Talk:Marxian economics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Restoration of content

I have restored content deleted by wd prior to consensus having been reasched on the deletions.

Please do not delete anything unless and until consensus is reached. WP policy stipulates that the burden of proof (of the need to delete content, etc.) rests on the person who seeks changes.

I do not know of reliable source that maintains that internally inconsistent arguements are logically valid. If wd or someone else locates such a source, I'll be happy to have it included as a minority view. I also do not see any warrant for excluding the mention of journals that have issued a call for papers and are actively reviewing manuscripts for publication in the premiere issue.

justice-thunders-condemnation 15:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Burden of Proof

Andrew Kliman is mistaken. The burden of proof is on those who are making claims of consensus. Unless you can show a reliable source which says that there is CONSENSUS on this issue, then the article content will be reverted. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary justification. As a Wikipedia editor you should know that.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

COPE

As explained in the edit COPE a publication which has never published a single issue can not be treated on par with established, reputable publications. Speak to the issue.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Request for Comment

Watchdog07 has placed a "hoax" warning tag next to a reference to a journal. The website of the journal follows the reference, in order to comply with the reliable source policy. justice-thunders-condemnation 22:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no justification for a hoax tag. It is up to the person who places such a tag to explain why they have done so. In the absence of an explanation, I am removing the tag. Sunray 06:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Need for justification for placement of tags on an article

Watchdog07 has again placed NPOV and Hoax tags on the article. I have reverted him and have requested that he justify placement of the tags in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Sunray 00:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sunray - It is always helpful to ask first - and wait for a response - before reverting. I believe I am entitled to refer other editors to the Talk:Temporal single-system interpretation page where the explanations for the tags have been given at length. The reason is simply - as a review of the edit history of the Marxian economics page with that of the TSSI page will show - that the sections inserted into the former by Andrew Kliman were basically cut-and-pasted from the TSSI article. So called "self-plagiarism", see plagiarism, is certainly not illegal in this context. Neither is it proper or encouraged. (NB: the issue of the import of plagiarism was discussed before on the TSSI talk page). In any event, I claim that it is an unusual enough circumstance to allow me to simply refer readers to the TSSI talk page where all of the parts cut-and-pasted in the Marxian economics article by Kliman from the TSSI article have been discussed at length. I also discussed the meaning of the hoax tag in the Pluralism in economics article. Let's not waste each others' time by repeating the same arguments made on other talk pages. It's also important to note that there is agreement by Kliman and myself that the content of the articles Temporal single-system interpretation, Marxian economics, and Pluralism in economics are all part of the same edit dispute, hence repetition is not required on all talk pages for that reason as well. I will replace the tags.Watchdog07 07:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you know how big the stupid Talk:Temporal single-system interpretation is? Do you know how poor the formatting is? It's barely understandable! Don't ask the poor guy to pour through archives and even FURTHER edits in the Pluralism in economics page -- just make a simple paragraph detailing specifics of the tags in question, no more, no less. MrMacMan ^Talk 07:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

MrMacMan is right. It is insufficient justification to refer the reader to a whole article or talk page. We will need specifics. Why is the article not neutral? What is the hoax? You need to provide evidence. Clearly the burden of proof is on the placer of a tag if that tag is challenged. Most tags state that reasons for the tag's placement can be found on the article's talk page. There was no such justification for the tags on this talk page. Now you have provided some rationale, so let me comment briefly on what you have said here:

1. There is no reason why Andrew Kilman shouldn't cite himself in an article, provided that the citations are from peer-reviewed, published works. It is not "self-plagiarism" when works are properly cited.
2. Subject matter experts have written many Wikipedia articles. In most cases the encyclopedia has benefited thereby.
3. The Criticisms section does seem to have some weaknesses, but you have not supported the argument that it violates WP:NPOV.
4. Rather than place an NPOV tag on a section, it would be preferable to improve the article by making it more neutral.

Please provide succinct reasons for maintaining these two tags. I am removing the tags in the meantime. Sunray 08:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Succinct reasons

You asked for it - I will provide succinct reasons.

