User talk:Watchdog07

3RR?

I don't see any violation of the 3RR, and if you did I'm not the WP:AN3 board where you would actually get something done about it. I don't consider them meatpuppets and I feel that your really stretching your claims here. MrMacMan^Talk 02:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.smith J.smith (talk · contribs) wrote on his talk page yesterday: "As M.posner is infact a meatpuppet as well, I will require him to follow the same rules as Alan...." Those rules specifically prohibit one from editing the TSSI article except for purposes of correcting grammar, spelling, and the like. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

other stuff

A the user is 'J.smith' with a lowcase letter s.

Thanks. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

B I don't regard the editors as meat-puppets.

That determination was made by J.smith and accepted by users M.Posner and Alan XAX Freeman. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

C The 3RR, ergo, doesn't apply.

See above. There is an arbitration ruling, referred to in WP:SOCK which says that meatpuppets and a puppetmaster count as one person. This means that the 3RR, ergo, does apply. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

D Your making this very very hard on everyone involved by being rather aggressive in your edits, clams and messagine very party that is involved while blanking useful info on your own talk page. MrMacMan^Talk 02:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As J.smith already pointed out, "There is no requirement that we count the opinions of 'meat puppets' when determining consensus...." Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

I treat my user talk page like a telephone message machine. I 'listen' to the messages and periodically delete them. It makes it easier for me to see what is new on the page. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Your (answering machine) claim would be much easier to believe if you were applying it universally. There is an archive bot which will automatically archive things for you when they reach a certain age. This will keep the conversations intact for other readers.

Also, for the purposes of clarity, it would be helpful if you time-stamped your own replies. It helps editors trace through the flow of a conversation. Lsi john 17:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. One reason I like to periodically blank the page is that it makes it easier to see new messages. In the current instance, I got an indication when I logged on that I had new messages. So I looked at my user talk page and couldn't locate them. It was only when I went to the 'history' of my talk page that I located your messages. I don't like to have to do that: I like to be able to immediately see and read new messages. That's a very good reason for periodically blanking the talk page! I have a slow connection also and it takes more time to open a long page than a short one. As for the archive bot, no thanks: I've seen how long the user talk pages can get and I don't want that to happen here. Finally, I don't think I like your comment about what "would be much easier to believe": please WP:AGF. But, thanks anyway. Watchdog07 18:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

d to do some looking, in this case, to locate your new messages and only found

RFM discussion

I hope you're happy debating this topic ad infinitum. I just don't see the point of denying mediation. MrMacMan'^Talk 17:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blame me. I gave him more than one opportunity. He didn't really want mediation, he wants surrender. If he wanted mediation, he would haven't launched into new series of reversions and insults AFTER I agreed to mediation. After I withdrew consent, I gave him another chance. He not only wouldn't agree to what I believe were very reasonable requests, he even said that he wouldn't make a counter-offer. No agreement to my requests and no counter-offer equalled no mediation. He knew that when he responded to me. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

So instead of going to a place where we could have solved the problem forever, we got trapped by uncivilly by the other party and are stuck reverting until one side gives up. Who cares what the page says for, lets say, 3 days if afterwards the page doesn't have to go constant and radically changing revisions. Anyway thats just my opinion. MrMacMan^Talk 19:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 days? No, I think it would have taken a lot longer than that. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

You have missed my point completly. Do the days even matter? It would have been able to settle the dispute for a MUCH, much longer, instead we are back to the same old grind. MrMacMan^Talk 21:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watchdog, your straining the bounds of my assumptions of good faith. Do you want this dispute to be resolved or not? Your unwillingness to compromise or mediate is becoming a problem. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the possibility of mediation remains open, there is not much that I can say in reply to your comment as an extended response on my part would most likely not help move the process forward. The answer to your question is 'yes': of course, I want the dispute to be resolved. I have expressed my willingness to compromise on many occasions, but I will not go over that now as it will not help the process move forward. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

I was being too optimistic above. After Andrew Kliman's statements today on the TSSI talk page, especially his personal attack against this editor (or more accurately, who he believes - without justification - this editor to be) and his reversion of the Pluralism in economics article and accompanying messages on the talk page there, I have had to reevaluate. I had proposed that we all temporaily chill out and be quiet on the talk pages and not revert articles so that we could create a climate that would allow us to move forward to mediation, but he did not agree and instead turned up the heat. The result was very predictable. I would appreciate constructive suggestions. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

