was using capitals on a number of occassions out of frustration. Only human. Won't use capitals again. Will also read section on bolding as i often see very experienced editors using bold quite often. But thanks will read guidelines carefully. Cheers.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not know about you using capitals. I was reading AN/I and felt my eyes glaze over when I came to your all-bold comments. I find it difficult to engage with someone who is textually shouting at me; apparently this difficulty is wide-spread enough to get put into the talk page guidelines (" may appear the equivalent of the writer raising his voice"). Good luck. (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, fair enough. Apologies again. That was not my intention.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a further reply to the editor,, who pointed out Wikipedia policy on bolding. I think this editor was quite genuine with me and fair minded. I think also this editor sounds like they respect Wikipedia rules. As soon as this editor sent me a message I apologized for my genuine error. I also did not continue to use bold text anywhere. I had genuinely thought that this was okay, as I have seen it elsewhere with more experienced editors. Can only learn. And change editing behavior. My opinion is that once something like that is pointed out, if an editor reads the Wikipedia guidelines and then abides by them, and it was a genuine good faith error, like it was with me, I think an editor should given some credit. But hey.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

I apologize for my comments toward iss246. After 3 months of him maintaining the defamatory, baseless comments left on his talk page, and even after I had corrected their validity. I also apologize and can see the fault in me mis-using the talk page on the health psychology article, by creating a separate header on the talk page, drawing attention to iss246 continuing the personalization rather than editing.

After User talk:Beeblebrox made a number of wise comments to us both and I directly quote these comments after iss246 complained over me calling iss246 a "troll":

"I am not at all sure why this has been brought to my talk page, but I will provide some advice for the both of you: Stop calling each other names, including "troll" or engaging in other personal attacks. That is never the way to solve a dispute, be it on or off wiki.

Consider pursuing some form of dispute resolution Just to re-iterate, claiming any sort of real-life credential is irrelevant as we rely on reliable sources, not personal expertise. Consider whether this is really worth arguing over or if it might just be time for both of you to let it go hope this helps. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to take Beeblebrox's excellent advice and request formal dispute resolution instead. However iss246 ignored Beeblebrox's sound advice and took calling iss246 a troll to the Administrator's noticeboard.

Thank you AnthonyBradbury your comments made sense. The issues I raised relate to the ANI thread still remaining open. Both Erpert, NEEnt, and now you as an administrator have said that the matter is 'closed.'

False, baseless claims[edit]

Despite me being blocked 5 days ago and despite Erpert closing the thread and stating no further comments, another editor whatamidoing, removed that and continued making false, baseless claims, quoting inaccurate details, that could easily be proved false and baseless. Further, entirely separate matters, to what my block was for, are now being discussed 'after' I was blocked. Without me having an opportunity to present clear contrary evidence based purely on the objective editing history. And have a fair minded neutral and independent administrator to judge both sides.

These editors knew there was a ANI thread, but did not comment for 2 days until I was blocked. After I was blocked they then and only then, stuck the boot in, without any facts to back up their false claims. They may have waited until I was blocked because these baseless claims would have been proven false immediately, through me providing diffs and objective facts to the contrary. In fact, they only ceased when I asked for a temporary unblock above to respond! They would have kept 'hammering away' with baseless false claims, providing no facts to back them up and all the while, me being unable to provide the facts.

I have made some very solid edits to numerous articles. I respect Wikipedia. I respect Wikipedia's policies. I accept the reasons for my current block and would appreciate, after such a significant period, ie. 2 full weeks, to start afresh and be provided an assumption of good faith in my editing rather than editors judging me already. I think all editors, after being blocked should be given the benefit of the doubt. Not to have this thrown in their face for ever more. That's not right.

I know a lot about some topics. Very little about other topics. My reliable sources have good. My editing and additions have been good. Productive in many different articles. I completely reject being 'incompetent' as whatamidoing states, without me being able to respond. Simply because of differing points of view. I understand whatamidoing and Bilby are very experienced editors who have made great contributions to Wikipedia as editors. No-one is disputing that. They obviously gain a great deal of enjoyment from the project too! Does that provide these editors 'unequal' rights over less experienced editors who are also adding value to the project? Where they can make false baseless assumptions? I realise I have had some previous conflict with the same small group of editors in the past. But that says nothing about my edits being productive and of benefit to the project.

I believe strongly in the principles of assuming good faith amongst editors. I did not think blocks were punitive whereby other editors can 'mock' the person who has been blocked? Nor are blocks an opportunity to make false, entirely baseless assumptions about an editor's competence. Is the ANI thread closed or is it not closed please AnthonyBradbury? I am hesitant to ask this through a formal request unblocking request. So could an administrator tell me if this ANI thread that was abruptly re-opened by whatamidoing, after the block was already applied, and the thread closed?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion at WP:ANI#Name calling is not "closed". Many discussions there aren't officially "closed". Erpert's close was a WP:Non-admin closure, which can be reversed by pretty much anyone for pretty much any plausible reason. I reverted it because his closure was explicitly predicated on the erroneous belief that the people commenting did not know that you were blocked. While I can't comment on other participants, I only learned of the ANI discussion because of your block, so I did know that you were blocked when I made my comments there.
I certainly do not believe that you are incompetent at everything. However, I believe that there are things you are not good at and will likely never be good at. That's true for all of us: I am simply not capable of being a good violinist. Some people are equally not capable of working productively on the English Wikipedia.
By "productive", I mean "your edits to articles aren't reverted".

Mass Deletion of my edits which had remained in articles for months begins[edit]

Wow, that's a bit harsh whatamidoing, especially when your friend iss246&psyc12 frantically began their mass 'deleting' of all my content, within an hour of me being blocked, even though my content was NOT why I was blocked. (see reasons for block section below).

In fact, since my block 6 days ago, Iss246 (and his close friend, outside of Wikipedia, psyc12) immediately, frantically and systematically reverted 'masses' of established, reliably sourced edits, only hours after I was blocked. In fact, every single edit that I, through consensus, had ever established and stayed in place. These were very well sourced, solid edits. Many of these edits in numerous articles had been established and remained unchanged for over 3, even 6 months, depending on the article page. Many of these reverts during the last week, also undid the work of other editors involved in developing the 'consensus' that then stayed in place.

An univolved editor, Mark viking made this valid comment on the Talk:Health psychology page. He seems quite genuine, but then his comments were actually 'deleted' entirely from the public talk page? He was the only editor who commented on the rapid, systematic 'demolition job' and complete 'censorship' of my edits to these article pages containing months old, established edits, with multiple, reliable sources attached to them. Mark viking said this to psyc12 .

Thanks for expanding that section, but it seems you removed a sourced assertion on the origin of OHP. Do you dispute that source, or have a source asserting that OHP and I/O psychology are totally separate? I ask this because the relation of these fields seems to be an area of contention at WP, and removal of sources isn't going to help. --Mark viking (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I invite anyone to look at the combined edit history of iss246 (and his close friend/colleague outside of wikipedia), psyc12 since the 16th of January until today in 'numerous articles.' These 'Wikipedia owned' articles are again now, grossly biased and distorted.

These Wikipedia articles are topics in professional psychology and psychologists. I first noticed gross biases in these related Wikipedia articles after reading the occupational health psychology article. It appeared that there were significant inaccuracies in the article. There are significant biases which remain on these professional psychology articles. These are articles similar to public encyclopaedic article on cardiology in medicine for instance. They are not articles on ice cream. They need to accurately reflect 'truths' based on all reliable sources. If there are views being presented in Medicine related articles, that were contrary to what is accepted by the international medical profession, obviously they too would need to be correct.

iss246 has since 2008, been in dispute with many other psychology editors, long before my arrival, on these professional inaccuracies. See Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1. Unlike so many other editors over the many years who 'gave up' I have maintained my ground and produced many solid edits which had only been established in articles through significant discussion and final consensus. Each of my final edits had remained for months in various related articles and had not been disputed by any editors. The final version of each edit which remained on article pages for months were good. Competent, by any Wikipedia editing standards.

An example is this following edit, now completely deleted, since I was blocked recently and iss246 and psyc12 immediately commenced deletion of all my editing over months of building consensus. It was in the occupational health psychology article for over 5 months without any editor questioning its validity to be in that article.

Relationship to industrial and organizational psychology

Industrial and organizational psychology is a discipline within psychology, which also covers the psychological aspects of occupational health and wellbeing,[2][3][4] occupational stress,[4] work organization and psychosocial factors[5] and, more recently, occupational safety and health.[6]

  1. ^ Kasl, S. V. (1978). Epidemiological contributions to the study of work stress. In C. L. Cooper & R. L. Payne (Eds.), Stress at work (pp. 3-38). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
  2. ^ Cooper, C.L. & Marshall, J. (1976). Occupational sources of stress: a review of the literature relating to coronary heart disease and mental ill health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 49(1), 11-28.
  3. ^ Beehr, T. A., & Glazer, S. (2005). Organizational role stress. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway & M. R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  4. ^ a b Hart, P.M & Cooper, C.L. (2002). Occupational stress: Toward a more integrated framework. In D.S. Anderson, N. Ones, & H.K. Sinangil (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology. Vol. 2, Organizational Psychology (pp.93-115). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Spector.2C_P.E_2011 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Kaplan, S, & Tetrick, L.E. (2010). Workplace safety and accidents: An industrial and organizational psychology perspective. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

This edit above, as an example, was established through consensus, and 'had no less than 5 reliable sources attached to it.' Each reliable source fully complied with Wikipedia guidelines for references. The sentence at the time was scrutinized, revised, streamlined and finally accepted into the occupational health psychology article, by all other editors, approximately back in August 2013. It only remained in the article through consensus. If it was incompetent or poorly written whatamidoing, it would certainly not have remained in the article all that time. Within an hour of me being blocked, iss246 and his colleague psyc12, systematically went about deleting this, (and indeed all of the other many old and established edits in this article and other related articles), along with the 5 reliable sources attached to this one sentence.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The opening paragraph of the OHP article already notes the connection to I/O psychology, with a hyperlink to that article for more detail, so having a section in the OHP article noting that there is a connection between the two fields is redundant. Furthermore, this article is about OHP, and not I/O, so a detailed discussion about the content of I/O is not relevant here, but belongs in the I/O article where it can be found. Psyc12 (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Organizational Psychology and Occupational Stress[edit]

A quick example, regarding organizational psychology's very significant influence in the area of occupational stress, since the late 1960's is the following fact.

Between 1990 and 2001 there were 70 articles published using the key words of ‘occupational stress,’‘work stress,’ or ‘job stress’ in the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (JOOP) and 49 articles published in the journal of Occupational health psychology.

Reliable source: Hart, P.M. & Cooper, C.L. (2001). Occupational Stress: Toward a More Integrated Framework. In N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H.K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds), Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology (vol 2: Personnel Psychology). London: Sage.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This is why there's a section on occupational stress in the I/O psychology article. Psyc12 (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The above example, based on reliable sources, clearly shows that organizational psychology has always contributed the most to the study of occupational/work stress.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Reasons for my block[edit]

  • Overuse of bolding on occasions.

(Although it is allowed, after reading Wikipedian ‘talk guidelines’ on this topic I realised I may have overused bolding. It can be used, in discussion, but no so much as I was using. Fair point. Now corrected.)

  • Using occasional headers on talk page for ‘off topic’ discussions.

(This has been very common practice on the health psychology and occupational health psychology talk pages. All editors have been doing this. Regardless of other editors. I will not do this any more.)

  • Name calling toward iss246. I called iss246 a "troll." Have never done this with any other editor.

(Was responding to defamatory text left on iss246’s talk page for months after I requested he remove these personal attacks and defamatory, false comments about my university training. Iss246's defamatory, false comments remained on his talk page, even after I clarified my qualifications with iss246.)

  • Administrators and other editors, have noted, that both iss246 and I had done this.

These points are what constituted the 'disruptive editing,' and the 2 week block placed on me.

I have now apologized several times for these points and have corrected them. They won't re-occur.

I would appreciate being given the benefit now of assuming good faith to my future editing.

This block is NOT for:

  • My skills identifying and adding relevant, reliably sourced material to the project.

(Edits are good. Sound. Reliable sources used as per Wiki protocol and guidelines (APA) style referencing used.)

  • My 'undeveloped' coding skills.

(Am still learning how to apply other ‘code’ skills. Getting there though like learning any new skills. I realise that some editors are particularly 'skilled' through many years of experience in the coding side of editing.)

  • My reliably sourced edits themselves.

(Many solid edits remained in various articles. These edits were established through active consensus building. The final versions of my edits, remained in the articles for many months, undisputed. Until they were all systematically deleted during the last week by iss246&psyc12 as well as the masses of reliable sources that were attached to these edits.)

This dispute on the occupational health psychology article, (see all 4 archives) as many editors and administrators have stated in the past, has certainly not been one sided. Numerous editors and administrators have suggested dispute resolution even arbitration rather than one sided blocks.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Also see: Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1

The occupational health psychology topic, has been hotly debated between iss246 and many other psychology editors since 2007. Well before I joined Wikipedia and also have attempted to bring some Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to this and other related articles.

Wikipedia:Ownership of articles Multiple-editor ownership The involvement of multiple editors, each defending the ownership of the other, can be highly complex. The simplest scenario usually comprises a dominant editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership. This is often informally described as a tag team, and can be frustrating to both new and seasoned editors. As before, address the topic and not the actions of the editors. If this fails, proceed to dispute resolution, but it is important to communicate on the talk page and attempt to resolve the dispute yourself before escalating the conflict resolution process.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The dispute has mainly been between iss246 and his close colleague outside of Wikipedia, and fellow member of the SOHP, psyc12.

In fact, this small 'core group' of other editors involved in the dispute, make no edits to the occupational health psychology and related articles. They obviously have had no interest in these articles or perhaps knowledge of the psychology domains being discussed and the reliable sources available. I can understand that. That is fair enough. I have no knowledge of or formal training in Civil engineering for instance. I also have no interest in this 'professional article' within the field of engineering. Technically, I could get involved in editing such articles. I could get involved in editing cardiology in medicine too, but I wouldn't. Apart from correcting some grammar or spelling perhaps, I would not involve myself in substantial editing of these related professional articles either.

However every time iss246 and myself were having a mutual (not one sided) dispute over editing and iss246 would 'send out a call' to the same 'core group' of editors for 'assistance.' No matter what the topic, no matter how poorly sourced it was, or with no reliable source at all, this core group of other editors (whatamidoing, bilby & Richardkeatinge) would defend the dominant editor, iss246&psyc12, without question. No objectivity.

Recently iss246 put a 'call out' to this same group of editors on their talk page (bilby, whatamidoing, richardkeatinge). He sent this call out to the same core group that come in and support iss246/psyc12s perspective, the dominant editors(s) no matter what: He sent this "Could you weigh in on an editorial dispute between Mrm7171 and me on how to edit the health psychology entry? Thank you" Iss246 (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Importantly, iss246 did not write to psyc12, because they are close friends outside of Wikipedia and colleagues, and members of the SOHP. No need to send a call out to psyc12.

I am not sure if this would be seen as classic Wikipedia:Canvassing? However it certainly has been disruptive. I understand iss246 originally wrote the occupational health psychology article. I appreciate that. But it does not mean that other editors cannot bring some neutral point of view to the article, and related articles, if they are clearly biased. I have carefully read articles and guidance in how to deal with ownership of articles and ownership behavior. It seems very difficult. That is another reason why dispute resolution by an independent administrator would be so worthwhile. This is especially true, given the profile of Bilby and whatamidoing in Wikipedia. Because thedy do so much work for the project, they're behavior toward me and these important articles in psychology are ignored. I think that out of this small group, Bilby has acted with the most objectivity.

These issues aside, I believe Dispute resolution would go a long way in solving these issues and taking the personalization out of the equation. Some of these major issues and biases in these articles could then be addressed objectively and everyone move on with other articles.

Typical behavior in these instances Wikipedia:Ownership of articles is that the single editor and their edits are systematically ridiculed or put down by the 'tag team'. My edits have been called 'odd' by whatamidoing and Richardkeatinge, but them providing absolutely no grounds whatsover for that label. My edits are not odd. Not in the slightest. They are directly based on contemporary, reliable sources and what is known and accepted within the international psychology profession and amongst psychologists around the world.

What is odd, is that this core group of editors supporting the domainant editor, iss246 are the ones who have commented on the current ANI thread. They did not comment until I was blocked. Then they stuck the boot in. These editors comments from this core group are not objective or independent in this instance, at least. The thing is, they have got involved personally. They have taken a dislike to me personally. They have focussed not on editing, but on editor behavior. That is, only on my behavior. These three other editors never pick up on iss246's personal attacks, off topic discussions, use of headers inappropriately, unreliable sources, numerous breaches of the 3 revert rule.Mrm7171 (talk)

I believe that because this dispute was allowed to continue several other editors became involved and lost a sense of objectivity, focusing on editor's behavior, rather than the issues being presented in the psychology field. These topics are specializations within the field of psychology. Most people have no knowledge of them, nor interest in these topics. Fair enough. That is why dispute resolution is the best solution, so a focus away from editor behavior and a focus on proper Wikipedia protocols and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (WPOV).