1. Reasons for neutrality-section tag

a. there is a claim of consensus for which there is no consensus among scholars - "since internally inconsistent theories can not be right ...." A reliable source must be shown that there is consensus on this question. Andrew KLiman has his opinion, and that's OK if it was expressed as his opinion, but it is presented as a fact which there is no agreement that it is.

b. "suppression of Marx's critique of political economy and current-day research on it". This is an exceptional claim (the claim of suppression) and exceptional claims need exceptional sources. There is also a WP:BLP issue since some of those who Kliman implies have engaged in "suppression" are living persons.

c. having read the discussion on the David Laibman page, which was attacked by Andrew Kliman, I know that Laibman - a living person - would not agree that he should be described as someone who "allege that Marx has been proven internally inconsistent". He has offered alternative interpretations of Marx to those put forward by the "New Orthodox Marxists" (i.e. the proponents of the TSSI). This is quite different from Kliman's claim.

d. "Even critics of Marx and/or the TSSI have come to accept, implicitly or explicitly ...." This is an exceptional claim, a claim of consensus (where none exists) and a claim which concerns living persons. It's also frankly ridiculous: there is no agreement by scholars about what they accept or do not accept regarding the TSSI. To claim otherwise, is not truthful.

2. reasons for hoax tag

A web site for COPE' exists. That is all.

It has never published a single issue.

There is no reason to believe that it will ever be published.

It has never published a single article.

There is no reason to believe that articles will ever be published.

There is no listing of the contents of future issues.

There is no reason to think such issues will ever be published.

There are no abstracts of future articles.

There is no reason to think that abstracts will be provided.

There is no reliable source WP:RS to show that the journal exists and is not in fact a hoax. Instead, all that has been given is the opinion of Andrew Kliman and the url for the web site, which is not a reliable source.

COPE does not exist. It is similar to a set design in Hollywood of the Old West. Like most hoaxes on the Internet, it looks like it might be real. It is not.

Now that I have provided you with what you have asked for, I will re-insert the tags. If you still don't agree that they should be in the article, then we can discuss it on my user talk page. Watchdog07 12:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The tag for 'hoax' does not say that there is a hoax. It says that there might be a hoax. I have provided logical reasons aplenty for believing that it might be a hoax. Watchdog07 12:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In regard to 1(a), yes, there is consensus, indeed unanimity, that internally inconsistent theories cannot be right (they might by accident make correct predictions, etc., but that's different). I would be happy for contrary views to be cited, but I don't know of any. I say this as a reliable source.

In regard to 1(b), the charge of suppression is not exceptional. The very reason one claims internal inconsistency is to suppress the argument, and claims of internal inconsistency serve to suppress arguments. I say this as a reliable source. The statement in the article is accompanied by citations of 2 reliable sources.

In regard to 1(c), I've added a citation in which Laibman claims that Marx was internally inconsistent.

In regard to 1(d), it is not an exceptional claim to say that particular arguments have been accepted implictly or explicitly by erstwhile critics. It happens all the time. The statement cites a reliable source. It is also true. I say this as a reliable source.

In regard to 2, the website makes it very clear that the premiere issue of the journal is in process. There are 50+ members of the editorial board listed there. Affiliations are given. I can provide additional information to verify beyond any doubt that the journal is indeed forthcoming. Watchdog07 says that the tag only alleges that there might be a hoax. This line of reasoning would allow anyone to place such a tag on any and every article. For instance, the purported existence of David Laibman "might be" a hoax, though it isn't, and neither is the existence of COPE.

I'll let Sunray remove the tags if s/he wishes. Otherwise, I will.

andrew-the-k 14:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

David Laibman is a real person: he exists. There are also reliable sources which prove that he exists. COPE does not exist. It is a pipe dream of Andrew Kliman and Alan Freeman.

As for the issue of neutrality, I have made changes in the article which increase neutrality, WP:NPV, and, provided they are not changed, can hopefully lead to the removal of the neutrality-section tag.