The Outrageous and Ridiculous Demand

You suggested that the demand by one editor of another (for funds, in the amount of $10,000.00, to be placed in an escrow account as a precondition for the former filing for mediation) was most likely not serious and that it was probably made "in the heat of the moment". While that speculation might seem plausible to someone who is not familiar with the situation, it is flatly contradicted by what Akliman Akliman (talk · contribs) wrote on his own user talk page and on the talk pages of J.smith J.smith (talk · contribs) and MrMacMan MrMacMan (talk · contribs). In all cases, he defended what he wrote. In blanking the offending paragraph, he was unrepentant and said that he was "compelled" to do so "under threat" of blocking. This is clearly not an acceptable resolution of the issue. Watchdog07 14:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that the blanking occured 78 minutes after I made my IMHO comment so I really can't see how I can help that the user felt "compelled". I had a brief look at the situation I admit. I'm sorry you feel the need to be so agressive towards me when I have nothing to do with the original debate, but was merely offering a small bit of advice to the editor who bought it to WP:ANI. Pedro | Chat 15:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro - I did not intend to be aggressive - I was only filling you in on some additional information regarding the situation. I'm sorry you mis-interpreted the meaning of my message. Watchdog07 15:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. As I said I didn't fully review the situation but was merely offering an opinion. Best Wishes. Pedro | Chat 15:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watchdog07 15:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SHUN

This is not a guideline or a policy. It has no bearing whatsoever and only reflects the opinions of those who have written it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you sent your notice to the 'Administrators noticeboard/Incidents' (about the outrageous and ridiculous demand by Andrew Kliman for $10,000 to be placed in an escrow account of his attorney as a precondition for his agreeing to re-file a request for mediation), an administrator responded to your request for feedback with the suggestion that WP:SHUN be followed. I followed that person's advice. You might want to read what other editors of WP:SHUN had to say about Andrew Kliman's editing of that essay before you get back to me again. At least they have a clear idea of what's been happening. Watchdog07 23:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was only clearing up a misconception you seem to have had. The essay shun does not have the authority of policy or the general consensus of a guideline. In project space they are the least official. Many have useful advice, but there are a lot of them that contradict each other. The weight and importance you were giving it was leading me to believe you misunderstood the general differences between essays, policies & guidelines on wikipedia. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Integrity of RFCs

To J.smith J.smith (talk · contribs) : You suggested that I write another RFC. Yet, we have just seen Andrew Kliman repeatedly delete the RFCs which I have authored. What makes you think that, given his past history and an apparant unwillingness by yourself to confront him about that slap in the face of the entire Wikipedia community, that he wouldn't delete another RFC if I were to write one? If someone can get away with deleting the RFCs of other editors then that undermines the entire dispute resolution process at Wikipedia and thereby threatens the integrity of the overall project. Watchdog07 23:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A User-conduct RFC is conducted differently then an article-dispute RFC. It's given it's own page and premature blanking by a non-administrator is treated as vandalism. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watchdog07 13:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

You have actually performed four reverts in less than 24 hours to an earlier version of Temporal single-system interpretation, which is a blockable violation of the rule. Since you are a fairly new user, I am merely warning you, but please review the 3RR to avoid breaking it again. Bishonen | talk 16:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This editor has implemented WP:SHUN and does not wish to feed the troll by replying on the TSSI talk page Watchdog07 17:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Hi. Two things: I don't know if you saw my reply to you at ANI.[1] [2] Do you know how to produce the diffs everybody's asking for? Would you like a short explanation? And secondly: you might find it useful to enable your wiki e-mail. You'd do that through your preferences (top right on the screen). It would enable people to e-mail you, but not to see or harvest your address. It's also a precondition for you to be able to e-mail others by using the link "E-mail this user" in the left sidebar. Bishonen | talk 22:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. I would like to know how to produce the damned diffs. But, I don't really have time for this crap. I'll enable my wiki email. Watchdog07 01:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try this. I just wrote it, so please let me know if it works for you. What was that about me and Giano, of all people, being the same person? Bishonen | talk 02:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. I'll get to it. I just spent a lot - too much! - time on the computer dealing with this crap. I enabled email and then unenabled it after a test. I'm not sure why I thought the 2 of you might be the same person. Watchdog07 02:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed your e-mail wasn't working, when I tried to send you a message just now. :-( Wikipedia is a timesink, indeed. Bishonen | talk 02:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Cutting-and-pasting is very time-consuming, especially on an old computer with a dial-up connection. Your instructions for producing diffs sounds simple, but it is not so easy for an aging Professor of Economics who has other professional responsibilities - not to mention an off-line life. Unfortunately, I think Wikipedia works best for those more familiar with "working the system". When a request is turned down (after taking a lot of time trying get the format correct) for incorrect formatting, it does not encourage one to try again. I think all of the procedures for complaints, appeals, and requests need to be simplified and streamlined. Otherwise, those who are the best at figuring out the complicated instructions have an unfair advantage. Watchdog07 23:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all new users labor under the disadvantages you mention, really. I know what it's like, nobody could have been more unfamiliar with the "system", or the Internet altogether, than me when I began to edit. Compared to the nimble 15-year-olds, I felt like I had both hands tied behind my back. Er, I don't actually see any cutting-and-pasting required in my diff instructions, though..? Please let me know if there's anything there I can put more clearly. And I'm still trying to figure out why you disabled the e-mail again... it really is quite useful to have it enabled. But that's up to you, of course. Just one piece of advice: you really don't need to assume that your opponent will get his way just because he says he can and will do such-and-such. Admins are watching. His BLP argument is absolutely not impressing anybody. Bishonen | talk 01:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Placement of tags on Marxian economics article

You have placed {{NPOV-section}} and {{hoax}} tags on the subject article. As a new editor, you may not be aware of the groundrules for this. However, if you read the text of the hoax tag you placed on the article, you will note that it says:

"Please add reliable sources for the claims in the article or comment on the article's talk page."

Similarly, for the NPOV tag the following instruction appears:

"Please see the discussion on the talk page."

Perhaps I've missed something, but I see no such justification on the article talk page, Please provide your rationale. In the meantime, I am removing the tags. Sunray 00:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided explanation for this unusual situation on the article's talk page. I also restored the tags. If you have any further questions, please ask. Watchdog07 07:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watchdog07 12:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ethical...

Yes, posting a private email in a public forum is unethical... but thats not what you really want to know, is it? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I want to know if you are going to do something about it and the person responsible. Watchdog07 12:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to spank him for being naughty? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opps, I misunderstood your previous message. It's not a violation of any policy that I can see. It's unethical... but there is a really good reason why the US government doesn't extend the "right to privacy" to emails. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:51, 8

June 2007 (UTC)

So, if you sent someone a private email (perhaps market "personal and confidential") and the recipient then reproduced that email on Wikipedia that would be unethical but not in violation of any Wikipedia policies? Wouldn't it be personal abusive? Wouldn't it be uncivil? Wouldn't it be general conduct unbecoming of a Wikipedian?Watchdog07 13:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of things are unethical but are not strictly against policy. I suppose it could fall under the blanket of "uncivil" depending on the context. You can see WP:CIVIL for the policy on that. Also, it might fall under harassment if you take a very very broad view. And I intend to do nothing about it. It's not that I'm pronouncing judgment either way in this issue - it's just that I can no longer summon the energy to be in the middle of this childish brawl any longer. Take this issue to arbcom already and be done with it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: Response to Sunray question on translations

Dear Watchdog07,

Please see my reply to user:sunray's query about translations of articles from other language Wikipedias, which I posted on his talk page. Comments are welcome and I have suggested to Sunray that these are posted on his talk page - he may have another proposal. I am endeavouring to contact other active editors who might be interested in these proposals and would welcome your suggestions on who these could be. I intend to post this identical message on the user talk pages of andrew-the-k, Haemo, Watchdog07, and M.Posner

Alan XAX Freeman 08:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't talk to meatpuppets. A. Freeman's bad faith is once again demonstrated here since he has left an identical message with the meatpuppet M. Posner who has never been part of the discussion on the Marxian economics article! Watchdog07 17:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watchdog07: I am disappointed that you do not feel able to respond to a constructive proposal to create new Wikipedia pages based on the best to be found in other language Wikipedias. I am moreover particularly concerned that in giving reason for this, you disseminate false and damaging allegations against myself and against M.Posner, in violation of WP:BLP

Wikipedia policy WP:SOCK states that meat puppetry occurs when: "multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion"

this does not apply to my request:

(1) I have posted an identical request on the talk pages of all active editors of pages related to my proposed addition including yourself. This does not constitute meatpuppetry but a request for comment.

(2) You are wrong to imply that including M.Posner is illegitimate because he has 'never been part of the discussion on the Marxian economics article'. My request is not restricted to the Marxian economics article. It proposes the creation of two new pages. M.Posner's interest in this page is legitimate and it is legitimate for me to include him in the request for comment.

(3) I have not solicited anyone to create a new account. I have simply posted a request to existing editors.

I request that you cease disseminating false and damaging allegations of meat-puppetry against myself. You are absolutely entitled to abstain from responding to me but not to broadcast libellous reasons for not doing so.

Alan XAX Freeman 17:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply to Kliman

Watchdog, I replied to Kliman on the Paul Bairoch talk page in preparation for possible arbitration. User:Jurriaan 23:00 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Bon Voyage

My dear Watchdog07,

Bon Voyage! andrew-the-k 03:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Dr. Unethical

Do not post anything or remove anything from my user talk page. Please cease your harassment. Watchdog07 18:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TC

Watchdog07 12:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Watchdog07 12:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Watchdog07 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TSSI

Thanks for your note. I like your idea of going through the article paragraph by paragraph. However we need to discuss the reason for any tag. I will leave the neutrality tag on the article if you agree to either put forward your rationale or point to a rationale previously given (with a link). Sunray 05:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Project

Hi, I'm trying to ensure that the Neutrality Project has not become inactive. If you would still like to participate in it, please re-add your name to the Review Team list. _Jame§^ugrono 08:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TSSI.

I was using an automated program made to revert vandalism: I saw that a paragraph of referenced information was replaced by a sentence, and that the user who did that had previously been reverted. If the change had been agreed upon, by all means, revert to the short version (that I thought was vandalism, sorry). · AndonicO ^Hail! 19:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]