Talk:Temporal single-system interpretation

Who is on the Side of The Antichrist?

I asked a simple question earlier which Alan Freeman avoided answering:

What am I supposed to make, for instance, of Andrew Kliman's new persona as "the antichrist"?

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

What is the neutral point of view?

Added by Alan XAX Freeman 22:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Watchdog ceaselessly accuses this page’s editors of violating Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View (NpoV) This contribution considers what the NpoV policy actually is, as opposed to what Watchdog asserts it is, and why the page conforms to this policy.

I posted, on this page, that Watchdog’s consistent method is to repeat Wikipedia buzzwords which sound menacing but do not in fact apply. In a very serious such case he accused Mposner of a conflict of interest. As I pointed out this is a dangerous misusage. For Wikipedia, as in legal real life, this term signifies the “abuse of a position of trust”. Watchdog has yet to withdraw the accusation. Watchdog used Wikipedia as a platform for a slanderous accusation against a person with a known identity, placing the project at risk. Thus the use of terms should not be treated lightly. Therefore, let us examine the NpoV policy.

Watchdog responds to everything he doesn’t like by deleting it. This conception of neutral is thus contentlessness, if a controversial or disputed statement is made, it should be removed. This is the opposite of Wikipedia policy which requires that disputed views should be balanced by ensuring the opposed point of view is represented. Watchdog’s correct course of action is thus to add content which restores balance.

The stated goal of Wikipedia is to represent the variety of opinions available. Neutrality does not mean those opinions are absent but that they are presented without bias (which in turn does not mean the editor should be without bias, another confusion that Watchdog systematically introduces. The issue is what appears on the page that determines bias, not who writes it). This is most clearly illustrated by Watchdog’s approach to the page’s presentation of the discussion between TSSI and its critics on whether Marx was correct. The page contains the following two sentences which Watchdog repeatedly deletes:

Critics of the TSSI have characterized it as an orthodoxy which asserts that "Marx made no errors." For instance, David Laibman charges that its proponents are "New Orthodox Marxists" who

"assert that Marx's formulations, in both the theory of value and the analysis of capitalist accumulation and crisis, are literally and completely correct; that Marx made no errors . . . ."[3]

Roberto Veneziani similarly alleges that the TSSI upholds "the literal truth of all [of] Marx’s propositions."[4]

These allegations, however, were not accompanied by supporting evidence.

Proponents of the TSSI contend that these allegations are false:

“We have never said that Marx’s contested insights are necessarily true . . . . We simply say the claims that his value theory is necessarily wrong, because it is logically invalid, are false.”[5]

This presentation conforms to Wikipedia guidelines. There are two points of view. One is that TSSI is an orthodoxy and claims Marx was ‘literally and completely correct’. The other is that TSSI says it is false to say Marx is ‘necessarily wrong’. These are two different statements about TSSI. The NpoV does not consist in eliminating one of these statements but in including both of them. The principle of equal weight informs us neither view should be given undue prominence. Neither is: there are two quotes from each point of view. Moreover the critical view is presented first.

This conforms precisely to Wikipedia NpoV policy which states that “the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources.” Watchdog is therefore completely wrong to delete citations on the spurious grounds of preserving neutrality. He undoes everything that the page editors have done to conform to the policy cited above.

Watchdog is further entirely wrong, and vandalistic (that is, lowering the quality of Wikipedia) in seeking to remove citations. Citations are an important method of ensuring that opinion gives way to evidence. A citation is the way you avoid saying ‘X is true’ – an opinion – instead saying ‘Y says that X is true’ – a fact.

The NpoV page is completely clear about this in several places: “When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.” [my emphasis]

A fact – which includes a citation (‘it is a fact that Y claims X’) is not a point of view: “Facts (as defined in the A simple formulation section above) are not Points Of View (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to build a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to Wikipedia, and then cite that source.”

Wikipedia, Watchdog seems to fail to grasp, is governed by consensus and rules. Rules are fundamental to scholarly debate and TSSI authors are fully familiar with this, which is why in 1996 the International Working Group on Value Theory (IWGVT) adopted scholarly guidelines that read in many basic respects remarkably similar to Wikipedia’s actual approach to neutrality and the overcoming of bias. These rules may be found on (http://copejournal.org/) (click on Scholarship Guidelines in the main menu).

Watchdog demonstrates contempt both for consensus and for rules of conduct, both in his repeated wholesale deletions, and in the justification he provides.

The Watchdogs

Speaking of personae:

The Watchdogs From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"... The Watchdogs claimed to be an organization dedicated to restoring and preserving traditional American culture and values, and fighting against indecency, immorality, and sexual perversion. The Watchdogs believed in strict enforcement of family values, and were violently opposed to pornography, sex education, abortion, and the teaching of evolutionary theory. Their terrorist activities, which included vandalism, arson, assault, kidnapping, brainwashing, and murder, were targeted primarily at people who produced material which the Watchdogs considered pornography, including nude art and sexually explicit music.

"The Watchdogs imprisoned their kidnapping victims at a large compound in Vermont, where they forced them to wear "dog collars" which the Watchdogs could use to administer a painful electric shock as punishment for undesirable behavior. The prisoners were forced to participate in group activities such as singalongs, and exposed to constant televised Americana imagery such as baseball games, American flags, fields of flowers, and happy children."

v = 0 the antichrist 17:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of Watchdog

See Watchdog

Wikipedia administrators are expected to be guardians, which is why I selected the name.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

What and who are we dealing with here?

Watchdog07 is confused and dismayed by the responses of Andrew Kliman, Alan Freeman, M.Posner and Anne Jaclard.