Since Kliman introduced and sourced the expression "new orthodox marxism" in the article, I added the expression "New Orthodox Marxists" to another location of the article. Watchdog07 15:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the most recent changes made to the article by yours truly were not reverts: one added content and the other was a constructive effort at increasing neutrality. Watchdog07 15:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion, prior to agreement

Well, it was a good idea [ref. to groundrules, below], but take a look at Andrew Kliman's most recent changes to the article. He has (repeatedly) forgotten that this is an encyclopedia not a forum for him to spew his one-sided propaganda and personal animus against David Laibman and others. Once someone else reverts his nonsense and puts back the more neutral edit I performed, then we can discuss the matter further here and hopefully arrive at consensus. If you don't take out the offensive material, which is in flagrant violation of WP:BLP, then I will. Watchdog07 18:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The groundrules are actual policies, they are not just some 'good idea(s)' they are things that you have to follow and abide by. You are asking us to make reverts without seeing if there is consensus for making those reverts, so then we can finally include you in a discussion that would create a consensus. You see, thats not how consensus is created -- you can't tell me that your not willing to agree to discuss changed unless changes are already made -- that isn't very fair. MrMacMan ^Talk 18:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You are talking to the wrong person. Tell it to Andrew Kliman.

Please read the changes he made to the article.

Let me make this perfectly clear to you: the edit the way it stands is a vicious violation of WP:BLP, especially as it relates to David Laibman, and it can not and will not stand.

You want to be fair? Is the CRAP that Kliman introduced into the article about what he calls "N_O_M" fair? This is simply not a topic for discussion. It must be removed! Watchdog07 18:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What has to be followed and abided by? WP:AGF states " This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary". The guideline specifically mentions evidence of malice. The most recent edit of the article is evidence of malice, especially towards David Laibman, a malice which is clearly seen also in the history of the David Laibman Wikipedia article. I encourage all other editors to this article to no longer assuming good faith by Andrew Kliman. Watchdog07 18:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my recent edits, I introduced a citation and quotation from David Laibman concerning his relationship to the charge of internal inconsistency because Watchdog07's comment, above, made clear that additional sourcing was warranted. I think he was right to point out implicitly that the sourcing needed improvement. For the record, I have no "personal animus" against David Laibman.

Also, I didn't introduce the N__ O__ M__ allegation. I rendered the allegation, which had already been introduced, more neutral and reliably sourced, providing both sides, and discussing the background and the evidence. I will, however, agree to have the entire paragraph removed, if there's consensus and agreement among us not to reintroduce it again in any form on any page. I don't think this paragraph is necessary.

I ask that there not be violations of WP:CIV and WP:NPA, the latter of which stipulates that we should discuss the content, not the contributor. Thank you all.

andrew-the-k 18:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Groundrules for resolving disagreements on this page

