User talk:JohnsonRon

Interests

My interests are children, psychology, and the applications of attachment theory.

Meatpuppet

My reference to "meat puppetry" is a simple statement of fact, not an insult. Please see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppets for a detailed explanation. Essentially, you are one of a number of single-purpose accounts that essentially shows up only to edit in this particular area and support one particular POV. This is behavior which is not considered to be equivalent to that of a general purpose Wikipedian. Your opinion is considered to have been potentially been solicited to weigh numbers in violation of policy. You need to understand that "consensus" on Wikipedia is not determined by weight of numbers, but by reason and policy. Even if you have 10 people to my one opinion, if my one opinion is backed up by policy and yours isn't, mine prevails. Our policies on neutral point of view, verifiability and the use of reliable sources are non-negotiable and not subject to overturn by "consensus," real or imagined. I am sorry if you were offended by the use of an unfamiliar term - on Wikipedia as in academia, we have a lot of jargon. FCYTravis 20:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that an Administrator would act in such a disrespectful manner and in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy. I am not a "meat puppet." "multiple individuals create brand new accounts" My account is not brand new.

"These newly created accounts, or anonymous edits, may be friends of another editor, may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion, or may have been solicited by someone to support a specific angle in a debate." I am not anonymous, a friend of another editor nor was I solicited. So, clearly your facts are wrong and your misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy to suit your own needs is not appropriate for an Administrator. Tell me, as an Administrator, where and how can I lodge a formal complaint? An an Administrator I'd think part of your job is to help less experienced editors, so I am asking for your help with this question.

Mediation over Advocates for Children in Therapy

You have been listed as an involved party in Advocates for Children in Therapy, and I have accepted the case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07 Advocates for Children in Therapy. If you can please take a look at the case and let us hear your side, I would appreciate it. Thanks! Nwwaew(My talk page) 19:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StokerAce vandalism

What do you suggest we do. Unfortunately for CheckUser, I cant find anything that would incriminate him. Nwwaew(My talk page) 13:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest pursuing the blocking for vandalism. He is being obstructive and blocking from the pages in question Candace Newmaker, Bowlby, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and Advocates for Children in Therapy may be indicated. He cerainly functions like Sarner (even his wording above is just like Sarner...making unfounded accusations, etc.). He is not complying with Wikipedia dispute resolution processes, if disrespectful, uncivil, and makes repeated personal attacks. It is quite possible that StokerAce may be his wife Linda Rosa since both accounts are located in Denver and StokerAce began editing at the time Sarner stopped for a while (was blocked from Bowlby) and only edits those few pages. Maybe, arbitration is in order? I'm not sure of what would be proper process at this point.JohnsonRon 21:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't vandalized anything and these repeated allegations constitute a personal attack on StokerAce. When making such allegations, you must be prepared to back them up with some solid evidence.

Since I've seen several of you call for arbitration, I thought I'd point out a few things. All of these disputes could be easily resolved by bringing a greater diversity of editors to the articles in question. This is proving difficult because the topics are rather specialized and anyone that doesn't already know about them will have to do some research; nonetheless, we should continue to make the attempt. Let's give the RfC's some time before we escalate this dispute any further than it needs to go. Arbitration is the very last step in the chain, it isn't for content disputes, we haven't even had formal mediation, and arbitration is not typically pleasant. If anyone has it in their mind that this is just going to end up in arbcom, then we are doomed from the start. Please stop calling for arbitration when we have barely scratched the surface of dispute resolution.

shotwell 22:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a large number of editors on these pages...it is just that no one agrees with you, which might lead you to reconsider your positions. JohnsonRon 19:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACT/Bowlby/DDP disputes

There are only six people who disagree with me and they're all specialized in Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. It would be completely unreasonable for me to abandon reason on this basis. You must understand that I want to improve the articles. I can sympathize with your desire to protect DDP from being characterized as an abusive quack-psychology treatment. The only good way to do this is by writing a well-sourced neutral article. I actually think that the current revision of the DDP article makes the therapy seem like a snake-oil cure for Reactive attachment disorder. Reasonable people are highly suspicious when they're told, as fact, that some treatment is absolutely effective, evidence-based, grounded in theory, and compliant with every guideline known to psychology. These sorts of claims raise warning bells. Traditionally, well-established therapists and researchers don't assert such things so loudly. Well-established researchers offer their methods up for deep scrutiny and dutifully accept that scrutiny (if they have any integrity). Moreover, I would be seriously concerned with any treatment whose description essentially begins with "this therapy is not child abuse". To put it in a different context, imagine if you read an advertisement for some herbal supplement that said all of these things: "Our herbal supplement is an effective, evidence-based preventative for cancer! Our researchers derived this formula using well-established biological and chemical principles! This supplement won't kill you! Order some today!". shotwell 19:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated elswhere, your alignment with the Advocates For Children in Therapy crew (Sarner) seems to come through here with your several mischaracterizations.

First, "only six." Six is quite a large number of interested editors. Second, as several others have written, the article is well sources with verifiable, reliable, and factual sources. Professional peer-reviewed publications represent material that is reliable and that has been carefully evaluated in a "blinded" manner by neutral professionals. Third, no where does the article say, "this treatment is absolutely effective" as you state. Fourth, The literature does not begin by stating that this treatment "is not child abuse." Fifth, the article is very NPOV...I think your suggestions actually clearly represent a POV; that of the ACT group. JohnsonRon 19:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about the literature, I was talking about the wikipedia entry. The wikipedia entry makes DDP seem illegitimate due to the excessive number of claims concerning efficacy, evidential basis, compliance, and theoretical grounding. My point was that we could give DDP the legitimate wikipedia article it deserves by writing these things in a more neutral fashion. shotwell 20:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it the way you do. The only "claims concerning efficacy, evidential basis, compliance, and theoretical grounding," have been yours (previously Mr. Sarner had similiar issues that appeared to be resolved). I think the article is appropriately referenced with legit sources that support the statements regarding the efficacy of the approach, it's evidence base (several peer reviewed pubs and 2 empirical studies), compliance, and many many references clearly showing the theoretical basis of the approach.JohnsonRon 19:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formal Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. shotwell 19:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy.

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

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC).

Arbitration

I have filed an arbitration request concerning Attachment Therapy and listed you as an involved party. You can provide a statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Attachment_Therapy. shotwell 11:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 17:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]