User talk:Janeyryan

Last time I'll say this

I'm sorry, I only mean "trolling" in the sense that you're trying to provoke a reaction. That's what it seemed like at the time:

You claim I'm "attempting to ban editors from an article who disagree..."
- I say that I actually agree with you and JohnnyB on some points
You again claim that the proposal is in bad faith—"brandished to gain advantage"
- I more clearly state that I have no strong POV
You then chastise me for discussing myself, Mantanmoreland, ect., and again claim that the proposal is in bad faith
- I insist again that it's not, citing similarly restrictive advice I gave to Byrne (to demonstrate this is not a prejudice I have against your POV)
After claiming that the conversation is not suited for talk, you imply that the proposal is a "bludgeon in a content dispute"
- I again insist that it's a good faith proposal to curtail past abuse
"Oh please... I think you should cool off and desist, and take this to the appropriate forum"

We are in agreement that this sort of dialog does not belong on the talk page. At the time, this dialog did seem like trolling. I'm sorry, but I will say for the last time that I sincerely think this proposal is a good idea, and I would continue to believe it if a pack of editors with the reverse of your POV showed up. It's a good idea because it permanently removes the incentives to violate the ArbCom probation.

I've agreed with many of your edits in the past, so I would appreciate if you not continually cast aspersions on my motives.

As for my COI, a look at the Mantanmoreland case should tell you what it is. That is the entirety of my conflict of interest. It's inappropriate to write about a real person after being instrumental in events that presumably got them banned from the forum. Cool Hand Luke 06:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you are trying to topic ban editors that have been a burr under your saddle. We have had major issues in the past, with you accusing me, in effect, of being a banned editor, and I see now that you have crossed swords with JohhnyB256 too in the past. Under the circumstances, assumption of good faith is difficult if not impossible.

Again, I ask you to take your beef with me and JohnnyB to the appropriate forum,as it is disruptive in Talk:Naked Short Selling.--Janeyryan (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a beef with you. I think this is a good proposal for reasons unrelated to your POV. I don't know how many times I can say this: I don't have a dog in the ring here. I'm no POV warrior. Here I reverted to JohnnyB's version because I thought it was better than Macken79's. Here I removed some pro-lawsuit SYN that doesn't belong in the article. I would appreciate it if you can assume good faith. Cool Hand Luke 07:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this was trolling, so I hope you understand how easy it was for me to be confused on the point. Cool Hand Luke 07:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you are so anxious to demonstrate to me that your effort to topic ban me from naked shorting and related articles is not aimed at me. It is. Please stop this silliness. And by the way, your recitation of past posts neglected to include the following post you directed at me in Talk:Gary Weiss:

'Frankly, this user reminds me of Samiharris. SH was outspoken about this biography after everyone else kinda accepted the sources. I also note that this account was formed after Mantanmoreland's last sock was banned—which only happened after he miraculously slipped up in editing from a remote ISP, and only once. Perhaps, given my views, we should actually full protect all of these pages. If we do that, we should have an understanding that admins should be free to make substantive edits (including good suggestions from the talk page). The point of such protection would be to simply enforce the ArbCom decision by keeping returning sockpuppets out. Thoughts? Cool Hand Luke 01:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)'

Can we please move on to other subjects? I think this is exhausted. Thanks. --Janeyryan (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a good example of what I mean. These are my long-held and sincere views.

I don't know whether you're a sockpuppet, and it really shouldn't matter. Macken79's proposal strikes me as a good way of taking it off the table, so that it never matters again. I didn't make these views up in order to win in a POV battle because I'm not engaged in a POV battle. I wish you would stop implying otherwise. Cool Hand Luke 07:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few hour sgo you said this [1]:

'Janeyryan has said that this is his one and only account "since the dawn of time," so you're assuming bad faith here, Macken79. However, given that this is the account's first edit (topic: Wikipedia Review, complex formatting perfect), I think some skepticism is warranted. After all, this page was edited by User:Bassettcat until that user slipped up just once. I note that some of Janeyryan's first edits were reverting to Bassettcat's versions.

'Given this history, I propose that we take this to WP:EA. I believe that our current controls make enforcing this arbitration mandate impossible. My suggestion is that all accounts created after the March 2008 Mantanmoreland Arbitration be banned from editing the mainspace of this article (and related articles) unless their identity can be positively established by a checkuser. Until then, they are free to use the talkpage, as are all other accounts, including our resident COI editors. Cool Hand Luke 02:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)'[reply]

Then you changed your mind about taking it to AE, but the plain intent that you stated is a matter of record and absurd to deny.--Janeyryan (talk) 08:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't changed my mind. I'm sorry if this was the heart of your opposition; it would have been easy for me to be more clear.

It's still going to WP:AE, but I'm not fond of doing things without community input. I'd like regular editors on the topic to opine about whether such a special page ban on new users would be helpful. There may be other, more effective, ways of enforcing the arbitration probation. Perhaps you missed this edit? "But before we do [take it to WP:AE]], I would appreciate if other editors weigh in. I don't want it to be a premature proposal." Cool Hand Luke 08:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement request about Naked short selling

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Request for a special restriction at Naked short selling. Cool Hand Luke 03:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]