The comments you have both made are appreciated. With some good faith we should be able to sort this out. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, but also, a community of editors. I would like to establish some groundrules for sorting this out. At the top of the page, I've inserted a template that lists some of the guidelines for interaction between editors as well as key policies governing content. One more thing I would like to highlight: Decisions about article content are by consensus Do we have agreement that we will abide by these groundrules? Sunray 17:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I, of course, assume good faith on your part. I assumed (note past tense) good faith on the part of the other editor but he has behaved in a way inconsistent with good faith and I have invoked the right not to continue to assume good faith after bad faith has been repeatedly displayed, as is allowable under WP:AGF. I am not talking directly to the other editor at all and instead - in order not to feed the troll -- have adopted the policy suggested in WP:SHUN. I know this sounds weird, but a whole lot of weird things have been happening recently. I agree to not change the article or to put additional tags on the article until there is consensus if the tags aren't removed and if the article isn't changed until we have consensus. Watchdog07 17:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As people have stated before -- WP:SHUN is an essay not a policy -- essays are not held above policies like WP:AGF. You also placed strange restrictions on editing that doesn't exist. Consensus is an agreement with a group of editors... I mean re-read your sentence. You agree not to edit an article... until there is consensus...if the article isn't changed 'until' we have consensus. Maybe you want to re-read what consensus is as a policy. No one should make any drastic edits without consensus, you, me, anybody (that's this specific article because of the controversy). MrMacMan ^Talk 18:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear MrMacMan, can you please explain "(that's this specific article because of the controversy)"? I don't understand it. Thank you. andrew-the-k 19:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe he means that we should agree to not be adding content to this article absent consensus, because of the conflict.Sunray 20:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. andrew-the-k 21:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that a common feature of edit warring is people justifying their actions based on their assumption that the other is acting in bad faith. It then quickly becomes a race to the bottom. Watchdog07's creative use of shunning may be a way to avoid this (though WP:SHUN is not policy). I understand you to mean that if you cannot assume good faith, at least you won't comment. Provided you do not engage in personal attacks and remain civil, that should work. The guidelines apply to both article content and discussion on this page. As to the tags, as I have said, the burden of proof is on the placer of the tag, if, and when, valid questions are raised. Tags present a barrier to the reader, so no matter how much some editors like to use them, they must be justified on this page or removed. BTW consensus doesn't mean unanimity. I will look for a supermajority and use that as a guide to consensus, "while seeking to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority." Please sign below if you agree to these terms. Sunray 18:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have remove some disputatious comments recently inserted and am thinking of putting it on a sub page for rants or otherwise putting it in a different section. In the meantime, lets get back to the groundrules.

Content now restored above. Sunray 18:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sign-on

1. I agree to follow the rules put forth in the talk page header and mentioned by sunray above. MrMacMan ^Talk 17:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
2. I agree to follow the rules above to the best of my ability. Sunray 18:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
3. I also agree to follow the rules put forth in the talk page header and mentioned by sunray above (to the best of my ability, plus). andrew-the-k 19:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
4. I agree to follow these rules and, if I accidentally violate, to change my conduct on being civilly informed. Frankly, I will do anything that leads to a constructive discussion and this looks like the best chance yet. Thanks guys Alan XAX Freeman 20:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
5. I do not agree. Comments on ground rules and proccess are below. Watchdog07 01:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
6. I agree to follow the rules put forth by Sunray. --Extra Fine Point 01:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Process

Once the relevant parties have agreed to the groundrules, there are specific issues we need to address (feel free to add to the list) Sunray 20:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Resolution of hoax tag issue
2. Identifying NPOV concerns
3. Agreement on resolution of agreed upon NPOV concerns
4. Process for improving the article

Here's another issue: application of the consensus decisions to the same issues (e.g. hoax tags next to COPE) in other articles, such as Temporal_single-system_interpretation (which I realize is protected at the moment, but I'm looking ahead) and Pluralism_in_economics). I don't want to place this issue in the list because I have no idea of where it should go in the pecking order. In any case, if I need to indicate that I accept Sunray's items for discussion, and/or the order they're in, I do. andrew-the-k 22:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree as to process. To begin with, the offensive - and potentially libelous - materials inserted into the article today by Andrew Kliman under the guise of increasing "neutrality" must be removed immediately. This is non-negotiable. That may sound improper but even a cursory reading of Kliman's edit will show why it must be removed. I am exercising great restraint by not removing it now.

Second, if there is any mention of David Laibman in the article then I ask that Sunray communicate with him and tell him that his name is in the article and ask what he thinks about it and whether he wishes to participate in this discussion. (DLaibman has been a Wikipedia editor in the past).

Third, (Personal attack removed) ["meatpuppet" allegations]

Fourth, I have already provided justification for the tags, exactly as Sunray asked. They can be removed when we achive consensus that they should be removed.

Fifth, I do not recognize Sunray's ability to decide when we achive consensus. Consensus means that there is agremment by all legitimate parties who are part of this discussion. I explicitly reject any "supermajority" system and will, if necessary, block consensus over that issue. I've had too much bad experience with an individual and his meatpuppets over that issue to agree to any "supermajority" system.