I have found it impossible to bring even the smallest edits and some Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to the occupational health psychology and related articles. I attempted to request dispute resolution to this situation a couple of months ago. I also refrained from reporting iss246 for breaching the 3 revert rule on numerous occasions. Clearly many editors had seen that this was not one sided. Clearly, other fair minded editors and administrators with Wikipedia's interest at the forefront (not the interests of individual editors) had seen and recommended that dispute resolution was the best solution, given the long history and obvious issues involved.

I have accepted my block for the reasons outlined above. I have apologized. I have corrected my actions. I request being given an fair opportunity to illustrate this when the two weeks is over, as several independent administrators and independent editors have supported.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess what I am asking for is that this topic of occupational health psychology is resolved by an independent administrator. This would enable a civil discussion and presentation of some core issues with these related articles. I also think that would go a long way in solving these editorial conflicts in the past. It would also take away any personalization between editors. I have reflected on my own behavior in the last week, so I can be a more effective editor, including my 'tone' on occasions. Much of this has been a 2-way conflict between myself and iss246. I must have come across as very cumbersome and uncivil to other non involved editors. I apologize for that and will improve my editing style.

However there has been a lot of 'deflection' from the core issues I have presented and other psych editors since 2007 see Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1 have presented to iss246 and this topic of occupational health psychology, using the resources of Wikipedia as a mass media tool to do so. So I believe that dispute resolution is the best most objective and beneficial solution to the project and the achievement of something even close to neutral point of view in these encyclopedic articles.

So, I would appreciate some assumption of good faith here and request dispute resolution rather than censorship of these important issues I have raised and persisted in bringing to an independent administrator who could please resolve these disputes for the sake of the project.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I told you you weren't blocked for bolding or anything like that, or for the earlier "troll" comment. You were blocked for persistent disruption and personal attacks in violation of many things, including WP:TPNO and WP:TALKNEW. Diffs and explanations were provided in the ANI thread. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough Drmies. These things I was blocked for will, and have already changed. They were however, as other administrators have stated, not just 'one way.' That is, I have endured a great deal of hostility and personal attacks and would appreciate from here on, no 'person alization' of any kind, from any editors, and only a focus on editing. However the new 'walls of text' created on the article talk pages by iss246, after I was blocked, is testament enough that perhaps other editors, such as iss246 & psyc12 have still not learned the lessons I have now learned, particularly WP:TALKNEW. All I can personally do, is continue learning and become a more effective editor.

It is the things that I was NOT blocked for that I also made specific note of above. I even included a specific example of one such edit, which had been established over a long period of time through active, consensus building. It had 5 reliable sources attached to it. The final version of this edit remained in the article for over four months, without any problems. I made many such edits in numerous articles, through consensus building, which remained in place. Since my block 9 days ago, every single such edit, and the countless reliable sources attached to each edit, was systematically deleted by only two editors, who are close friends and colleagues outside of Wikipedia, psyc12&iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Mrm, positive contributions remain in the history. When this block runs out you can have a good look at them. If a number of editors agree that they shouldn't be in the article, then you have run up against the wall of consensus and there's little you can do about it, besides maybe attracting more different editors to that talk page. You could accuse them of collusion, but you can see, I'm sure, that even making such charges carries significant risk for oneself. Now, if you say there was consensus for those edits in the first place, you can use that as leverage. If, however, it turns out there was no consensus, only a lack of opposition, then you're in a tough spot. So you'll need to look very carefully and very objectively at the edits you made, how they were received, and why they were reverted, if they were. If you're convinced of their correctness and appropriateness, you can act on that--but you must do so, of course, in an acceptable manner, and using the appropriate channels, such as the talk page (without personal accusations), project talk pages, Dispute Resolution, Request for Comment, etc. All the best, Drmies (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the good advice[edit]

The simple fact is that Psyc12&iss246 began their widespread deletions within one hour of my block, and they continued unabated over a one week period until almost every edit had been deleted. I think my other point has been that there has been nothing but, at times, opposition to my edits. So the reason these final versions of my many edits had remained for months was certainly not due "to lack of opposition." The final edits, with multiple reliable sources attached, remained only after vibrant, strong consensus building and compromise.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe my editing is based on 'facts' relating to each article I have edited and facts I have a strong knowledge of. They are not my opinions. They are based only on reliable sources. They relate to public and occupational safety, occupational health, work stress, depression and so on. These edits have now been completely censored in the occupational health psychology and related articles. I have noted on several occasions, that to be an 'OHP' practitioner for instance, no training is required. That is an important fact based on reliable sources. Instead it was quickly deleted. I requested we include a 'training section' within the occupational health psychology article based solely on reliable sources. After extended discussion on the talk page, that proposition was rejected and censored.

My edits are purely objective, detailing internationally accepted standards within the psychology profession. I also do not hold a bias toward a particular point of view. Just as it is so important that the information contained in a Wikipedia article in a field of medicine is so accurate for public safety, so too are these psychology topics. It is important articles are free from bias and the reader is provided only with factual information based on all major reliable sources and adheres to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Some basic facts about occupational health psychology and 'OHP'[edit]

Some basic ‘facts’ relating to occupational health psychology & OHP. All are based on reliable sources. Some of these facts are within the article. Others have been censored from the article. Even though they are very well referenced. They are important points to include so grossly biased articles such as occupational health psychology are provided with some Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

1/ 'OHP' is multidisciplinary, eg nurses, economists, sociologists, engineers, doctors, etc.

2/ The 2 'OHP' societies are also multidisciplinary eg. members are psychologists, nurses, economists, doctors, etc.

3/ Using the title Occupational Health Psychologist is regulated/restricted in most 'OECD' countries.

4/ Using the title 'OHP Practitioner' is NOT regulated in any country. Anyone can use the title.

5/ There is no minimum training needed in psychology, or 'anything,' to call yourself an 'OHP Practitioner'

6/ Occupational health psychology is a 'subject' or topic covered 'as part of' Doctoral programs, mostly in industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology.

7/ There are no actual Doctoral programs in Occupational Health Psychology itself, that exist anywhere in the world. Subjects in occupational health psych only exist within other formal psychology programs, mostly Organizational psychology.

click here to validate: Note: there are courses in this list which no longer exist. Others are just a series of seminars. But check the list yourself.

7/ Occupational Health Psychology subjects are mostly (ie>75%) attached to Organizational Psychology Doctorate programs.

8/ 'OHP' is NOT one of the 54 Divisions in psychology with the American Psychological Association

10/There are a number of international multidisciplinary journals which publish occupational health psychology research. These include Work & Stress, Journal of Vocational, Behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. see

11/ Committee members and leaders of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology almost without exception, all hold Doctoral degrees in Industrial - organizational (I-O) psychology. See here for an example

12/ Founder and editor in chief of the journal Work & Stress is a very proud organizational psychologist click here to see his personal website Professor Tom Cox, one of the world's leading researchers in occupational stress also founded the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. Arnold Bakker see and Cary Cooper see are also proud Organizational psychologists, Professors in Organizational Psychology and leaders in the field of occupational stress and occupational health and wellbeing.

Lessons learnt and current thoughts on Wikipedia editing[edit]

I say the following in good faith. I am hoping that all editors can work together, focus only on editing and content, not editors or editor behavior or personalization. I also hope all editors can work together as 'independent' editors, with independent voices. I believe strongly in providing each editor with an assumption of good faith and although at times, this is difficult I will also try to continue with that core Wikipedia principle, giving fellow editors the benefit of any doubt. That is what Wikipedia is based on. Wikipedia:Assume good faith

I also believe that if an editor is big enough to apologize for any past wrongdoings, they should be commended and apologies accepted with gratitude and in good faith. That goes for the real world too, in my opinion at least. I think that Beeblebrox provided great advice very recently to iss246 & myself and any other editor for that matter. I have a lot to offer the project in areas I hold knowledge in. However Wikipedia relies solely on reliable sources, not expertise. I believe I have competently added some worthwhile edits with a lot of reliable sources attached in various articles, without bias or agenda. Wikipedia:Competence is required.

Many doctors, engineers, psychologists, dentists and other professionals read related Wikipedia articles on topics within their profession, and often notice inaccuracies or biases in what is written. Very few of these professionals for many reasons, take the time to join, learn the code, seek reliable sources, develop consensus, comply with Wikipedia protocols and so forth. If these professionals do join and make positive contributions to professional articles, using reliable sources, they should not be discouraged or their editing 'put down' or disparaged by other more experienced editors. It is critical that articles on professional topics within medicine or psychology are accurate and free from editorial bias.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk page edits[edit]

You can not do this. You used non-neutral language to label sections that you collapsed, and commented within those sections. That's not acceptable. I'm going to archive (most of) that disaster of a talk page, but I'm warning you: this is the kind of thing that got you blocked last time. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely understood. I tried earlier to leave a brief message on your talk page Drmies to ask you to do exactly that, that is, you or someone else, archive or section off, or clean it up, or whatever, that mess! But your page is semi-protected? because of this, I just saw the following, was the reason your page was semi blocked, and I could not just leave a brief message with you on your talk page. "An IP-hopping editor is making personal attacks at User talk:Drmies. Please semi-protect the page and consider a range-block for the IP. GabrielF (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)" (Sorry, would have diffed this instead of directly pasting it in. Still trying to work out the computer 'code' how to 'diff' like a lot of editors I'm sure.)

...and apologies, but I just did not know where else/who else to ask to do exactly that. Not for me to do it, but for an administrator to archive, or whatever those off topic sections (mess) all of which occurred prior to January 16 2014, so we can all move forward with editing this article afresh.

I also felt very uncomfortable having to section off these areas myself and could not understand why an administrator had not done this earlier, to be honest? I felt I had no right of reply to that false, baseless information which had remained, inappropriately, on the talk page without any action taken to clean it up by an administrator. Mrm7171 (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You have also left some defamatory, and an entirely false sections still remain on the health psychology talk page from January made by another editor. Are you going to archive this section also please? Or should I instead reply to this entirely false, baseless information directly myself, point by point? Can you tell me based on Wikipedia policy what to do in this case?

I also don't want to go ahead, off topic, and respond point by point, and then be jumped on and accused again of doing the wrong thing, which I feel now was quite unfair, given these circumstances outlined clearly above? But if they continue to remain needlessly on the page what other choice do I now have Drmies?