What am I supposed to make, for instance, of Andrew Kliman's new persona as "theantichrist"? That morph, coupled with the instrangience and obstinence of theantichrist and his supporters (for instance, asking over and over again for explanations which have already been given) is troubling. The inability of theantichrist's supporters to display criticism towards his edits smacks of apologetics.

Feedback from non-interested parties is welcome.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

No one is "asking over and over again for explanations which have already been given." We're asking for arguments that justify the claims ("explanations") that the alleged watchdog has been making about alleged defects in the TSSI article, arguments and justifications that he has NOT given us yet.

There's a difference.

v = 0 the antichrist 16:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What were the arguments that justified the claims that you made when trashing jurriaan's entry? I don't recall them - please refresh my memory.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Support of recent actions

I support the report of WatchDog07 by theantichrist.

Also, in regards to the issue of "self-promotion": this is a ridiculous. I also inserted this, and since I'm in no way affiliated with the journal, it makes no sense to call this "self-promotion". In addition, there is no reason that this journal should not be mentioned, since it does in fact pertain to TSSI.

Also, please substantiate your claim that including a reference to the COPE journal is "fraudulent."

M.posner 03:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Anti-Christ's Wife

The Anti-Christ's [Andrew Kliman's] wife and political associate has reverted to the highly prejudicial, biased account authored by her husband. Enjoy it tonight.

Thanks. I did. v = 0 the antichrist 16:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A genuinely neutral edit will be reverted to tomorrow.

Arguments put forward by The Anti-Christ for why the section on COPE should be restored are not valid. Whatever Jurriaan wrote many edits ago is not a valid reason for changing the entry today. The section on COPE is self-advertisement (and thereby highly disrespectful to the entire Wikipedia community, composed of volunteers who believe in the purpose of Wikipedia and do not seek personal advancement and gains for their editing efforts) and is fraudulent. Your efforts to subvert and undermine Wikipedia for your own personal benefit will not succeed: WP: NPOV will prevail.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

I'm sorry that the rest of you have to read the above message, which betrays a lack of desire on Watchdog's part of work collaboratively and to try to reach a consensus with the other editors of the article. It also betrays an attitude that is not in keeping with his professed desire for neutrality.

As for the content, there is still absolutely no substance, no arguments, just words. For instance:

"Arguments put forward by The Anti-Christ for why the section on COPE should be restored are not valid."

No justification offered as to why they're not valid.

"Whatever Jurriaan wrote many edits ago is not a valid reason for changing the entry today."

No justification offered as to why this is not a valid reason.

"The section on COPE is self-advertisement"

No evidence or justification of this claim is provided.

"(and thereby highly disrespectful to the entire Wikipedia community, composed of volunteers who believe in the purpose of Wikipedia and do not seek personal advancement and gains for their editing efforts)"

This is not an argument. It is "playing to the rafters."

"and [the section on COPE is] is fraudulent.

No evidence or justification of this claim is provided.

"Your efforts to subvert and undermine Wikipedia for your own personal benefit"

No evidence or justification of this defamatory claim is provided.

I respectfully suggest that Watchdog07 recuse himself from further editing of the TSSI article, in order to advance the goal of a neutral, accurate, well-documented article, owing to what is obviously a very biased attitude that is coloring his perception, as the foregoing makes clear.

v = 0 the antichrist 03:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

Watchdog complains, in "Still waiting for reply about COPE,":

"I began earlier today with an explantion for my reasons for removing the section on COPE and I am still awaiting responses."

Huh?

I responded at great length in "Response to False Allegations by Watchdog07," below.

the antichrist 02:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Impending 3RR Violation by "Watchdog07"

I just posted the following on Watchdog's user talk page, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.

the antichrist 02:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Impending 3RR Violation by "Watchdog07"

Dear Watchdog07

In accordance with Wikipedia policy I am informing you that you have reverted the Temporal Single-system article 3 times within the past 24 hours: at 7:05, 11:37, and 13:32 yesterday (23 April, 2007). The content of all reverts is identical although your 7:05 revert does not state that this is a revert, as in fact it should do.

If you revert a fourth time before 7:05 today, (24 April, 2007) you will have violated Wikipedia's 3-revert rule (3RR) policy. I urge you NOT to do so. Said violation shall be reported to Wikipedia administration.

Given that

(1) there have been ongoing attempts by multiple individuals to reason with you and have you do the right thing, i.e., voluntarily restore the content you keep removing with your reverts and then discuss how to improve the page in a spirit of collaboration and consensus,

and given that

(2) your reverts eliminate almost all content from the article, including citations and quotations, turning it into a stub page that is a candidate for deletion,

and given that

(3) the ongoing attempts by multiple individuals to reason with you and have you do the right thing have not succeeded, despite every effort on our part,

any 3RR violation on your part will be reported straightaway, with no further discussion beforehand.

You may find the relevant Wikipedia policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule

I request that you do not remove any future content from the page without first ascertaining whether there is a consensus among the editors for the proposed removal. Also, when communicating with other editors about deletions you propose, please give the reasons for each specific deletion. Alleging "bias" or "self-promotion" is not sufficiently explanatory. The allegation should be accompanied by an argument as to why you contend that the content you desire to remove is biased or self-promotional, and it should engage contrary arguments about the content in question that have been given on the TSSI talk page.

v = 0

For pluralism,

the antichrist 02:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for reply about COPE

In reply to M.Posner: There are three of you with semmingly unlimited amounts of time and endless demands. As I explained previously, I will discuss the issues with you one at a time. I began earlier today with an explantion for my reasons for removing the section on COPE and I am still awaiting responses.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Basic Wiki Principles Which Haven't Been Respected by AKliman & Co.

