User talk:SlamDiego/Archive 7

well done
Yeah, I guess I was way too hasty with the find/replace function. Anyway, I think I came a little too late to the party to really address everything you'd been saying already. I still disagree about the A-C user page, but your arguments were well put and I thank you for taking the time to keep the dialogue going. Let me know if you ever need anything, it'd be my pleasure to help you keep the sanity and peace around this place. — coe l acan — 06:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

“ratex”
It seems like the reason the dictionary includes 'ratex' as a short hand for rational expectations is because Wiki defined it this way, so this is a bit of a circular argument. If you google 'ratex' by itself you get links to commercial sites and nothing about rational expectations - so this approaches using Wiki as an advertising board, which was my main concern in removing it. Also I've never actually heard Macro people use ratex, definetly not on frequent basis and if you read books and textbooks on Macro these do not use the shorthand either. Hence, I think it should stay out because 1) It's not in widespread use and 2) it has links to commerical companies which may confuse the reader. radek 00:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As I note on your Talk page, I've been hearing this term since the mid-'80s. I'm an economist too, Radek; apparently you and I just move in different circles.  And perhaps we read different academic works; in any event it appears in such things as “The Political Monetary Business Cycle: Political Reality and Economic Theory” in Political Behavior, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Jun., 1989). (Even if it did not, I wouldn't see why Wikipedia articles should not here use or mention non-academic jargon.) —SlamDiego 02:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a stickler for small details so feel free to put it back in. I haven't heard the term, though "Macro-business cycle" isn't really my field. radek 02:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Macro isn't mine either, actually; I am interested in non-standard decision theory (things such as operational distinctions between indifference and indecision). —SlamDiego 02:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Phi Kappa Psi: Controversy section
As the premier defender of the section mentioned in the subject line, I wanted to make you aware of a post I made in the talk page of the Phi Kappa Psi page relating to my plan to remove the section on Friday, 4 May 2007. If you're still interested in the discussion, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Phi_Kappa_Psi (and feel free to remove this post from your talk page at your earliest convenience). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rjproie (talk • contribs) 01:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC).


 * First off, sorry I forgot to sign my last post to this talk page. Second, I'm enjoying the discussion on the Phi Kappa Psi page, and I congratulate you for your persistence. Whether or not you're a Greek life champion, the Greek life system needs more honest and completely open discussions like we're having. If "we" (Greeks) can't have these conversations, then we're failing the very founding ideals of our organizations, and deserve being closed, ignored, choked off, etc. In other words, I think you're fighting the good fight, whether I happen to agree with you in every instance or not. RJ 07:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

sockpuppets
Well, I can't say I'm surprised. I would like to look into this in greater detail, but probably won't have much time until later today. Keep me posted. Natalie 13:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, and thank you. —SlamDiego 13:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rjproie
I am being truthfully honest here, I dont have a sock puppet. If there is any way to prove that I dont have a sockpuppet, please let me know. I am willing to work with you on this. I would hate to see a real editor such as RJ get deleted because of this. If you need further proof, feel free to email me.Samwisep86 18:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your evolving story simply doesn't fit the facts. —SlamDiego 18:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a formal mediation request here: Requests for mediation/Phi Kappa Psi. Please sign so we can navigate this together.Samwisep86 18:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Doing that just now isn't going to alter the implication of your admitting to having done it earlier when it was done with the account User:Rjproie. At this point, I want to see under what if any constraints the admins permit you to continue editing before I sign onto either mediation process. (I am more than confident of triumph should I end up in mediation with some editor over this matter.) —SlamDiego 19:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me know how we can resolve this civilly and completely. However damning this sounds, this is but an odd coincidence. I know my innocence in this matter, I am willing to swear on all that is sacred to myself to prove my innocence. Samwisep86 18:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * At this stage, the resolution is probably in no way mine to decide. But I would certainly be satisfied if you — under all of your accounts — henceforth ceased and desisted from editing any articles concerning fraternal organizations. —SlamDiego 19:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To satisfy you, I sahll put in a request to delete my account. Then looking back, you shall see that you were in the wrong.Samwisep86 19:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I said all of your accounts. Naturally I include User:Rjproie, which you implicitly confessed was yours.  If, as User:Rjproie or otherwise, you continue editing in an area where your psychological commitments run away with you, then deletion of User:Samwisep86 will be next to meaningless.  On the other hand, I think that it's possible that as User:Samwisep86 and/or as User:Rjproie, you might be able to make real contributions in other areas. —SlamDiego 19:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Thanks to you, I am done editing Wikipedia for a very long time. Thanks for driving a person who believed in WP's mission away. The editing by will stop, since I will not be editing anymore. Again, RjProie is a real user, not a sockpuppet.Samwisep86 19:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To satisfy you, I have gone ahead and filled outSuspected_sock_puppets/Samwisep86 to prove I'm not a sockpuppeter. Please believe me, I am not a sockpuppeter. I do everything in defense of WP, and not to senselessly argue with you. I implore you to assume good faith, in that I did not operate a sock puppet to argue with you, and that I have a stellar record of reverting vandalism among the WP fraternity pages and watching them. Samwisep86 19:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe you for exactly the reasons already explained. You claimed to have done something demonstrably done with account User:Rjproie, and when exposed as having done this, claimed that you had confused some other actions of your own, when you have no action in your history before the claim which would be a candidate for any alleged confusion.  What you've since done has been to blow smoke. —SlamDiego 20:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're accusing me of driving you away, but what I actually did was present the evidence that you are a sockpuppet to an admin and in the discussion in which this was immediately relevant. It is only to the extent that the evidence is damning that I can have had much effect here at all. —SlamDiego 20:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As per my post on the Phi Psi talk page, I screwed up when when to request mediation from the mediation Cabal. I was unsure of what happened when I didn't see a request put in for Phi Kappa Psi. I looked at the page again just recently, and I found what I did wrong: instead of placing a request for mediation, I only placed the the template at the top of the page. I had thought that placing the template at the top would start a page for mediation. I now that I didn't. When I saw that RJ had created the page. I decided to make the information more accurate. In the edits I made to the page, did I defame or your position in anyway? I simply edited in the spirit of HELPING BOTH PARTIES OUT. My track record should speak for it self. When have I, during my time as an editor, aggressively attacked another editor because I was arguing with that editor? Please think about your claim that I, would create an account to argue with you just to spite you in having another supporter. Every edit I have done, has been in the interest of promoting WP. Check my contributions. Nothing has changed.Samwisep86 20:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is my watchlist entry:


