User talk:Arri at Suburban Express

COI Notice

I have a Conflict of Interest arising from my ownership interest in Suburban Express Inc.

Suburban Express Conventional Media Sources

Here are some conventional-media sources which are potentially useful for editors working on the Suburban Express article:

Daily Herald

Daily Herald Release: http://www.toeppen.com/daily-herald-release.pdf
Daily Herald Article re: Fare Wars http://www.toeppen.com/daily-herald-fare-wars-toeppen.pdf
Daily Herald Article re: University of Iowa Service http://www.toeppen.com/daily-herald-uiowa-se.pdf

News-Gazette

News-Gazette release: http://www.toeppen.com/gazette-release.pdf
News-Gazette article re: Go Suburban - leave the driving to the entrepreneur: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1990_0408_news-gazette_article.pdf

Daily Illini

Daily Illini release: http://www.toeppen.com/di-release.pdf
Daily Illini article re: New cut-rate bus service: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1984_0128_new_cut-rate_bus_service.pdf
Daily Illini article re: Illini Union Board budget matters - Greyhound commissions down by $15k (Translates to $150k sales decrease) http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1984_IUB_budget_impact.pdf
Daily Illini article re: Greyhound Predatory Pricing: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1985_0216_greyhound_predatory_pricing.pdf
Daily Illini article re: Suburban Express using novel method to pursue cheaters: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1996_0117_bad_checks.pdf
Daily Illini letter to editor re: Bad checks article: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1996_0118_di_letter_to_editor_re_badcheck_article.pdf
Daily Illini article re: Students who thought they could do better... http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/2000_0823_6th_Wave_Opens.pdf
Daily Illini article re: ...but who arguably failed: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/2000_1030_Sixth_Wave_Screws_Up.pdf

Perhaps an editor will post these in the Talk section of the Suburban Express article.

Thanks, I've reposted this with minor changes. [1] —rybec 20:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Personal Attacks, treating Wikipedia as a battleground and general disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. MLauba ^(Talk) 23:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

During the course of the discussion at WP:AN here, you have been warned and cautioned multiple times about restricting yourself to factual concerns with specific statements in the article and refraining from discussing and attacking other editors. This warning was repeated at the talk page of User:Arri416.

Despite these, you have continued your campaign of personal attacks, innuendo and intimidation, which would already be unacceptable if your focus was merely on correcting factual inaccuracies (eg. [2], [3], [4] or [5]). However, your more recent interventions show a tend to use those tactics to sway and change the tone of the article itself, which combined with bullying and intimidation tactics is simply not going to fly.

Correcting factual mistakes or inaccuracies is a perfectly legitimate endeavour. However, since it appears those cannot come without all the rest, please address those by emailing info-en-qwikimedia.org . Include both the address or title of your article and specific information on the problems you have with it. MLauba ^(Talk) 23:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a drama! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Arri at Suburban Express (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Here are my thoughts: 1) Name change from Suburban Express President (unacceptable because it was judged to be a role account) to Arri416 was subject to a lengthy delay. I discussed that matter repeatedly with several users or admins and wound up registering a new username. Arri416 is essentially a dead account. Other than one unintentional login with the old username (Suburban Express President), that account has not been used since I registered Arri at Suburban Express. Was I supposed to close it?

2) I do not understand your use of the word "attack". It seems as if any discussion with a user with whom I disagree is characterized as an attack. I received a warning about it and have tried to tread carefully. Is it possible that "attack" is somewhat subjective and what I see as normal debate seems attack-ish to others? I really don't get this. I am willing to work towards conforming with Wikipedia norms.

3) As for the linked examples

The message to IP user https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.15.78.1&oldid=580323275 was wrong and I received a warning and now understand that Wikipedia somehow sees that as an outing - even though no identifying information of any kind was post. I have complied with that warning and the situation will not be repeated. I have no idea what is wrong with this interaction https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:N2e&diff=prev&oldid=580469584. I was communicating privately with a user who has a similar background as mine - an economics professor. Talking about company history from an economic perspective seems proper. The moderator discussed in this section is a Reddit user. The description of the history of the Wikipedia article is factual, and I did not mention any specific parties. Nevertheless, I am willing to receive guidance and comply with local customs. This one also baffles me https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suburban_Express&diff=prev&oldid=580484544. I asked an editor if he would support his claim. And I responded to a user who was questioning my prior post. I don't see how having a discussion constitutes attacking another editor. I'll have to ponder this one, apparently. Here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&diff=prev&oldid=580509986 I pointed out that an IP user with an admitted COI who previously stated that he would recuse himself from the discussion had returned. That is a factual statement and was not intended as an attack. On the other hand, the IP user aggressively pursued me and attacked my statements in Talk:Suburban Express. I don't understand how defending myself against attacks constitutes uncivil behavior. I suppose the fact that this was cited in the block is meant to suggest that Wikipedia users are expected to ignore unsettling behavior by others. If that's what's required, I'll just have to adjust. 4) My goal here is to ensure that the Suburban Express article does not contain factual errors. I've been trying to learn the local lingo and follow the local customs as best I can. But it's sometimes hard to distinguish between useful advice and advice from editors who seek to cause harm. The fact that admins and regular users are indistinguishable doesn't help. If I knew when I was receiving advice from an admin, it would be much easier to learn the local customs.

5) The Suburban Express article is essentially a BLP, since I am the founder and owner. It seems unreasonable for me to be unable to participate in the talk page discussion on an article that is essentially about me. For instance, this block precludes me from adding conventional media sources to the conventional media section which i recently created. Emailing comments into a queue doesn't seem like a practical solution.

I am willing to conform with the customs here. I need some guidance and a little patience.

Thanks for your time.

Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

After discussion with functionaries and Arbcom, I am declining this request. Please refer any future unblock appeals to Arbcom. Worm^TT(talk) 13:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.