Much of the edits of Andrew Kliman concerned living persons and hence fall under the biographies of living persons policy. This policy states that a poorly sourced or unsourced statement concerning a living person must be removed immediately, especicially if potentially libelous.

The persistent use of loaded terminology is in violation of the WP:NPOV policy. In every other way, entries must conform to the NPOV policy.

Wikipedia's Verifiability policy must be respected.

Reliable sources must be used.

Facts must be established in a reliable third party source.

Fraud is unacceptable.

Watchgdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

This is just a bunch of words. There is no specificity as to what's being referred to, and no arguments as to why wd contends that the content he keeps removing isn't respectful of "basic wiki principles." Provide some arguments, wd. If and when theres' consensus that your reasoning is valid, the changes you suggest will certainly be made.

the antichrist 02:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I Agree with Kliman and Freeman

I agree with Freeman and Kliman about the priority of reverting the page to the version used immediately prior to the WatchDog07's revert.

I will also add that WatchDog07 is quick to reply on this page (he has posted seven times on this page within 24 hours -- check history to verify this), but still has not responded to the vast majority (if any) of the points raised by Alan Freeman, Andrew Kliman, and myself. His latest post, "I have received no warnings", adds nothing to the discussion. WatchDog07 seems to have all the time in the world to accuse Kliman's entry of being biased ad nauseam but no time to respond in any substantive way to the points raised. If Kliman's page does not adhere to the Wikipedia neutrality policy then the burden is on WatchDog07 to demonstrate why. He can cry wolf over and over again but his claims only get more and more difficult to believe. It seems to me that we are fighting a lost cause in trying to get WatchDog07 to deal with our points in any substantive way.

M.posner 23:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to Watchdog's "I have received no warnings"

23 April, 2007

In "I have received no warnings," wd claims that "Andrew Kliman once again has made a statement which can not be supported." This refers to my comment that "Watchdog07 (wd) has put material on this page AFTER Alan XAX Freeman called attention to wd's violation of the 3-revert rule. (See below.) So we may take it as given that wd is aware that he's been warned" (emphasis added).

Contrary to wd's claim, my statement can easily be supported, simply by looking at the relevant history pages. At 20:01 today, wd acknowledged, on his user talk page, receiving the communication from Alan XAX Freeman which warned him that he was in violation of the 3RR. At 20:35 is when I wrote the 2 sentences quoted above (see this page's history). At 22:17, Watchdog claimed that he "received no warnings" (see this page's history).

Hence, Watchdog had received warning, and had acknowledged receiving warning, of his 3RR violation, before I noted that "we may take it as given that wd is aware that he's been warned" and before he claimed "I have received no warnings." Q.E.D.

So, when wd writes (see below)

"First you can apologize for your false accusations, and then I will discuss with you,"

this request is impossible to fulfill. My "accusation" isn't false. It's true. So there's nothing false about it for which I can apologize.

wd also writes: "Let us be honest with each other: we all know that the TSSI is a very controversial topic"

Yes, and the version of the article that wd keeps removing, contrary to Wikipedia policy, reflects the TSSI's controversial nature, even quoting outrageous accusations made by its opponents and acknowledging that the TSSI refutation of Bortkiewicz's "proof" of inconsistency isn't accepted by everyone.

wd also writes, "If there is to be a reversion, then it will be to the last fuller-length neutral edit from last week."

I don't think such ultimata are in the spirit of collaboration and consensus that Wikipedia wishes to foster and that we're trying to carry out here.

v = 0

Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs)

Agree - undo damage, then discuss

I concur with Akliman.

Wikipedia policy expressly prohibits three reversions within a 24 hour period and requires Watchdog to restore the version before his last reversion. This is so that the discussion he claims to be willing to undertake can be conducted. Watchdog is the only person who has removed content from the page; he has taken to responding to every edit by reverting to a page with almost nothing in it, deleting all other edits.

Watchdog cannot begin a discussion with editors acting in good faith by deleting their work, repeatedly restoring a virtually blank page, and then demanding his conditions are met before he restores any of the deleted content. This holds the community to ransom: Watchdog is effectively using the threat of deletion to impose his own terms on the discussion.

The starting point of discussion should be the positive collective work of the page editors. Proposals for change should start with alternative formulations and not with deletions. The established consensus text should be retained until and unless a new consensus is established that there are valid grounds to change them.

Watchdog should restore the page he has deleted in order that the discussion may take place.

Alan XAX Freeman

Response to Another False Charge of Watchdog07's

In his edit summary explainin his 4th revert within 24 hours, in violation of the Wikipedia 3RR, Watchdog wrote: "blatently biased entry authored by akliman removed; kliman, freeman and m.posner have shown no concern for this issue."

I certainly have shown great concern for this issue. Please see, "Restoring Valid Content that "Watchdog07" Keeps Deleting," at the bottom of this page. It is my detailed discussion of the issue of bias, and my detailed, point-by-point defense of the non-biased character of the TSSI article content that the rest of us keep restoring, but that Watchdog keeps reverting.

If flat-Earther doesn't like a photograph of the Earth that shows it to be spherical, but the photograph wasn't retouched or shot using a trick lens, then the photograph is not biased, and the flat-Earther shouldn't charge that it is.

Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs)

FIRST Undo 4th Revert, Watchdog, THEN Discuss!