Fifth, "ground rules" should be jointly determined.

Despite the above, I think we can work towards consensus on the content of the article. Watchdog07 01:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Some observations on what Watchdog07 has said:

• If you do not agree to the process, I will suggest that we still look at your claims and make a determination.

Thank you. Watchdog07 16:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think we should look at all links, including the Laibman link.

Look especially at the "reliable source" which Kliman referred to in a note - his blog! Watchdog07 16:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• The use of the term " Meatpuppet" is offensive in that it denys agency to the person it refers to. It thus constitutes a personal attack. Would you please withdraw it?

The term meatpuppet is a technical term at Wikipedia which is explained in WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. The person in question was determined by a member of sysops to be a meatpuppet and he did not protest that designation. Hence it is not a personal attack, it is a statement of fact.Watchdog07 16:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• We will deal with your justifications for the tags when it is determined who is in this tent.

What about the other editors who have contributed to this article in the past, such as Jurriaan Bendien? I think we should look at the history of the page to see who else has a place in the tent. Watchdog07 16:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Someone has to facilitate this process. I am willing to do that. I have had a great deal of experience with consensus and am usually able to get a "sense of the discussion" when there are willing participants.
• If you would like to make other suggestions for groundrules, please do so.

I do not object to you taking on the role of facilitator. In fact, I welcome it. I object to the model you put forward for consensus decision-making. I also disagree with some points you made (especially having to do with tags) but that's Okay. I don't expect us to necessarily agree on everything - especially prior to our beginning the discussion. Watchdog07 16:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pleased that you think that we can work towards consensus. Sunray 02:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Sunray's point 4, I think everyone is accounted for. Regarding his point 5, I accept his offer to facilitate, thank him for volunteering, and suggest that others do likewise. Regarding Watchdog07's demand for immediate removal of the allegedly "offensive - and potentially libelous - materials inserted into the article today by Andrew Kliman under the guise of increasing 'neutrality,'" (1) I deny these allegations, (2) I ask that charges of illegal behavior (potential or otherwise) not be made here, and (3) I don't think it is a good idea to demand things without providing justification for them. andrew-the-k 16:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Final comments on groundrules

Some final comments before we begin. The groundrules are based on Wikipedia policies and are thus non-negotiable. I hope that we will all try hard to abide by them. With respect to name-calling: Whether based on fact or fiction, we cannot engage in such behavior. Civility is essential to getting anywhere. Pejorative comments about one another will therefore be removed. With respect to consensus: This too is policy and the generally accepted guideline for consensus on talk pages is a two thirds majority. I have said I will attempt to articulate the sense of the discussion and will try to mitigate the concerns of the minority. That will be a condition of my being here. If I leave, I will either call in others to sort it out or turn it over to arbitration, depending on the circumstances. Finally, all Wikipedia editors are welcomed to join in. Please sign-on in the space above. Sunray 18:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to respond to many of your "final comments" but one comment that you made trumps all others: "That will be a condition of my being here". If that means that your being here requires that we accept your model of consensus based on a 2/3 majority, then my response is: goodbye, it was good to know you. I block consensus on any model of consensus that does not allow one person to block consensus.

According to an arbitration committee ruling referred to in WP:SOCK, the opinions of meatpuppets do not have to be taken into account when determining whether there is or is not consensus. I will not take those opinions into account and, if others want to include the MP in the discussion, then I will block consensus over any procedural proposal which gives him a vote in the process.

I do not give you or anyone else permission to "remove" comments I make on this page. If you remove anything I write from this page then you days as faciltator will be over.

