Talk:Temporal single-system interpretation/Archive 3

message: I have archived the discussion on this talk page that took place thru 27 April at , and the discussion that took place thereafter but before some point on 12 May at .  For ease of reference, I have also included at the top (of this, the current, talk page) two pieces from before: 
(1) a crucial reminder that WP policy stipulates "Comment on content, not the contributor," and 
(2) "Restoring Valid Content that "Watchdog07" Keeps Deleting," which contains detailed justification of what is, at this moment, a version of the TSSI article basically like the present one.
justice-thunders-condemnation 20:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived Material

message: I implore all editors of the TSSI article, and all contributors to this talk page, to abide by this official policy.  Any violation from here on out will be reported.
I quote from the policy below; the full text is .
"This page discusses personal attacks made against other editors. ... 
"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. ... [emphasis added]
"... Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. ... [emphasis added; "pluralism is about ideas, not people," as Alan XAX Freeman has rightly noted]
"Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks, for instance, stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack.
"... Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption"."
Also, at , the Wikipedia guideline on "conflict of interest", we find:
"underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. The existence of conflicts of interest does not mean that assume good faith is forgotten. Quite the opposite. Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor. [emphasis added]
I ask all editors of the TSSI article, and all contributors to this talk page, also to abide by this guideline.  Any violation from here on out will be reported.
v = 0 18:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Offical Wikipedia policy:  Comment on content, not on the contributor

message: Watchdog07 has issued the following threat: "When I log in next and look at the article, someone else will have already put all of the tags back on it or I will revert the article to stub."  (See what is now the end of the "Stop the Nonsense" entry immediately above.)
To revert an article to a stub is to make it a candidate for quick deletion.  
The warning tags are currently under discussion.  There's no consensus at present regarding the need for them.  
Watchdog07 thinks they are needed because, he claims, (1) the article is non-neutral and (2) needs a complete rewrite, (3) the material on the journal (COPE) reads like an ad, and (4) the link to a page on my website with information about my book is spam (4). 
I disagree with all four claims, as do the other editors who have addressed these issues in whole or part.  I also think that, taken in their totality the warning tags (neutrality, complete rewrite, advertising, and spam) give the appearance that the article is disreputable, but that since there is no consensus about this at present, the tags should not be included.  I also don't think they should be included because, taken in their totality, they were being used in order to gain an upper hand in a content dispute, which is not their purpose. justice-thunders-condemnation 04:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment

message: Thanks to justice-thunders-condemnation for the archiving and tidy-up.
I think M.Posner makes a sensible comment "Please relax and remember that this is not the end of the world and that in order to reach consensus we need calm discussion rather than an attempts to take the article hostage, so to speak.  If you would like to take a break perhaps we can cease editing the article for a few days and resume discussion later."
Watchdog, your proposal to revert the page to a stub so as to have it deleted, puts you in a minority of one. We all know that the TSSI page can be improved - but you are the only person who thinks it should be removed. 
This is not really surprising: if the precedent is established on Wikipedia that you can abolish a page just by making enough fuss about it, there's gonna be a lot of vulnerable pages out there. 
If you can just once for all drop the threat of deletion, I think you will find the atmosphere will significantly improve. 
You will gain respect for it, and you will find people will listen to serious proposals for improvements.
People have done work on this page, they have spent time on it - and on engaging with you -  the page is not perfect, nothing ever is, but this one is acknowledged by all including the original editor to be the best yet.
If you want to get changes, you have to  make the effort to convince people - win them over, or reach a compromise with them. Listen to what they are saying, respond to it in a way that will move things forward (calling their good faith into question is not likely to achieve that, by the way)
Consensus has actually now been achieved on at least one question, albeit a small one. I am sure it can be done for others. Why not stick to one point at a time, work out a compromise, and move on?
These things take time. Take a break, think about things before you post, read through before you edit to see if you are causing inadvertent offense, try and lay of the personal attacks (I think most people involved in this dispute now know what your charges are so why keep repeating them?)
We all have lives to lead. Give us a break and let's have some meaningful good faith discussion.
Regards
Alan XAX Freeman 13:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: agreement with M.Posner

message: I will ask that Alan Freeman and M.Posner be indefinately blocked for violation of WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT.  Alan Freeman has TWICE violated the instructions given to him by J.Smith which Mr. Freeman acknowledged and agreed to.  I only recognize the existence of one other (recent) legitimate contributor to this page: Akliman,  a person who has admitted to soliciting meatpuppets on his user talk page
: No, I didn't solicit anyone.  See my correction on J.Smith's page. justice-thunders-condemnation 18:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See my reply on the same page . Watchdog07 
and is hence, according to Wiki policy, the puppetmaster.   To be a meatpuppet is an act of bad faith; to recruit meatpuppets and be a puppetmaster is an act of bad faith.  Note that this is NOT a personal attack: I am simply insisting that [[WP:SOCK] and WP:SOCK be recognized and enforced.  
Watchdog07  
The above message violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Reply to Alan Freeman and M.Posner 

message: Watchdog, I am not quite sure how seeking to ban me does not constitute a personal attack; it is certainly not the most friendly or constructive way to respond to a helpful suggestion.
There may be some confusion since a part of the discussion on my participation remains private between myself and the administrator concerned. I have to my knowledge adhered strictly to the conditions set.
The conditions of unblocking were that I should contribute to the talk page and not conduct any edits. I quote from the talk page " only edit the article(s) under-dispute so long as any and all edits are either simple grammatical/spelling/etc or edits that have gained consensus."
Actually I haven't edited the article at all.
I have made two interventions on this page, which were both aimed at trying to assist you in securing consensus. I wasn't aware of any injunction against intervening on the talk page but if you can point me to it, I will of course consider it after dicussing with the administrators. 
If I am asked by to conduct myself differently then of course I will; why don't you simply state what it is that you wish me to do? As far as I can see your request is that I should not contribute to this discussion at all. This seems a strange way to establish whether there is a consensus.
One final point: I think you are simply mistaken in thinking that Andrew, Mike and myself are some kind of army working to a single command, which is what your complaint implies. I am not sure how to persuade you of that; however I can assure you we are all independent people with very independent views and approaches. Other visitors to this page, who you have not accused of collaboration, have offered exactly the same advice to you. 
If ten independent people come up to you and say "I really don't think that what you are saying sounds right", it isn't necessarily because they have formed a conspiracy against you. It could also be that they all happen not to think that what you are saying sounds right. 
It could also be because you are wrong. You need to consider that possibility. I certainly consider the possibility that I am wrong, all the time, and I think with Oscar Wilde that there is no greater fool than a person who cannot do so.
As regards M.Posner's suggestion, I do think it would be useful to move on one question at a time and I think it ought, from the previous discussion, to be possible to resolve this particular dispute. At one time, wordings were being proposed. Can we go back to that?
Alan XAX Freeman 17:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: strict adherence to conditions of block

message: AKliman and M.Posner reverted the article 3 times in the last day.  This is a violation of the 3-revert rule since, according to WP:SOCK meatpuppets and a puppetmaster are to be treated as one (1) person.  There has been an arbitration ruling about that.  I demand that AKliman (according to policy, the person responsible) reverse the reversions.
Watchdog07  
The above message violates WP:NPA, which stipulates "Comment on content, not on the contributor." justice-thunders-condemnation 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violation of 3-Revert Rule 

message: Watchdog writes "I have suggested compromises on a number of occasions which you have ignored or rejected. I can tell you one thing - I'm not going to give up. I will never agree to the article as it stands now."
I think we have all got that point, and I don't see anyone on this page that doesn't want to change the article from the way it stands now. So we ought to be able to work together to improve it.
Well, the duty of anyone who disagrees with Watchdog is to find something that Watchdog will agree to. Watchdog's duty is to propose something the other guys can relate to eg substituting a double quote where it wasn't there before, which seems to have worked.
As I said earlier, I don't think that reducing the page to a stub will work, so let's drop that and consider other options. 
Watchdog, I understand that you don't like what the article says now. That is very reasonable and I am sure noone could object to constructive proposals for improvement.
I think however what you need to try and do, is phrase the changes that you want in such a way that it can be changed to the satisfaction of everyone. In a consensus environment, there isn't any way out of that. You have to work out a way to convince the active editors of this page, not just administrators or outside mediators. Mediators might help, but take it from me as a long-time trade unionist, at the end of the day, all that mediators can do is find out the common ground that already exists, between folks that really seem to be fighting over next to nothing.
My suggestion(which is only a suggestion) is to focus on one particular thing at a time and see if we can reach agreement on that - eg whether the COPE entry is self-advertisement. 
Alan XAX Freeman 20:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: how should a majority act confronted with dissent?

message: I have removed tendentious warning tags that impugn my reliability and honesty.  I changed the word "claimed" to the word "states."  And I removed the warning tag next to the sentence in the text that points out that Laibman's and Veneziani's allegations against proponents of the TSSI were not accompanied by any evidence.  There is simply no way to substantiate this claim other than to refer readers to the texts where the allegations were levelled without evidence.  BUT THESE REFERENCES WERE ALREADY THERE.  
Yet Watchdog07 placed a warning tag next to this sentence, claiming that the source's reliability needed to be verified.  This action makes absolutely no sense--considered in terms of its intellectual merits--and if Watchdog07 had discussed this ahead of time and requested comment and consensus, as he should have done, I could have explained to him why his action makes no sense.  
Laibman's text is a source.  Veneziani's text is a source.  These sources make false and harmful allegations against living persons without any accompanying evidence.  What is there to verify?  That the statements are true?  No, the statements are completely false, but the sentence in the article doesn't say that Laibman or Veneziani tell the truth.  
Does it need to be verified that they made these false and harmful statements without any accompanying evidence?  No, citation of the relevant pages simply IS the verification that they made these false and harmful statements without any accompanying evidence.  
Does the reliability of the sources, according to which Laibman and Veneziani wrote what they wrote and didn't write what they didn't write, need to be verified?  No.  The sources are Laibman and Veneziani themselves!!  It is their own texts which are quoted!!  
Dear Watchdog07, please check with me before introducing any changes to this or other articles, both because we're supposed to be editing by consensus, and especially because this would allow me to warn you that edits you might be about to make introduce changes that make no sense (considered in terms of their intellectual merits).  I'm always happy to do so.  Thank you very much in advance. justice-thunders-condemnation 23:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of new edits

message: Let's review the situation.
1. The article is "temporarily" page protected in the version authored by Andrew Kliman.  There is no reason to think that Andrew Kliman - the only other valid editor (i.e. non-meatpuppet) over the content of the article - has any interest in changing the status quo.  This is consistent with his behavior since the first day he edited the article, 
in violation of WP:OWN.
2.  Whatever he says to the contrary, I believe I have many documented and justified reasons, allowable under WP:AGF, to believe that Andrew Kliman has not acted in good faith. Of course, the meatpuppets haven't acted in good faith either.  
3.  Andrew Kliman (and his meatpuppets) have not owned up to their pattern of  bad faith, apologized, and promised that it won't happen again.  I therefore have every reason to think that their bad faith will continue.
4.  I am entitled under policy, [[WP:SOCK], not to consider the perspectives of meatpuppets over matters which concern developing consensus over an edit dispute.  I shall not consider their perspectives.
5.  Given 2-3 above, I have no desire to "feed the troll" and plan to again implement WP:SHUN as a reasoned response to the bullying and lawyer-like actions of Andrew Kliman.
6. Andrew Kliman has said that he wants mediation.  I do not believe that is his true desire.  If he wanted mediation, he would have re-filed for mediation.
7.  I have looked at the RFM procedure and there is absolutely no way that I will file a RFM.  That's not because I am opposed to mediation - far from it! -- but I lack the knowledge, expertise, and time to file a RFM.  That's not going to change any time soon.  The earliest I could even think about learning the procedure is September.
:Impeccable logic in these last two points.  If Kliman really wanted mediation, he would have re-filed for mediation.  He hasn't.  Therefore he doesn't really want mediation.  But Watchdog07 hasn't filed for mediation, either.  But that's not because he doesn't really want mediation.  He really wants mediation even though he refuses to file a request.  Go figure.  (Also the important facts are missing in all this.  Watchdog07 agreed to mediation, then Kliman took a lot of time learning how to file the request and actually filing it, then Watchdog07 reneged on the agreement, then Kliman offered to file once again himself--even though Watchdog07 caused him an unconscionable loss of time whn he reneged on the agreement the first time--but then Watchdog07 refused to accept this offer under conditions that would have prevented yet another double-cross by Watchdog07.) andrew-the-k 15:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Watchdog, Kliman: would you both accept mediation if another active editor, different from either of you, filed?
Alan XAX Freeman 06:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course. andrew-the-k 12:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''LIMBO HELL'''

message: A note to new readers of this talk page -
The article is currently (temporarily) page protected.  This does not mean that there is agreement on the content of the article.  There is not.  There are two (and only two) editors involved in this dispute: one wrote the article and the other totally disputes its neutrality.  
The following tags were placed on the article and 50% of the current editors involved with the dispute believe that they should be in place until there is consensus that the article is rendered neutral and in compliance with Wikipedia policies.


In some sections there are no references, hence:

In the section on the alleged "journal" COPE, the following tags belong:


Near an external link whose only purpose is to sell a book written by one of the two editors of the article, there should be:

Watchdog07 21:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''READ FIRST''' 

message: An editor reorganized this page so that new readers will not know what this discussion is about.
Please scroll down to "READ FIRST" to see what the other editor is trying to bury. 
In brief, 
The article is totally disputed. It is temporarily page protected.  This does not mean that there is agreement on the article.  There is not. There are, at the current time,  only two valid editors over content on this page (meatpuppets don't count as legitimate parties to this dispute). Hence 50% of the legitimate editors who have discussed content favor the article and 50% are opposed.  
By pure circumstance the article was page prtotected with one version rather than another. The other version had warning tags intended to alert Wikipedia readers to problems with the article.
Those tags included:






The participation of all non-meatpuppets and non-sockpuppets is welcome! Watchdog07 22:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  READ FIRST 

message: ...not directly transcluding warning templates on a talk page? Otherwise, this (talk) page is categorized, as SPAM-filled, a hoax, vandalized, etc. 68.39.174.238 23:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would someone mind...