User talk:FatherTree

Reverts to your edits...also, please read Wikipedia policies
Yes, I did revert your edit, based on discussion on the talk page among a few editors. Please Assume Good Faith. I encourage you to read wikipedia policies on editing and also on editor conduct. RalphLender talk 16:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And I encourage you to read them also. Please Assume Good Faith. FatherTree 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

NASW is different than the UT chaper
"WHEREAS, The physical restraint of children for purposes other than safety violates the NASW Code of Ethics, which prohibits physical contact that may be harmful; therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the National Association of Social Workers is opposed to the physical restraint of children for purposes other than safety.

— Delegate Assembly [7 August 2005]" DPeterson talk 22:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OPEN THE PDF FILE! THAT IS THE REFERENCE. PLEASE OPEN EACH AND LOOK AT EACH THEY ARE THE SAME. FatherTree 23:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You have said your piece, please stop cluttering up my talk page with shouting and the same arguments you've already made...it's bordering on harrassment. DPeterson talk 23:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry you interpreted that as shouting. I was trying to emphasize clearly where you are not understanding. You seem to be not working with the others and putting erroneous data on the article. I have asked you questions and you will not answer. You tell me to discuss and then you will not discuss. I feel that you seem to think you own this article. And I am allowed according to wiki rules to post on your talk page. FatherTree 12:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop Harrassing me
Your comments are now harrassment, please stop now. If you wish to discuss the topic, discuss it on the article talk page and leave me alone. RalphLender talk 15:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not harrassing you. Look up the rules. You are saying we need consensus but refuse to discuss the points. I asked you politely many times. You simply do not want to cooperate. That is how it appears to me. FatherTree 15:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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 Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. shotwell 19:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Model and Mechanism
By a scientific model or a mechanism, I mean a theoretical mathematical or physical construct, which one can use to predict and formulate hypothesis about the world, so that the predictions can be experimentally tested. Does this answer your question? Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  17:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * to me model and mechanism are 2 diff things FatherTree 17:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 04:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC).

AN/I
In case you are not aware of this. Lsi john 01:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In regards to DPeterson
DPeterson has asked you before to desist calling him Becker. As a matter of courtesy, could you refrain from referring to him in this manner in the future? Thank you. Shell babelfish 15:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not call him 'Becker' The point of all of this is that he is admonishing Mercer for self-promotion. But he promotes Becker. I think he is Becker and does self promotion. I have never called him 'Becker' I did ask him if he is 'Becker' and I do not see what that is construed offensive. I am not Becker, nor Cline, nor Weiderman. What is the big deal? FatherTree 17:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * From the diff given earlier, you could have been asking if he was Becker or implying he was Becker and asking if he was a good researcher. I apologize for guessing the wrong one. In any case, you've obviously asked the question before and haven't gotten an answer.  DPeterson does not wish to answer the question for whatever reason and is not required to. Please stop asking.


 * On a side note, if you're experiencing difficulties with others making false accusations, I would be happy to speak with those people if you could provide diffs showing what is happening. Thanks. Shell babelfish 19:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * DP has several times made accusations against me and others have told him that they were false. He does this a lot. He uses too many complaint procedures here. Now as far as him being Becker the point is that he constantly accuses Mercer of self-promotion yet he is very often putting URL's leading to Becker's site. And he used the same IP as Becker. Now it just seems hypocrtical to accuse someone who is willing to use their real name of self-promotion when this person remains anonymous and so many bits of info seem to point to the fact that he is Becker. Do you see my point. Thanks for the concern. FatherTree 22:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Shell has offered to help. However, it is up to you to provide Diff's to back up the claims that you are making. Simply repeating that it has happened is not sufficient. Lsi john 22:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like what you are looking for are Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. If DPeterson's behavior has been violating Wikipedia policies on a consistent basis, you might want to look in to a user request for comment to open a dialog and get other opinions on the issues. Shell babelfish 23:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Shell, there is already an open RfC open on DPeterson here.
 * Ah, sorry about that. In that case, you'll want to let that run its course.  You could add additional information to the talk page since you've already created a view if the behavior is continuing.  Aside from that, I'm afraid that escalating dispute resolution is really the only option. Shell babelfish 23:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why can't an admin ban him for a month? I have seen that done before. FatherTree 23:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You would have to provide very clear evidence that a blocking him would meet one of the criteria at WP:BLOCK. You would need to show diffs for each allegation. Shell babelfish 00:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (e/c)For starters because you still have not provided any diff's to back up your claims and it is unreasonable to expect Shell (or any other admin) to do the research for you. If your suspicions are correct, then a community ban (or an indef block) is more likely to be appropriate than a 1 month block, but you'll need to substantiate your claims. Please exercise care to avoid WP:NPA. Add any relevant information to the Comment pages of the RfC, in a non-attacking way. If my suspicions are correct, you'll end up at arbitration after the RfC (if he continues any unacceptable behavior). Lsi john 00:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I simply do not have time for that. FatherTree 11:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I recommend you drop it completely and let other editors handle it.Lsi john 11:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd strongly oppose a block or ban of DPetersen. You should try to get on with him, SqueakBox 00:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * People have been banned for a lot less. We have people like Mercer and Sarner who say who they are and are forthright about what they believe in and a person like DP who claims all sorts of credentials and denigrates Mercer's credentials and he is not willing even to say who he is not let alone saying who he is. Then he promotes Becker whenever he can and then claims that Mercer is self-promoting. I think here Wiki is rewarding this stealth behavior on his part and punishes people like Mercer for being forthright. So in this case the benefit of the doubt should go to those who are forthright. FatherTree 11:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry you feel that way, sir. I understand why you feel that way but you couldn't be more wrong. Wikipedia is a micro-society of real life, with guidelines and policies that govern our behaviors. We must assune good faith (for the good of the community in general), until we have evidence to assume otherwise. You may have enough 'evidence' for you to no longer assume good faith, but the burdeon is upon you (and whomever else) to produce enough evidence to convince others that they do not have to assume good faith. You are asking wikipedia to block 'because you said so', and DPeterson is asking wikipedia to not block, 'because he says so'. You currently have an RfC and mediation against DPeterson. Let that run its course, and contribute to it constructively. Give DPeterson a chance to change his behavior. If the situation does not change, then your next step is arbitration. In arbitration you may achieve more than a simple one month block. Have patience, and trust the system. But, most of all, remain calm, remain civil, don't attack. You must remain the picture of perfect behavior, so that your conduct cannot be used to divert attention from what you want people to see about his. Lsi john 11:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No wiki is not a micro-society of real life. Sorry. There is no authority here. And I never asked 'wiki' to block DP because 'I said so'. DP has controlled some articles by using complaint and other procedures to his advantage. This could not happen in real life because there would be a cost to filing such complaints and judges would dismiss them immediately as frivolous and DP would be liable for damages. None of that happens here. I have seen this before here. There is a flaw here in wiki and I think wiki would be better to face it. I do not see why I have to be the picture of perfect behaviour in order to have someone who is misusing the system to stop his behaviour. Those two things should be independent. Really if the admins cannot see what is happening which is so obvious this really seems futile. FatherTree 12:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But thanks for your time and concern. FatherTree 12:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a micro-society, resembling real life. There is an authority here and the 'filing fees you pay' in order to see the judge, are to follow the dispute resolution process. If you want to sue someone in 'real life' civil court, the burdeon is upon you to provide proof that you have a valid claim. If you want to sue someone in wiki-court, the burdeon is upon you to provide diff's which back up your claim. You don't get to walk into either (real or wiki) court and simply say 'he is guilty' and expect anyone to take action. You have at least two people here who are offering to help you, and you are refusing to help yourself. If you drive your help away, then your result will be to prove that you are correct that there is no justice on wikipedia. That is a choice you must make for yourself. Lsi john 12:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. I am not suing anyone here. DP is misusing the system and there should be some policing of that. If someone is driving 100 miles per hour I do not need to take videos of him and show it to the authorities. This thing has been going on with DP for years. Sarner and Mercer gave up. And Mercer was libeled here. And in real life an anonymous person would not be able to denigrate the repuation of a person like Mercer who has told who she is and what she does. I do not want to even bring up the malicious slander that was put on her. In real life a citizen does not have to provide evidence to convict someone of a crime. That is up to the legal system. So you can see there is a big difference here. I do appreciate your concern. FatherTree 12:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And you are co-mingling civil and criminal law. The wikipedia 'office' deals with criminal law here (cases of libel, etc). The pov-pushing part, is civil law, and its up to the plantiff to make their own case. I really don't want to argue with you, sir. I'm trying to help. But I have no knowledge of the subject, so I won't recognize the pov that you see. Let me know if I can help. Otherwise, best regards. Peace. Lsi john 13:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that in the DP situation what we have is a person who is analogous to a person who makes many frivolous lawsuits and abuses the system in that way. For instance he and his cohorts are constantly saying I am 'personally attacking' him when all I did was ask him if he is 'Becker'. I think knowing who he is in this situation is necessary since he is claiming that Mercer is self-promoting yet as long as he does not state who he is he can never be successfully sanctioned for self-promotion. This seems analogous say in real life where  a person constantly accusing another of being a lets say 'cheat'. Thanks for your concern. I just do not have a lot of time to go thru these procedural gyrations. FatherTree 11:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The accusations you are making are clearly provocative and clearly untrue. If you don't stop I think DP should file an RfC on you regarding your behavior. JonesRD talk 16:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * JonesRD, respectfully, if you have a complaint, file it. If not, please don't provoke this further. Until the proper WP:DR is followed, it is nothing more than he-said/she-said name calling and bickering and none of it is helping either side. Peace. Lsi john 16:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For that reason, filing an RfC might be the best course of action to put this matter to rest one way or the other and stop the back and forth bickering. I would support such an action as a way of ending this. JohnsonRon 19:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If FatherTree is a party to the existing RfC on DPeterson, then statements/comments about FatherTree are appropriate in that RfC. (as they relate to FatherTree and the RfC itself). Additionally, comments on the talkpage are also appropriate.
 * Notice how THIS RfC turned 100% against the two people who filed it and 100% in support of the person they filed against. Peace. Lsi john 19:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd follow the advice of another that a separate RfC should be filed if one is filed, which it probably should be filed in this case. SamDavidson 00:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to respond to your statement which is false and misleading. You've been informed MANYtimes about the previous finding that DPeterson is not a sock and there are numerous diffs listed elswhere (here too!!) where you make such false statements. Your statemetent on the other editor's talk page denying this is patently false. Please stop, as you've been asked to. I'd recommend you file an RfC on yourself and that will end this needless back and forth once and for all. You are obviously being pruposely provocative. I do think an RFC is probably in order. If you continue your behavior there should soon be enough to support that. I suggest you stop now. SamDavidson 12:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * STOP!! STOP accusing me of things I have not done. Stop this back and forth. You are being provocative. This is disruptive. Just stop! Please! FatherTree 12:36, 29 June 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 Requests for arbitration. shotwell 11:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy
Hello,