So yes, please advise, as soon as possible, Drmies, or some experienced editor, exactly how to approach removing this information, based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines relating to personal attacks. Should this be posted on the administrator's notice board? Meanwhile this false information remains and just rehashes the whole situation before January 16th 2014 again so needlessly; instead of just moving forward in good faithMrm7171 (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I assume you're talking about the accusation of multiple accounts? I have asked the editor about that. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Nevermind: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrm7171. If there's anything you want to say, esp. about Psych999, an editor who all of a sudden sprung into action while you were blocked, now's the time. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This current investigation originally opened by administrator itszippy and Kww strongly believing meatpuppetry was involved can now be found here, now further evidence is in the process of being presented. These are serious matters. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iss246

  • @Drmies: Hi Drmies. I actually asked about 'all' of the (in my opinion) baseless, false, but definitely 'off topic' text written by editor iss246, under the header "Comment on the January 21, 2014 claims Mrm7171 wrote on his talk page" on the Talk:Health psychology, not just the opening line. Anyway it is all still sitting on this talk page? That was the only reason I 'sectioned it off,' after trying to leave a message on your talk page, as discussed above, although I felt very uncomfortable having to do that, as I said earlier? Again for the record, since 30th January, I have been an exemplary and constructive editor and all of my editing history, on all articles, clearly and objectively supports that fact. And the complete opposite to disruptive as you have written on a public forum elsewhere, and, indeed after the 30th of January, when my block had expired. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Is Mrm7171 promoting a POV?[edit]

Mrm7171. I am following Drmies advice and starting the process for WP:RFC/U. The first step is to notify you that I think you, perhaps inadvertently, are promoting a POV, i.e., using Wikipedia to promote I/O psychology. This is seen in many if not most arguments you have on talk pages. The best evidence is that for the past 3 months, you have been inserting mention of I/O psychology or its synonyms in many articles. Some make sense, but some are way off the mark, e.g., occupational medicine. Below is a partial list.

Human factors/ergonomics, NIOSH, NIOSH education and research center, workplace aggression, employment testing, work design, HR consulting, recruitment, occupational safety and health, work life balance, stress, health psychology, organizational behavior, Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health, epidemiology, environmental health, noise control, occupational health nursing, occupational medicine, occupational disease.

Now I will ask other editors to comment. If they agree, then WP:RFC/U will be the next step. Psyc12 (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Psyc12, you even included epidemiology and occupational health nursing above for some reason? Work psychology (or I/O psychology) is in neither of those 2 article's 'see also' section as they are not 'particularly' relevant to work psychology. However including a link in the other articles, you listed above, are justified and is certainly not promotional. Reliable sources support that without any doubt. I also edit many different articles for the record. I try to be balanced, objective and edit with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and expect the same from all editors.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyway I'm more than happy to discuss this here on my talk page. However please stop falsely accusing me of bad faith as you continue to do on numerous other editor's talk pages, with no evidence to support such spurious accusations of bad faith. They could easily be seen as ongoing personal attacks, quite frankly, especially with no diffs or evidence to support these claims, and me being completely open right here to discuss any issues you may have but in a civil manner please psyc12. That's all I ask.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Just received this link from Drmies WP:SEEALSO it may help explain why I have correctly included these links. Is there any actual evidence, or diffs, or anything else at all, psyc12, to base your accusations on, apart from me placing a relevant link in a number of relevant article's 'see also' sections over the past 9 months? Please help me understand why you continue with these spurious personal attacks otherwise? Also if you believe any link I have placed in any other article's see also section should not be there, please provide reliable sources to support that POV.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Psyc12 & iss246's issues[edit]

Evidence for POV is above in adding links to I/O in articles where it is not relevant. In some articles your addition was deleted so you have to check the history to find it. In addition when you aggressively fight to keep statements in the I/O article that I/O is the most important discipline in the study of occupational stress from the beginning with no secondary source you are pushing a POV. When you claim that OHP is just I/O, and you create walls and walls of text to argue that view, in the absence of any secondary source supporting you, this is POV. In other words, you are aggressively pushing your personal point of view in the absence of supporting sources.

Nowhere in the work psychology article do I say that "I/O is the most important discipline in the study of occupational stress". Many professions study work stress. Industrial, work, and organizational psychology and work psychologists are just one of those professions.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to argue that I am wrong about the relevance of I/O to some of these articles, show a secondary source. Here's one example suggesting I/O does not belong because it is not listed--from the website of SJWEH.
"The aim of the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health is to promote research in the fields of occupational and environmental health and safety and increase knowledge through the publication of scientific articles, reviews and other information of high interest in occupational health and safety. The topics of the Journal include the interactions between work and health, that is, subjects like occupational epidemiology, occupational health, occupational medicine, occupational hygiene and toxicology, occupational health services, work safety and ergonomics, and work organization." Psyc12 (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It is the areas of occupational health, work safety and ergonomics, and work organization that work psych and psychologists particularly in Europe are involved in and why I included it in this article's see also section.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I have been trying to work peacefully with Mrm7171 for the month of February and have been generally staying away from disputes with Mrm. A dispute has, however, emerged that I feel obliged to comment on. I agree with Psyc12 about Mrm's promoting a POV. I observed the pattern of Mrm's injecting i/o psychology into many places. In some places i/o fits (e.g., job analysis, SIOP). In other places it does not (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, health psychology). For example, I was surprised that Mrm added i/o psychology to the epidemiology entry. User:Jsfouche wrote that i/o psychology is "not germane" and deleted the entry. It is similarly not germane to add i/o psychology to the entry devoted to the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health although Mrm has done so. Iss246 (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with that revert. Work psych is not 'particularly' relevant to epidemiology, although there is overlap. Common sense on this one, and not having 'too many' articles in the see also section based on WP:SEEALSO.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Brief comment on the importance of a 'world wide view' in articles[edit]

I have also noticed that you both often edit only from a US perspective. All articles on Wikipedia just need to reflect 'worldwide' reliable sources. I found that this article explains it well. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias Not a criticism on you, just a note. Work psychology is different in different parts of the world each focusing on different topics. I think this is where you are perhaps viewing work psychology and my edits through a very narrow lens. What I mean is, maybe you are only looking at the 'industrial' part of industrial, work, and organizational psychology. Work psychology is a very broad field that is growing rapidly around the world. Hope that helps clarify my editing a bit more?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Iss246 & psyc12[edit]

Psyc12 & iss246, you are both close friends and colleagues, outside of Wikipedia. Iss246 asked you psyc12 to join. You are in communication outside of Wikipedia over articles. You are both very active members of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology. These are just facts you have both agreed are true. Fine.