I hope you stay but please do not think you can dictate terms to us about process. Watchdog07 18:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Policy is non-negotiable here. Wikipedia policy on consensus is quite clear: "Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome." I will work towards this. Sunray 19:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Without agreement on process there will be no "outcome". Your inference that there is a single model of consensus (the one you mentioned) is not a statement of Wikipedia policy. Your suggestion, in context, that the model of consensus employed is "non-negotiable" is not correct. To repeat -- I block consensus on your proposed model of consensus. It is really not a form of consensus at all, but rather is majoritarian rule. I have been part of many organizations which made decisions by consensus and what you are proposing is inconsistent with what I - and most others - consider consensus to be. In a consensus model (any consensus model) the positions of all are respected and responded to thru discussion - not a 'take it or leave it' suggestion you made above about the "ground rules". A model of decision-making where one person sets the ground rules and the only choice given to others is to accept or not accept is authoritarian and I reject it. If you feel that your model would be a better format for decision-making, it is up to you to present arguments why and then for us to discuss the question. If you are pursuasive enough and manage to convince me that your model is better then I would withdraw my block of consensus on this question. In the meantime, it is in effect. Watchdog07 22:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Your 'agree or disagree' question regarding ground rules was a poll. That is very bad. See WP:PIE. Watchdog07 23:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I have to say that I agree with Watchdog07: the WP:PIE essay is right, "Wikipedia is not pie, in any way, shape or form." What this has to do with anything, I don't know. andrew-the-k 01:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The folly of a super-majority system in this case becomes obvious when one does the math on this page. How many editors are here discussing content? Three to Four depending in who is counted. The three editors who we all agree have standing are Akliman, Watchdog07, and Sunray. (MrMacMan by his own admission is not here to discuss content; Alan Freeman is a MP). It is rather obvious that AKliman and I have been in a protracted dispute over content hence it is safe to assume based on past experience that we will disagree. In the system Sunray proposes (which, as stated, is not the Wikipedia policy on consensu) he would have the deciding say in terms of the dispute. That is simply not acceptable or fair. Wikipedia policy states that when there is disagreement, there is an attempt at a compromise in which the concerns of others are addressed. I am all ears if someone (by which I mean a legitimate party to this dispute) wants to propose a compromise in which the concerns of editors are addressed. Watchdog07 23:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Further process issues

Revert

Unfortunately, no one else took the initiative by reverting Andrew kliman's malicious objectionable edit which didn't come even remotely near neutrality or the standards expected in an encyclopedia. Hence I did what i would say I would do on this page.

Please do not re-insert Kliman's shit into the article again. It was in clear violation of WP:BLP and was frankly just ridiculous, vindictive, and petty. Watchdog07 16:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We agreed that we would decide on content by consensus. Therefore I will restore the article to it the state it was in prior to establishment of the groundrules. Sunray 01:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Do people know that Watchdog07 has reverted the article without first obtaining consensus?

If the hoax tag is the FIRST issue, restoring the article is the ZERO-TH issue. It is prior to anything else. That's because the ground-rule upon which our discussion of everything else is based is "Decisions about article content are by consensus ... Sunray 17:38, 24 May 2007."

It is my understanding that, since there is consensus around this ground-rule, there is therefore already consensus that the article should be restored. Yes?

The edit summary that accompanied the reversion--"reverted malicious, offensive edit by Andrew Kliman ..." is a violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPA, and WP:CIV. It is a violation of WP:BLP because it is about a living person and not properly sourced. It is a personal attack by virtue of the word "malicious," which pertains to intent.

andrew-the-k 22:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:AGF, which explicitly mentions malice. Watchdog07 01:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not "suppress" the writing by [Alan Freeman(Personal attack removed)]. Indeed, I just looked over the page history and didn't find any such edit by myself. Andrew Kliman can show us the proof or apologize. If I inadvertantly edited out [Alan Freeman's(Personal attack removed)]comments, then I apologize - but I have seen no evidence that happened. Watchdog07 01:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The diff I provided above is the proof. I didn't say that a person suppressed Alan's comment. I said, above, that the comment was suppressed and, in the edit summary, that Watchdog07's edit suppressed Alan's comment. andrew-the-k 01:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the article to the previous version. Sunray 01:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

there are no "ground rules" for the discussion which have been agreed to by all of the editors. Watchdog07 01:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That was not an act of someone demonstrating good faith, Sunray. I dare you to read Kliman's edit from the other day and defend it. If you think that's an edit suitable for an encyclopedia, then I question your judgement - big time! There is really nothing here to debate - Kliman's outrageous and offensive edit is clearly in violation of WP:BLP and so lacking in neutrality (and common sense) that it is mind-boggling. Now, I will revert the article. Watchdog07 01:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Given your most recent action - done without first discussing it on this page -- I reject your self-proposed role as facilitator. NB: there was never agreement by all of the editors to either you being the facilitator or to your "ground rules". Watchdog07 01:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Suppression on the Talk Page