"Watchdog07" has acknowledged receipt of Alan XAX Freeman's request that Watchdog restore the content he eliminated with his FOURTH revert within a 24-period. See [1]. But Watchdog has not agreed to do so. He wants to discuss the content of the page. I do not view this as a good-faith move, but as an attempted diversion.

There should be NO discussion with him until he FIRST restores the content he removed and agrees to abide by the Wikipedia 3RR policy in the future. The removal of this content, I repeat, endangers the TSSI article, since it is now only a stub and is therefore ripe for deletion. His action is therefore reckless as well as detrimental to our desire to build consensus.

If Watchdog07 swiftly restores the page, and agrees not to remove content without FIRST offering justification and giving us time to try to arrive at a consensus, then we should discuss with him. But only then. That alone will signal that he is operating in good faith. Those who refuse to abide by the 3RR policy--and to swiftly correct violations of it--are not acting in good faith.

Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs)

I have received no warnings

Andrew Kliman once again has made a statement which can not be supported.

First you can apologize for your false accusations, and then I will discuss with you.

In the meantime, I am prepared to discuss with Alan Freeman and M.Posner - now that the tone of the latter has changed. The aggressive and insulting tone of Dr. Kliman will not help to resolve this situation. He must recognize that edits to this entry MUST be neutral -- unlike his many one-sided edits. Dr. Kliman has yet to display any indication that he now - or has ever - wished to discuss this entry in good faith.

Let us be honest with each other: we all know that the TSSI is a very controversial topic; the edits to the entry must reflect that reality and adhere to the neutrality policy of Wikipedia. You need an attitude adjustment: you can not control the content of the page no matter how much you may want to.

If there is to be a reversion, then it will be to the last fuller-length neutral edit from last week.

Watchdog07 {User|Watchdog07}}

Response to False Allegations by Watchdog07

Monday, 23 April, 2007

First let me note that Watchdog07 (wd) has put material on this page AFTER Alan XAX Freeman called attention to wd's violation of the 3-revert rule. (See below.) So we may take it as given that wd is aware that he's been warned. I urge him to comply with Alan's requests.

Now for my responses to wd's false allegations:

(1) Watchdog07 (wd) wrote: "Andrew Kliman does not know who Watchdog07 is yet he feels able to jump to the above conclusion. This is a clear example of irrationality and evidence why he should remove himself from discussions on this topic."

wd also wrote: "I was accused of editing the TSSI entry for a particular nefarious purpose yet there was no basis for that claim since, as akliman admitted, he does not known my identity. That was irrational."

Response: These claims are false. I did not say that I don’t know who Watchdog07 is. I know perfectly well who he is. (And he knows that I know: my references to "attackdog," which he chooses to portray as insults, were not written in order to insult him. They were written in order to communicate to him that I know who he is, as he well knows.)

Rather than "admitting" that I do not know who wd is, what I did was ask who he is. Just because I phrased my point "in the form of a question" (as Alex Trebek would say) doesn’t mean that I don’t know. If I say, "Who the hell do you think you are?," I am not "admitting" (nor saying, nor implying) that I don’t know who the hell you think you are. In the same way, my questioning of wd's identity, knowledge, and qualifications was not a request to provide me with information I lack.

Hence wd's charge that I have acted "irrational[ly]" is false, based on a misrepresentation of what took place.

I think this should serve as a warning to wd, who severely overestimates his interpretive prowess. If he incorrectly jumps to the conclusion that I didn’t know who he was when I asked

"What are 'Watchdog07's' qualifications to make judgements on facts and interpretation in this case? Who *is* he, even? Does he know ANYTHING about the TSSI?"

then he really isn’t qualified to be lecturing the rest of us on how to interpret the statement published by Duncan Foley, a statement that wd keeps deleting on the grounds that it is out-of-context and misleading.

(wd also doesn’t know as much as he thinks he knows. In his stub version of the TSSI article, the alleged "Fundamental Marxian Theorem" is attributed to Michio Morishima. The theorem is Okishio’s, as Morishima acknowledged when he gave it the name "Fundamental Marxian Theorem." If wd wants proof of this, I’ll provide it. This too should be a lesson to him to stop deleting what people who know far more than him regard as valid content without first trying to arrive at a consensus with them.)

(2) wd claims that he is justified in deleting the section of the TSSI article that deals with Critique of Political Economy, a new online journal, because "it was a clear and flagrant example of self-advertisement and self-promotion" and because the journal is "nonexistent"; he claims that it "exists at the present time only in their imagination."

I have already responded to the charge of "self-advertisement and self-promotion." I noted that the material on COPE has been in the TSSI article from the beginning, prior to any of its editors' input to the TSSI article. The COPE section was put there by Jurriaan Bendien, who's certainly no supporter of the TSSI. As I noted before wd made the latest "self-advertisement and self-promotion" allegation, Bendien simply cannot SELF-promote COPE. wd has failed to respond to this! He merely reiterates his false allegation.

Moreover, M.posner is not an editor of COPE, nor is he on the editorial board. Hence, if he restores the COPE section, as he has done, this can in no way be described as "self-advertisement and self-promotion."

As for the false claim that COPE is "non-existent," existing only in the imaginations of Andrew Kliman and Alan Freeman, wd should tell this to the many authors who have been submitting manuscripts to us, as well as the 50-plus members of our editorial board, who have been refereeing the manuscripts, communicating with the authors, etc. See [2].

A construction project exists the moment ground is broken. A journal exists the moment it goes public with a call for papers. That the skyscraper isn’t yet completed or that the first issue of the journal isn’t yet out doesn’t make them nonexistent.

Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs)

Response to WatchDog07

WatchDog07 said "I see that you now realize that there is a Wikipedia Cleanup Taskforce. I have been a member throughout."

According to the Cleanup Taskforce page history as well as to your user contribution page, this is not the case.

If you can prove that you were a member throughout I will retract my claim, but I see no evidence of this.

M.posner 20:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Partial Retraction

In an earlier post on this discussion page I said: "It also will note that WatchDog07 is posing as a member of the Wikipedia staff. See for example the first version of his personal page where he claimed to be a member of the Wikipedia "Cleanup Taskforce", which does not exist. His Edit summaries also strongly suggest that he is a Wikipedia staff member, which is not the case."

I now see that there is in fact a Wikipedia Cleanup Taskforce. So I retract that statement.

But WatchDog07 was not a member of the Wikipedia Cleanup Taskforce until 16:43 today (23 April 2007). He has also joined the Wikipedia Neutrality Project at 16:51 of the same date (23 April 2007). But nearly all of his edits were made before he was a member of these task forces, so I stand by my earlier claim that his edit summaries were therefore misleading.

M.posner 19:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to M.Posner

I see that you now realize that there is a Wikipedia Cleanup Taskforce. I have been a member throughout. I edited my page just so you would know this to be the case and that you were barking up the wrong tree. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Excellent Points to which Watchdog has Failed to Respond

23 April, 2007

M.Posner and Alan XAX Freeman (I presume) have made some excellent points to which Watchdog07 (wd) has failed to respond:

(1) "the stub version that WatchDog07 repeatedly reverts the page to is not at all similar to the stub version used by DBryant ... DBryant uses citations while WatchDog07 consistently removes citations and does not replace them ...."

(2) "WatchDog07 is posing as a member of the Wikipedia staff. ... he claimed to be a member of the Wikipedia 'Cleanup Taskforce', which does not exist. His Edit summaries also strongly suggest that he is a Wikipedia staff member, which is not the case."

(3) "Watchdog's edits reduce the page to a stub; he has been warned on this page that this places the entry in danger of deletion."

wd replied: "Watchdogo7 was warned only by akliman -- a person with a clear bias."

This completely fails to respond to the statement, namely that wd is placing the entry in danger of deletion. I note that wd is now knowingly placing the page in such danger. I also note that wd has been warned by Akliman and Alan (?), contrary to what he claims; Alan's (?) statement serves as an additional warning to wd.

(4) "He only deletes content, a clear act of vandalism. He gives no valid justification for these deletes."

wd replied: "Explanations have been given time and time again. Will expand upon that once akliman apologizes for his accusation."

This is non-responsive to the correct point that wd gives no valid justification for his deletes.

The "I'll explain after he apologizes" stuff is just a dodge, of course. It does not justify continued deletion of content, which is the issue here. Assume for the sake of argument that wd's feelings are actually hurt. This has absolutely no bearing on the contining request that he properly discuss and account for proposed (and extremely controversial) deletions BEFORE going ahead and making them. What he is doing is not the kind of collaborative, consensus-based behavior that we're trying to carry out here.

(There are, of course, other points to which wd has responded, but inadequately, making incorrect statements, etc. I've just flagged the points to which there's been no response.)

Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs)

Not me who made comments below

The dialog between WatchDog07 and M.posner below is incorrect. It is not me who wrote the sentences which are attributed to me. I believe they were written by Alan Freeman. I do agree with the comments he made but I'm noting this in the interest of accuracy. If someone could edit this I'd appreciate it.

M.posner

Hi Mike, apologies if it was me if so was a typo. I think actually, what has happened is that this got mussed up when AKliman formatted the page but am happy to take the rap if it was me, and apologise for any unintentional hurt.

Alan Freeman

OK, sorry--it was confusing; I tried. I have made the changes. Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs)

Violation of three-revert rule, Monday 23 April 2007

I have left the following message, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, on the user:talk page of Watchdog07. I request fellow editors to desist from editing the page for 12 hours to provide time for Watchdog07 to comply with Wikipedia policy regarding the three-revert rule.

Dear Watchdog07

In accordance with Wikipedia policy I am informing you that in contravention of the three-revert rule, you have reverted the Temporal Single System Page four times in the past 24 hours: at 1:10, 7:05, 11:37 and 13:32. The content of all reverts is identical although your 7:05 revert does not state that this is a revert, as in fact it should do.

You may find the relevant Wikipedia guidelines at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule

You will note that the action expected of you is to restore the content as it existed before your revert.

I request you to do so.

I also request that you do not remove any future content from the page without first ascertaining whether there is a consensus among the editors for the proposed removal.

In particular, please give the reasons for each specific deletion. If you do not give your reasons or enter any dialogue about them, it is impossible for the matter to be resolved constructively.

Should you wish to communicate with me offline anb believe, as I do, that this may help an amicable resolution, I am happy for you to do so at the address given in my user:talk page.

Alan XAX Freeman

Further Discussion, Monday, 23 April 2007

Will reply as time permits. Will explain once again - one section at a time - why the edits are required in order to conform to wiki policies. In the meantime, the neutral, factual, black-and-white edit must remain.

Watchdog 07 (talk · contribs)

---

Yeah, right. Attackdog has no time to attempt to justify his suppressive removal of content, but he *does* have time to suppress the content once again. How about this more plausible explanation: he cannot defend his actions because they are indefensible! Attackdog's actions are a clear example of the "Marxist economists'" censorship of Marx's critique of political economy in its original form, and they are in the public domain for all to see.

Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs)

---

Andrew Kliman does not know who Watchdog07 is yet he feels able to jump to the above conclusion. This is a clear example of irrationality and evidence why he should remove himself from discussions on this topic.

Show some respect for the thousands of volunteers who have contributed in good faith to Wikipedia, Sir! It is not an appropriate place for biased statements and self-advertisement. Wikipedia has a clear policy concerning neutrality which - along with other policies - should be respected.

His insults - e.g. "Attackdog" -- do nothing to improve the entry and suggest a frustration with an inability to exclusively control the content of this wiki page irrespective of wiki policies and objections.

After he apologies for his insult, I will expand upon the explanation for the edits.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

---

[Note by Akliman: Below, AXAXF? = Comment possibly made by Alan XAX Freeman]

AXAXF?: Watchdog's edits reduce the page to a stub; he has been warned on this page that this places the entry in danger of deletion.

Watchdog07: Watchdogo7 was warned only by akliman -- a person with a clear bias.

AXAXF?: He only deletes content, a clear act of vandalism. He gives no valid justification for these deletes

Watchdog07: Explanations have been given time and time again. Will expand upon that once akliman apologizes for his accusation.

AXAXF?: Watchdog07's repeated removal of valid content from this page.

Watchdog07: All materials removed, and materials substituted, were for valid reasons and in accord with wiki policies.

AXAXF?: The accusation of conflict of interest also clearly violates the assumption of good faith required of Wikipedia contributors.

Watchdog07: There was a presumption of good faith. This evaluation was modified as akliman and mposner demonstrated their bias, non-response to valid changes, and personal antagonism on the TSSI and David Laibman pages. See history under David Laibman.

AXAXF?: (1) he can explain the basis for his edits on the discussion page. The absence of such an explanation strongly suggests that he cannot expose the basis of his actions for the Wikipedia community to judge them.

Watchdog07: I plan on explaining them in further depth but not instantaneously. I have a life and can not allocate all of my time to replying to demands by TSSI proponents.

AXAXF?: (2) he should not make edits without explaining the reason for them.

Watchdog07: Edits have been explained already.

AXAXF?: (3) he can state who he is.

Watchdog07: You are not entitled to know this: I have the right to anonymity, which is especially required in this instance to prevent harassment and possible litigation.

AXAXF?: He protests loudly that he is attacked without knowledge of his identity.

Watchdog07: The point is that I was accused of editing the TSSI entry for a particular nefarious purpose yet there was no basis for that claim since, as akliman admitted, he does not known my identity. That was irrational.

AXAXF?: Fine: tell the Wikipedia community who he is, then this community can judge soundly whether and where vandalism is taking place and whether and where there are conflicts of interest.

AXAXF?: (4) he should discuss on the assumption of good faith with those who have added content and those who have restored his deletions, why the content concerned should not be present on this page.

Watchdog07: When the accusations cease and after Andrew Kliman apologizes, I have every intention of doing that.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

---

I will just note that the stub version that WatchDog07 repeatedly reverts the page to is not at all similar to the stub version used by DBryant on the David Laibman page (this is contrary to WatchDog07's claim on his edit summary that he is "following initiative taken by D.Bryant". DBryant uses citations while WatchDog07 consistently removes citations and does not replace them with anything. This is clearly contrary to Wikipedia policies.

It also will note that WatchDog07 is posing as a member of the Wikipedia staff. See for example the first version of his personal page where he claimed to be a member of the Wikipedia "Cleanup Taskforce", which does not exist. His Edit summaries also strongly suggest that he is a Wikipedia staff member, which is not the case.

M.posner

---

Addendum: Daniel Bryant wrote on 4/19 "It has been suggested that M.Posner has a strong conflict of interest with this article" Talk:David_Laibman. Watchdog07 was not the initiator of that suggestion.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

COPE

I have been asked to explain further the edits which have been made. I shall do so in stages and will wait for a response before moving on to the next explanation. I shall begin with the section on the _Critique of Political Economy_ (COPE), an alleged "online journal." This section was deleted in its entirety because it was a clear and flagrant example of self-advertisement and self-promotion and because _there have never been any issues of this "journal" published_! This fraud was knowingly committed by Andrew Kliman and he, along with Alan Freeman (the two editors of the non-existent journal) and M.Posner, have perpetuated that fraud by continung to put that section back in the entry on TSSI. This demonstrated bad faith by all three and a desire to run roughshod over Wikipedia policies in order to promote their "journal" which exists at the present time only in their imagination.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Restoring Valid Content that "Watchdog07" Keeps Deleting

Sunday, 22 April 2007

I am restoring valid content that "Watchdog07" keeps removing from the "Temporal Single-system Interpretation" page. "Watchdog07" persists in alleging that the content is self-promotional, biased, and misleading, generally without explaining further or defending these allegations. Below I explain why the content I have restored is appropriate.

(1) First, let me note that, although Wikipedia policy *generally* dictates that when material is potentially controversial, editors should rely upon what "reliable sources" have written, without drawing inferences or adding opinions, I happen to be a "reliable source" of information in this case. I'm a full professor of economics at Pace University in New York. I hold BA and PhD degrees in economics. (See [3], my department's faculty page.) My book, Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency, which deals with the TSSI and the value theory controversy, was published 4 months ago by Lexington Books, a division of Rowman and Littlefield, a scholarly press. (See [4], the page for this book on the publisher's website.) The book has been well received by scholars thus far, as can be ascertained from the comments on the publisher's website page and the page about the book on my personal website [5].