I edit many articles, not just work psychology. But you both only focus on my work psychology efforts, for some reason? I am not affiliated with any professional society like you both are, with the Society for Occupational Health Psychology. I edit objectively. I edit with a NPOV. I add high quality reliable sources to many articles.

There has been no aggression on my part over the past month at least.

Saying anything different is just not true. Show me where exactly please? There has been no edit warring. I just refuse to engage in edit warring, with you both any more. It's just not worth it. I have 'stepped back', backed down, gave in, on many occasions rather than get into an edit war. Wikipedia:No personal attacks I can prove that through countless diffs over the past 40 days, as well.

You both keep re-hashing the past, ie prior to the 17th of January 2013. Where exactly, in the objective edit history, (diffs), for the past 40 days has there been any aggression or edit warring on my part? I also do not delete your work, particularly reliable sources. Wherever possible I always try to work around them. Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary

'See also' inclusions[edit]

Iss246 & psyc12, (but mostly iss246) you also both have inserted occupational health psychology in 'masses' of articles right throughout Wikipedia's 'see also' section. Let's try to get some consensus on these areas of concern and 'see also' sections. I am very open to a civil discussion over this and achieve consensus.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not an angry remark. As much as I have worked on improving i/o-related text by editing the i/o entry (this includes many edits I made before we got into a wrangle about the occupational stress section and even before you joined Wikipedia) and creating an entry for SIOP, I still hold the view that you over-reached by injecting i/o psychology into an excessive number of other Wikipedia articles. Even when you commented on epidemiology, you could not help but mention that there is some overlap between i/o and epidemiology. I add that my view has nothing to do with my membership in SOHP, despite what you expressed above. No one in SOHP instructs me on what to do or what not to do. Finally, I did not inject OHP into "masses" of other articles as mentioned above. That is an exaggeration. Iss246 (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You keep bringing up the past iss246, which is just not helpful. Let's focus on the positive changes since the 16th of January 2013 and the objective edit history since then. There has been no "wrangle" with you iss246. Show me where? Through diffs please? If not, please drop it and let's just work toward consensus here.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If you assert, wrongly, that I added OHP to "masses" of Wikipedia articles, then you are bringing up the past. I merely want to correct the record.Iss246 (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I bring up the many past edits I performed on the i/o entry in order to indicate that, as background, I have a friendly attitude toward i/o psychology despite my objection to your injecting i/o into entries in which i/o is not germane. Iss246 (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to go and list ALL of the many articles iss246 & psyc12 have inserted OHP into the 'see also' or related sections, (it would take too long). These are just some examples. Human factors and ergonomics, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, workplace aggression , work design, occupational stress, workplace bullying, occupational safety and health, work life balance, stress (psychological), stress management, Workplace violence, workplace conflict, health psychology, organizational psychology, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, environmental health, noise control, occupational medicine, occupational disease, employee assistance program and so on and so forth.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the time to check all that you list, but I checked the history of the first two items on the list, human factors and ergonomics, and saw that I did not edit in OHP. You must be mistaken about that. I did add OHP to the NIOSH entry. I had 3 reasons. First, NIOSH's intramural research program includes OHP research. Second, NIOSH's grant program supports OHP research (I was fortunate to have won two NIOSH grants for OHP research). Third, NIOSH is a sponsor along with APA and SOHP of the biennial conference on OHP research. I therefore think it is reasonable to include OHP in the NIOSH entry. I want to keep this brief, but I can explain why I included OHP in some of the other encyclopedia entries (e.g., occupational stress). 04:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That's fine iss246. You don't need to justify their inclusion to me. I'm not trying to delete them, like you and psyc12 are trying to with work psychology from being rightly and appropriately mentioned, in any 'overlapping topics' it seems, based on a long, objective edit history. OHP is in the human factors and ergonomics article too. But readers can click through those 20 or 30 articles on the 'big topics' I listed above to check if they wanted. You have added 'OHP' to a lot more articles than that list above too. But anyway, the point is 'OHP' society members AND work psychology can and should BOTH be included. That provides NPOV and balance to these Wikipedia articles. That is all I have said all along.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Core issues[edit]

Mrm7171. I will answer why I am concerned about your POV. During our exchange on the NIOSH ERC article, it seemed to me that you were pushing too hard to find a way to keep I/O mentioned in that article when there was no necessity for it to be mentioned. It dawned on me that this was an example of POV. I pointed out above a few examples of your POV, some old and some new that shows the pattern. I appreciate that you have been civil lately, and have had fewer arguments, but you are still pushing your POV. I see it in some of your comments here--you seem to be on a campaign to promote I/O. I brought it here to bring it to your attention, and have asked other editors to weigh in.Psyc12 (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

No, and with all due respect, I think it is the other way round. I think that you psyc12 and iss246, your colleague from the society of 'OHP' are the ones who have instead been "pushing too hard" to keep work psychology OUT of these 'big topic' articles. I'll explain what I mean. I can produce a lot of support for this too. Yes, I have tried to correctly add industrial, work and organizational psychology's contribution to some of those big topics and articles. Simple. No bias. No promotion. Just the reality based on reliable sources. When I have tried I am constantly opposed by iss246 & psyc12 by either deleting or blocking work psychology from being mentioned in these big article topics and trying to only list 'OHP'?