Sunray suppressed - removed without permission - my comments about XAX. Don't EVER do that again! That borders on bad faith as I have explained why a certain term - a technical term of Wikipedia - is legitimate to use in reference to another editor. Please note that a member of sysops [J.smith]found that person guilty of that offense, citing [[WP:SOCK] and WP:MEAT. This was all explained earlier and Sunray does not have the right to be the censor of this page. I would appreciate an apology. Watchdog07 01:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, we are dealing with this article only. Secondly, Wikipedia administrators do not have any authority to "find people guilty" or make any other rulings that that are in any way binding beyond the particular situation that they are dealing with. The term meatpuppet is derogatory. I have asked you not to use it. I repeat: Pleaese do not use that term (or any other derogatory term) when you refer to someone on this talk page. To do so is contrary to Wikipedia policy on personal attacks. I trust this is clear. Let's move on. Sunray 05:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Brief comments

Sunray - You say "meatpuppet" is a derogatory term. As I have explained repeatedly, it is a technical term which has a specific meaning at Wikipedia and I am entitled to use it. Do not engage in censorship on this talk page. You don't determine Wikipedia policy. If you want to see WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT voided as Wikipedia policies, you have the right to make that recommendation to the entire Wikipedia community.

From your remarks I wonder if you know what a "meatpuppet" is and how the term differs from "sockpuppet." Of course you can use the term "meatpuppet." That is not what I am saying. I have said that calling someone writing on this page a "meatpuppet" the way you have done so is derogatory. Thus it violates WP:NPA. Sunray

I do not agree that we should begin by discussing the 'hoax' tag. There is an urgent need tr undo the edit authored by Andrew Kliman the other day as it is a flagrant violation of Wikipedia policies and standards. After that is done, then I am willing to have us move on to the next issue that you think we should discuss, whether it be the hoax tag or something else. I think that's a fair compromise which addresses both of our concerns. Watchdog07 14:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, that is what has been decided by the group of editors who have signed-on to this process. You did not sign on. I will deal with your requests as I would any other editor who comments on this page, but you are not one of the people that is part of the consensus on changes to the article right now. If you change your mind, please sign your agreement above. Sunray 17:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In other words, I agree to your ground rules or I'm not part of the process. That is an attempt to coerce me into agreeing to your terms -- terms quite different from official Wikipedia policy. I interpret this to mean that you are rejecting the consensus model and hence I have the right to act unilaterally in defense of Wikipedia.

The issue is really this: Kliman's recent edit (with "N ..O...M) can not be defended as it is so utterly not in keeping with the standards and policies of Wikipedia. So, instead of doing the right thing, you don't want to discuss that issue. You want instead to do an end around on that urgent issue. I find it hard to reconcile your actions with someone who is engaged in good faith discussion.

For ther recod, there is absolutely no policy guideline that editors have to "sign on" to a proposed set of "ground rules" for them to be part of the process. Quite frankly, I think you are making up rules and interpretations as you go along. That is not acceptable. Watchdog07 17:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue below which Sunray has issued as the "First issue" was not determined to be the first issue by consensus. Watchdog07 17:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

One more thing - leave mny comments where I place them. What gives you the right to move them around (or delete content of them) as you see fit? Watchdog07 17:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "attempt to coerce" concerns intent, and thus violates WP:NPA. I ask that Watchdog07 withdraw this charge against Sunray and that it be removed. andrew-the-k 18:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)