What are "Watchdog07's" qualifications to make judgements on facts and interpretation in this case? Who *is* he, even? Does he know ANYTHING about the TSSI? He seems to be making judgements and interpretations that go FAR beyond his expertise unless he can demonstrate to us that he's qualified to make these particular judgements and interpretations (like a quote from D. K. Foley meaning something different from what it appears to mean).

It is true that Wikipedia generally wants reliable "third-party" sources to be cited. But this is a mere technicality here, since if M.posner were to restore my content, as he has done, or if Alan XAX Freeman were to restore it, as I'm sure he'd be willing to do, they would be using a third-party source--me.

(2) Secondly, let me note that a plain statement of fact IS NOT biased or in violation of neutrality policy simply because some might interpret it as making critics of the TSSI look bad. It is just a plain statement of fact. Analogously, pictures showing that the Earth is spherical can be interpreted as making flat-Earthers look bad, but the pictures themselves are NOT biased--i.e., they're not retouched or taken using a trick lens, etc.

For instance, let's consider a sentence that "Watchdog07" deleted. The article cites critics of the TSSI who allege that its proponents are "New Orthodox Marxists" who "assert that Marx's formulations, in both the theory of value and the analysis of capitalist accumulation and crisis, are literally and completely correct; that Marx made no errors" (David Laibman) and that the TSSI upholds "the literal truth of all [of] Marx’s propositions" (Roberto Veneziani). Then, in my version of the article, it says:

"These allegations, however, were not accompanied by supporting evidence."

"Watchdog07" DELETED this sentence, allegedly in the interest of neutrality. Now, perhaps someone who reads the sentence *might* conclude that Laibman and Veneziani were making baseless accusations, but the sentence ITSELF doesn't conclude this; the reader does. The sentence itself is a plain statement of fact. Similarly, if I look at a picture of the Earth, and conclude from it that the flat-Earthers are wrong, delusional, or whatever, that is not because the picture ITSELF is biased against the flat-Earthers: it hasn't been retouched, or shot using a trick lens, etc. The picture itself doesn't draw any conclusion; I am the one who has drawn the conclusion.

All of "Watchdog's" complaints of bias are like this.

(3) I now detail the particular restorations I've made and the reasons for them.

(a) "Since internally inconsistent theories cannot possibly be right, the allegations of inconsistency have served to legitimate the censorship of Marx's theories of value and the falling rate of profit and the suppression of current research based upon them. FOOTNOTE:For instance, the connection between the inconsistency allegations and the lack of study of Marx’s theories was noted by John Cassidy ("The Return of Karl Marx," The New Yorker, Oct. 20 & 27, 1997, p. 252): "His mathematical model of the economy, which depended on the idea that labor is the source of all value, was riven with internal inconsistencies and is rarely studied these days."

I orignially had just the first sentence. "Watchdog07" changed it so that it talked about "alleged" censorship or suppression or something. So I provided the reference to Cassidy as evidence that suppression does occur. Unable to challenge this evidence, nor to make the word "alleged" do his work for him, "Watchdog07" just deleted the whole thing. But the reference is accurate, and the interpretation of the facts is being made by a reliable source, me. So there's no good reason for the deletion. "Watchdog07" is just being a flat-Earther charging that a picture of a spherical Earth is biased.

(b) "In recent years, even critics of Marx and/or the TSSI have come to accept this claim, implicitly or explicitly. The TSSI continues to be controversial, but the fact that it eliminates the apparent inconsistencies in Marx's value theory is no longer seriously challenged. FOOTNOTE:See Andrew Kliman, Reclaiming Marx's "Capital", (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2007), pp. 132-36, p. 152, pp. 165-68, pp. 207-08."

Evidently "Watchdog07" doesn't like this because it is "self-serving" for me to cite my book. But it's not a plug for the book; the book is being used as evidence. And if someone else, M.posner or Alan XAX Freeman, uses this reference in their versions of the TSSI page--as they have--this is not being self-serving. But "Watchdog07" still deleted it. He also may be claiming that this statement is biased, but it's a plain fact, and it's extensively documented in the book. A picture of a spherical Earth is not biased just because a flat-Earther doesn't like it.

(c) "Drawing on their experiences in the controversy over Marx's value theory, some proponents of the TSSI have also been active in the movement for pluralism in economics, and they have critiqued, and argued for the reform of, the interpretive methods employed in Marxian economics."

In his edit summary, "Watchdog07" refers vaguely to neutrality and "unfounded and exaggerated claims." But here we have a plain statement of fact that can be amply supported with citations from primary sources. Does "Watchdog07" want me to provide those citations? I'll be happy to do so. And again, a picture of a spherical Earth is not biased just because a flat-Earther doesn't like it.

(d) "These allegations, however, were not accompanied by supporting evidence."

I discussed this in point (2) above.

(e) "Thus, even Duncan K. Foley, a prominent critic of the TSSI, acknowledges that "I understand [Alan] Freeman and [Andrew] Kliman to be arguing that Okishio’s theorem as literally stated is wrong because it is possible for the money and labor rates of profit to fall under the circumstances specified in its hypotheses. I accept their examples as establishing this possibility.” FOOTNOTE: Duncan K. Foley, "Response to Freeman and Kliman," Research in Political Economy, Vol. 18, 2000, p. 282.

"Watchdog07" deleted this, claiming that the quote is out-of-context and misleading. He says that M.posner should ask Foley whether that's the case or not. But what makes "Watchdog07" an authority here? What are his qualifications? Who is he, even? I on the other hand, am a reliable source, and I think the quote is in-context and not misleading. Of course, Foley is also a reliable source, and if *he* wants to come onto Wikipedia and discuss this, I'll be happy to do so in the Wikipedia spirit of collaboration and consensus. But I'm not going to concede that a picture of a spherical Earth is "misleading" just because a flat-Earther--and one who seems to have no particular qualifications to judge wherether the quote is misleading or not--doesn't like it.