Mrm7171. Usually when I delete something you've done it is because it does not have the proper secondary reference, and you are basing it on your opinion or POV. This was the recent case with the NIOSH Education and Research Centers article. I deleted your statement that I/O psychology is an ERC program because it is incorrect. It is just your POV. Most of the time when there is disagreement, your "reliable sources" are your idiosyncratic interpretation of something based on your POV, which runs counter to Wikipedia policy, and is likely to get your edit deleted. It seems that every time you see a mention of OHP you feel compelled to put I/O psychology next to it, despite having no reference to support them both being relevant. Again, POV. Psyc12 (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Any evidence or diffs? It seems to me you only ever focus on edits which overlap with topics that members from the Society for Occupational Health Psychology also seem to be interested in. See questions still unanswered below. I edit many articles and with a NPOV. Also happy to have solved the issue now over the NIOSH education. Article is much more representative and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view instead of as it stood before, where you had only mentioned a 'subject' in 'OHP' to the exclusion of all other programs and subjects and you had deleted the fact it was only a subject within the I/O psychology doctorate for some reason. Anyway glad that article is now resolved. But these issues I have tried to bring to both your attention below, remain unanswered and avoided?

I believe they are the main reason there has been such disagreement in the past on articles related to 'big topics' iss246, psyc12 and other members of the society for 'OHP' are interested in studying? You can't just delete other 'very related' disciplines like work psychology from these big topics like the 20 or 30 articles listed above, that you and iss246 carefully placed links of OHP into. That's all I am saying. When I have tried to add other related fields like work psychology to articles like occupational stress or occupational health psychology, psyc12 & iss246 delete it or oppose it vehemently creating 'walls of text' on those article talk pages, instead wanting only 'OHP' and the society for 'OHP' to be mentioned in these Wikipedia articles?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Other very related fields like work psychology, can and should, also be in those public Wikipedia articles, based on reliable sources not 'just' OHP. A number of professions and different society's and groups, (like the OHP society that iss246 and psyc12 are active members of outside of Wikipedia) are concerned with occupational stress and the psychology of occupational health and safety. That's my only point.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Questions still left unanswered?[edit]

Agreed, 'OHP' members from your Society for Occupational Health Psychology may also study work stress, occupational health (both physical and mental health), safety and so on, exactly the same as industrial, work and organizational psychologists do. I think this may be the issue you both have with my editing and why you both only ever focus on my 'editing efforts' in those 'overlapping' articles like occupational stress? But let's try and include all related fields not just OHP as long as the reliable sources support it so we can achieve NPOV and balance in these articles. That's all I'm saying.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Management by fear and culture of fear in the workplace[edit]

Not too sure if this is in your sphere of interest but they are gaping holes in Wikipedia:

Can you help ? --Penbat (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Career guide (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Redundancy, Promotion and Journals
Career counseling (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Practitioner

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of six months for edit warring, as you did at Occupational health psychology. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the report at WP:AN3, see this discussion last March at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mrm7171 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

Bbb23, My understanding is that I '''voluntarily''' stepped back from this grossly biased article, so other editors could entirely re-write it as all editors had conceded was needed. That was over 4 months ago and nothing was done! In the past 4 or months I have been instead able to work a very large number of articles, approximately 100! '''in a wide range of topics'''. However when I re-visited the OHP article to my dismay no one but psyc12 & iss246 had worked on it, or made changtes necessary to bring it up to standard. So on the 29th July, I left this note on Atama’s talk page. I think Atama has been away though? [] If he had responded I would not have touched the OHP page! I had simply a NPOV tag. It wasn't until days later that I actually edited the OHP article. I think based on this your block of 6 months is unreasonable, given the strong contribution i have made to masses of articles on Wikipedia. [] Mrm7171 (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

From your unblock request, I don't get the impression that you understand why you have been blocked. My advice is that you recognize that your behaviour has been problematic. You have received several blocks for edit warring, and in addition have made personal attacks. I agree with EdJohnston that an indefinite block would be a reasonable judgement call under the circumstances. After your block expires, I strongly suggest that you use the talk page to establish consensus instead of edit warring, and don't make personal attacks. PhilKnight (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

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.

  • @Bbb23:Hi Bbb23, given my very strong contribution to Wikipedia and my civil interactions with all other editors on all other articles and the fact that I have voluntarily stayed away from the OHP article for over 4 months, could you consider a formal block instead, from that article as a concession? Blocking me from continuing to contribute as I have to over 100 different articles in the past 4 months makes no sense and takes away a very constructive editor? Please check these facts? I believe that the decision has been made hastily based on my editing the OHP article from 5 months ago and prior, not the 4 or 5 months since of extremely productive editing?Mrm7171 (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Anyone considering lifting this block might take a look at the previous appearances of Mrm7171 at ANI and AN3:
Now that I've reviewed the whole background, I think the case easily justifies a six-month block. An indefinite block would be another option. Mrm7171's prior block log can be seen here. The block summary from his two-week block in January 2014 was "personal attacks, abuse of article talk page, disruption, unacceptable behavior (see ANI thread)". Mrm7171's poor judgment continues, as you can see from his criticisms of other editors in the current 3RR report. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • MRM, the User:Docsim account is blocked; I have renewed your six-month block. I'm pinging EdJohnston and Bbb23 as well, since they have been previously involved with you case. I have no objection to either of them choosing to make this an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Drmies. I'm in favor of an indefinite block because of the obvious pattern of misbehavior. I would probably indef the master if I had clerked the SPI. Unless Ed disagrees, I'll take care of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Drmies must be commenting here due to the results of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrm7171. It indicates that Mrm7171 has been evading his July 31 block since the very day it was imposed. I would support increasing the current block to indefinite. EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]