 * 1)  User talk:SlamDiego‎; 13:56 . . (+1,154) . . Samwisep86 (Talk | contribs) (→User:Rjproie)
 * 2) (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Phi Kappa Psi‎; 13:51 . . (+880) . . Rjproie (Talk | contribs) (→Gang Rape)

If I had used proxies, I must have moved very fast to login on a different account using either proxies or physically moving myself. I would have to win the olympics or be a master at proxies in coordinating this feat, neither of which I am.Samwisep86 21:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The edit in to my talk page was made several hours after the I had noted that your claim of having made a request for mediation identified you as Rjproie.
 * The mediation request qua Rjproie is some what defamatory, and the edits qua Samwisep86 left it defamatory. As to the other request for Mediation, I haven't looked closely enough at it to know whether it is defamatory — it is a redundancy born of panic.
 * As you know, proxies can be used with virtual simultaneity, by a variety of artifices that pretty much any user can quickly master.
 * Good deeds on your part are neither surprising nor sufficient. Again, I have expressed a belief that you probably can edit well when you don't let yourself get carried away by POV.  But there are quite a few editors for whom this is true, and some of them, despite excellent edits to many articles, have been deemed so transgressive in others that they have been indefinitely blocked. I don't have any desire to see you indefinitely blocked; I just want you away from articles where POV blinds you.—SlamDiego 21:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, SlamDiego. Do you have knowledge of the process by which I can prove myself to not be a sockpuppet? I have no idea who Samwisep86 is. Any help in clearing my name would be appreciated. RJ 22:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, I don't know of such a process. The basic problem is that you'd need to trump an admission, and I don't know of anything here that will do that.  At this point, your hopes lie in admins not having the time or not having the inclination to pore over things, and deciding to give you the benefit of the doubt.  There is a significant chance that they will do so, otherwise I wouldn't bother to agree in-principle to Mediation, or even reply to comments from either account.


 * For what it's worth, if the admins decide against you, you can still appeal to Wales for reinstatement. You would shoot yourself in the foot by attempting to appeal to him pre-emptively, but if you are indefinitely blocked then you can contact him at jwales at wikia dot com. —SlamDiego 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Butting in a bit
Butting in because I welcomed RJ and as a result he has taken me up on the offer of help in my welcome to ask me some questions about this matter. I don't feel I know this situation well enough to have an opinion about whether or not the users are socks, but I do have two quick questions: Can I see the diff of Samwisep86 admitting that RJ is his sock? Also, has a checkuser been asked for? Cheers. Dina 22:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I never in fact admitted to having a sockpuppet. He has construed the words I have said to think I have a sock puppet. SlamDiego, Please point out to me where I admitted having a sock puppet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samwisep86 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Please point out to me where I ever claimed that you made an overt admission. I have always been very precise that what you did was claim qua Samwisep86 to have done something that was done qua Rjproie, and then offered inconsistent explanations for why you did this.  You would be better served in not mispresenting what I have said, and merely claiming that Samwisep86 and Rjproie are two people who have managed to repeatedly misspeak in a way that bizarrely but falsely self-indicts. —SlamDiego 23:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked out User talk:Natalie Erin where you've answered both my questions. I do not think that this is as open and shut as you think:
 * 19:05, April 29 2007 User:Samwisep86 puts the medcab request template at the top of the Talk:Phi Kappa Psi with the edit summary "(MedCabal request)"
 * 19:38, 29 April 2007 User:Rjproie creates a med cab request on the same issue.
 * 14:43, 30 April 2007 User:Samwisep86 states on the Talk:Phi Kappa Psi page that he has "requested the mediation cabal's help in this, since it doesnt seem were getting anywhere arguing with this, and to get another party's take on this issue."


 * I'm not saying they couldn't be socks, but this is simply not proof enough for me. Dina 23:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The comment to Natalie Erin were just the initial case. Pore over Talk:Phi Kappa Psi and the discussion above to see Samwisep86 do such things as represent a RfM made well after the sockpuppet charge as if it were the RfM to which he had earlier referred.
 * In any case, I don't have much riding on persuading people that these two are sock-puppets. (Until Samwisep86 exploded in inconsistent denials, I figured that the matter was most likely to blow over.) —SlamDiego 23:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it looks like the edit conflicted on Talk:Phi Kappa Psi here: Dina 23:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 19:05 29 April 2007 User:Rjproie adds a long bit of discussion.
 * 19:05 29 April 29  User:Samwisep86 adds his medcab template to the top of the page.


 * I don't know that that represents an edit conflict. (And I could show you how to have an actual edit conflict with yourself if you wish. ;-) ) —SlamDiego 23:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw your update to Erin's talk page, which sounded fair to me. I appreciate the fact that there are a number of circumstantial reasons to connect to make you believe that I could have been a sock puppet, but I assure you I am not. Thank you for continuing to be civil. RJ 02:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 08:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC).