191:'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)'
267:. 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.
187:
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
84:
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
111:
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
304:, 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
91:
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.
212:
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
332:
140:
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.
55:
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)
297:
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.
282:
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.--
117:
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.--
21:
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:
88:
I've agreed with many of your edits in the past, so I would appreciate if you not continually cast aspersions on my motives.
260:
until that user slipped up just once. I note that some of
Janeyryan's first edits were reverting to Bassettcat's versions.
333:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Request for a special restriction at Naked short selling
50:
You then chastise me for discussing myself, Mantanmoreland, ect., and again claim that the proposal is in bad faith
308:"But before we do ], I would appreciate if other editors weigh in. I don't want it to be a premature proposal."
340:
313:
272:
222:
175:
157:
97:
256:, complex formatting perfect), I think some skepticism is warranted. After all, this page was edited by
80:
We are in agreement that this sort of dialog does not belong on the talk page. At the time, this dialog
336:
325:
309:
268:
218:
171:
153:
93:
75:"Oh please... I think you should cool off and desist, and take this to the appropriate forum"
253:
257:
209:
That's actually a good example of what I mean. These are my long-held and sincere views.
152:
that doesn't belong in the article. I would appreciate it if you can assume good faith.
283:
195:
118:
301:
291:
276:
264:
203:
101:
38:
You again claim that the proposal is in bad faith—"brandished to gain advantage"
194:
Can we please move on to other subjects? I think this is exhausted. Thanks. --
170:
so I hope you understand how easy it was for me to be confused on the point.
26:
You claim I'm "attempting to ban editors from an article who disagree..."
344:
317:
226:
179:
161:
126:
68:
I again insist that it's a good faith proposal to curtail past abuse
248:
so you're assuming bad faith here, Macken79. However, given that
63:
you imply that the proposal is a "bludgeon in a content dispute"
31:
I say that I actually agree with you and JohnnyB on some points
61:
After claiming that the conversation is not suited for talk,
244:'Janeyryan has said that this is his one and only account
305:
249:
245:
236:
167:
149:
145:
141:
74:
67:
62:
54:
49:
42:
37:
30:
25:
263:'Given this history, I propose that we take this to
43:I more clearly state that I have no strong POV
8:
217:. I wish you would stop implying otherwise.
324:Arbitration enforcement request about
144:because I thought it was better than
7:
252:is the account's first edit (topic:
142:Here I reverted to JohnnyB's version
14:
1:
235:A few hour sgo you said this
137:I don't have a beef with you.
345:03:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
318:08:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
292:08:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
277:02:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
227:07:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
204:07:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
180:07:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
162:07:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
127:07:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
112:difficult if not impossible.
102:06:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
215:not engaged in a POV battle
360:
246:"since the dawn of time,"
16:
287:
199:
168:doubt this was trolling,
122:
17:Last time I'll say this
300:It's still going to
148:Here I removed some
326:Naked short selling
188:Talk:Gary Weiss:
351:
254:Knowledge Review
359:
358:
354:
353:
352:
350:
349:
348:
329:
258:User:Bassettcat
150:pro-lawsuit SYN
19:
12:
11:
5:
357:
355:
328:
322:
321:
320:
298:
242:
241:
240:
239:
230:
229:
210:
185:
184:
183:
182:
164:
130:
129:
114:
113:
78:
77:
72:
71:
70:
59:
58:
57:
47:
46:
45:
35:
34:
33:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
356:
347:
346:
343:
342:
338:
334:
327:
323:
319:
316:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
296:
295:
294:
293:
289:
285:
280:
278:
275:
274:
270:
266:
261:
259:
255:
251:
247:
237:
234:
233:
232:
231:
228:
225:
224:
220:
216:
211:
208:
207:
206:
205:
201:
197:
192:
189:
181:
178:
177:
173:
169:
165:
163:
160:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
138:
134:
133:
132:
131:
128:
124:
120:
116:
115:
110:
106:
105:
104:
103:
100:
99:
95:
89:
86:
83:
76:
73:
69:
66:
65:
64:
60:
56:
53:
52:
51:
48:
44:
41:
40:
39:
36:
32:
29:
28:
27:
24:
23:
22:
339:
330:
312:
281:
271:
262:
243:
221:
214:
193:
190:
186:
174:
156:
136:
135:
108:
96:
90:
87:
81:
79:
20:
146:Macken79's.
85:probation.
306:this edit?
337:Cool Hand
310:Cool Hand
284:Janeyryan
269:Cool Hand
219:Cool Hand
196:Janeyryan
172:Cool Hand
154:Cool Hand
119:Janeyryan
94:Cool Hand
107:But you
302:WP:AE
265:WP:EA
341:Luke
331:See
314:Luke
288:talk
273:Luke
250:this
223:Luke
200:talk
176:Luke
158:Luke
123:talk
98:Luke
109:are
82:did
335:.
290:)
279:'
202:)
166:I
125:)
286:(
238::
198:(
121:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.