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

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

Edits to EMDR
You recently removed a large quantity of text from EMDR, even though it was sourced. Please read wikipedia's criteria for verifiability and you'll understand why I reverted your edit. Thanks. Absentis 12:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your reverts are boarding on WP:Vandalism. Please stop. If you'd like to re-write the article to have a NPOV (as I'm in the process of doing) then go ahead.  However, you simply CANNOT remove this section - it is backed up by reliable sources. Absentis 15:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have a lot of research that show EMDR is not effective, then add it. However, the fact still remains that there is a lot of research, peer-reviewed and verified, which testifies to its effectiveness. This evidence conforms to WP:RS; a policy which you seem to have either not read, or decided to blatantly ignore. Yes, the section that you want so desperately to delete is slanted and not very encyclopedia-like. The solution is to edit it to conform to WP:NPOV, not to get rid of it entirely.


 * If you had taken the time to read the entire article and look at the article's history, then you would have found that both sides are being presented. I find it hilarious that you call my reverts POV pushing since most of my effort has gone into organizing a coherent controversy section, and to temper the overly EMDR-friendly tone.


 * I would be glad to work constructively with you on this article, but your inital edits have not been encouraging. Absentis 20:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with your edits to the page either. When making a large edit such as yours, please discuss it on the talk page first. Also, there is a section on EMDR controversy, which covers the doubt surrounding the therapy, so the article is not biased. And don't forget the 3-revert-rule. Kat, Queen of Typos 10:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything in the article is already properly cited. So yes, there have been situations where it has been found effective, and those situations have sources. Your claim that it hasn't been proven successful is not cited. Kat, Queen of Typos 05:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fathertree, I only noticed this because your talk page is watchlisted from my posting here awhile ago. I'm commenting because we've worked together before and I thought it might be helpful. I hope that our encounters with DDP have not led you to believe that everyone is editing with some insidious intent. That case is sort of an oddity and you will find that most of the people here are nothing like the sock-puppeteer in that case.

Whether or not EMDR is effective, our goal is to simply document the notable research and findings concerning EMDR. If you feel the section has POV issues, then the trick is to work with editors like Absentis to neutralize the tone and attribute conclusions to the people who made them. Work with the goal of objectively documenting the debate and research about EMDR, rather than the goal of presenting the correct side of the debate. Deleting a large section of well-sourced material would be construed as vandalism by any other editor less generous than Kat or Absentis above. In fact, WP:VAND says that removing large sections of sourced information without a good reason is vandalism -- so be careful! Note that even on DDP, we are trying to improve the original essay rather than delete large portions. Finally, you would probably have a more effective time here if you focused your discussion on the content of the article. I agree that EMDR borders on pseudo-scientific nonsense. The thing is that nobody on wikipedia cares about my opinion about EMDR because I'm just some random, unqualified, and anonymous guy on the internet. It is not constructive to debate the merits of EMDR and any such attempt will garner a negative reaction. That said, well-founded opinions about improving the article will find a very happy welcome. If you have citations, counter-studies, ideas for neutralizing the phrasing, etc... then I'm sure the other editors at EMDR would be very appreciative and willing to work with you to address your concerns.

In short, 1.) Focus on the goal of objective documentation, 2.) You're only going to be helpful if you can provide something beyond, "EMDR is not effective", 3.) Don't delete large sections of soured material without a very good reason because this is considered vandalism in most cases.

Start by reading WP:NPOV and WP:V as if your were going to take an essay test on these policies. Then post an example of a sentence or paragraph in EMDR that you believe violates these policies, explain why, and suggest improvements. This advice may sound trite, but following it will work to everyone's advantage.

I hope this hastily and poorly written note helps you have a more collaborative, constructive, and effective experience. shotwell 09:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The job all of you have done on DDP etc is outstanding. I think you have made a great anonymous conrtibution to society. I see the same problem here. These pop psychotherapies are harmful and least expensive to our medical system and and ineffective. To me putting in a list of questionable studies that support a pop psychotherapy that is promoted by a for profit company is *advertizing* which should not happen here. Wiki says things must be NPOV which means you cannot be one sided. EMDR has plenty written on it that says it is ineffective. I still think the article reads like and ad. I feel justified in deleting the advertizement like parts. But I can see that the one who put it in is adamant about promoting a POV. Can you look at it and see what you think. I just think there could be people reading this article and spending a lot of their money or society's money on a quack therapy. Adding volumes of advertizements to an article to me is the mirror image of vandalism and I do feel justified in deleting them. I really do not have the time to go thru intensive documentation to prove my point and I feel it is incumbent on the person putting all that into the article to justify it rather than the burden being on me. Thanks FatherTree 11:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Placebo in psychotherapy
While your comment on my talk page was abrasive, you suggest that you have knowledge of the subject. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me as to what can be used as a placebo control in psychotherapy? If you don't have the time, you could simply provide a citation for any academic article explaining the concept. Absentis 15:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy closed
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may found at the above link. DPeterson is banned for one year. All parties are reminded of the need for care when editing in an area with a potential conflict of interest. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 20:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

AT
Long time no see! I've made some of the changes suggested on AT that you commented on and would be grateful for a variety of second opinions etc. Fainites barley 20:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)