(f) "However, proponents of the TSSI claim to have "refuted" Bortkiewicz's proof of inconsistency. Although no critic has successfully refuted this claim, first put forward in 1988, many Marxist economists still decline to accept it. FOOTNOTE:Only one critic of the TSSI, David Laibman, has addressed this issue in print. He acknowledges that TSSI theorists have shown that "reproduction equilibrium" can take place when input and output prices differ, which is precisely what Bortkiewicz had supposedly proved to be impossible. See David Laibman, "Rhetoric and Substance in Value Theory: An appraisal of the new orthodox Marxism," in Alan Freeman, Andrew Kliman, and Julian Wells (eds.), The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar), 2000, p. 10; Andrew Kliman, Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books), 2007, pp. 148-52."

"Watchdog07" removed everything but the first sentence, and replaced it with a statement that the refutation of Bortkiewicz's proof of inconsistency "continue[s] to be controversial among many Marxist economists." But the second sentence that he removed makes this point, too. But by removing the second sentence, he deleted an additional point it makes (and then amply supports in a footnote), namely that the reason why the refutation of Bortkiewicz's proof of inconsistency remains controversial is NOT that it has been successfully refuted. "Watchdog07" might not want readers to know this, but that doesn't make my second sentence and footnote biased (it makes him biased). Flat-Earthers might not want people to know that the record shows that they haven't successfully challenged the evidence that the Earth is spherical, but that doesn't mean that a statement which reports this plain fact is biased.

I really don't see how this issue can be dealt with honestly without telling readers the whole story. Otherwise, they're likely to conclude that the refutations remain controverial because of intellectual/scholarly reasons, and there's no evidence of that.

(g) "When Marx's theory is understood in accordance with the TSSI, rather than in accordance with Bortkiewicz's interpretation, moreover, the results of his transformation account re-emerge as internally consistent; price and value magnitudes are indeed equal in the aggregate. These equalities also re-emerge under other––atemporal––single-system interpretations. Yet under the atemporal interpretations, Marx's falling-rate-of-profit theory and other aspects of his value theory still appear to be internally inconsistent. In order for his theories to be fully acquitted of charges of inconsistency and error, he must be interpreted as having had a temporal conception of value and price determination."

I don't have a clue as to why "Watchdog07" deleted this, other than that the facts are "biased" because they don't favor flat-Earthers. This paragraph can be documented by citing my recent book. I'll be happy to add the ciatations. Is that what "Watchdog07" wants?

(h) "Critique of Political Economy (journal)"

"Watchdog07" deleted this whole section of the article, evidently because it is biased and or self-promotional. But first, I'll be happy to add criticisms of the journal made by responsible parties (but not parties who have been booted off e-mail lists for telling lies about the editors and impugning their reputations), though I don't know of any. Second, the factual content of this section is needed in order to *eliminate* the bias in Jurriaan Bendien's original version of this article, still publicly accessible, which incorrectly and tendentiously called the COPE editorial board an "academic faction" of TSSI supporters and sympathizers. And third, the topic is clearly appropriate, related to the TSSI; I note that it was present from the start, in Bendien's original version.

(i) "Watchdog07" deleted, on grounds that they were "self-promotional," the URLs to the "writings" page of my personal website and to the COPE website. The notion that these are "self-promotional" is wrong, since both URLs have been there since Bendien's original version of the page (actually, he referenced my entire website, not just the writings page). Clearly, Bendien can't SELF-promote Kliman.

Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs)

The "Rich Farmbrough" Hoax

Someone claiming to be Rich Farmbrough -- an administrator at Wikipedia -- has edited the TSSI entry several times. I asked him about this and he denied making any changes. See UserTalk:Watchdog07.

Impersonating a Wikipedia administrator is a very serious breach of ethics! Whoever is responsible for this fraud should immediately remove herself or himself from editing any further Wikipedia subjects.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Reply:

This is truly bizarre. Reread your exchange with Rich Farmbrough as well as the history page of TSSI. On Rich Farmbrough's talk page you say that he reverted the page to the Andrew Kliman version. The history of the TSSI page does not show anything like this. Rich Farmbrough's edits consisted only of changing capitalization and spelling. When he replied to you, saying, " Not me ", he linked the page to an edit not performed by him. Clearly he was saying that he did not revert the page, as you had claimed. He never claimed that he had not made any edits, nor that there was any impersonation of him.

See the whole exchange here

M.posner 18:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Choices Before Us

The current edit by Andrew Kliman / the antichrist, reverted to by a member of his immediate family, is flagrantly one-sided and in violation of [WP:NPV], [WP:BLP], and other established Wikipedia norms. This means that it must be changed to a more neutral edit. There are three choices:

1. revert to black and white edit.

2. revert to last edit by Jurriaan before vandalism began.

3. revert to the edit which I offered in the spirit of compromise and in good faith last week.

Which do you want, people?

After the revert to one of the above, we can continue the discussion on how to improve the page - if that's what you are really interested in.

If no one replies, then I will use my judgment on which of the above to revert to.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Since the antichrist and co. haven't expressed a preference, I will choose what I believe is the fairest reversion to all concerned and in the best interests of Wikipedia.

Watchdog07 Professor of Economics

member, Neutrality Project Review Team

member, Cleanup Taskforce [business; politics and government]