User talk:Stalwart111

ANI

• Hello Stalwart. I see the following statement from you on the current ANI: "By taking a step back he has acknowledged he has done wrong. Even if he hasn't, we have collectively agreed to interpret his actions that way and he hasn't sought to "correct" that."

This surprised and disappointed me. Is your model guilty unless proven innocent? I have avoided comment in these many noticeboard proceedings where such comment would have been unnecessary and in my judgment would have caused further animosity and contention to no productive end. My model is similar to a US court of law, where the accused may speak if in his judgment it is necessary, but where there is no prejudice attributed to silence.

I understand that in context you intended your statement to allay the concern of editor Abel, but nevertheless I feel that it was undue. Moreover it seems that it may have emboldened her in a way you may not have intended. The consensus to which I presume you refer is primarily among three involved editors, carolmooredc, abel, and srich. Because you seemed to be saying that my silence is an admission of guilt, I am writing here to see whether you wish to soften that comment. Otherwise, I will feel, regretfully, that it's necessary to post further in my "defense" at the ANI -- which I think you agree is basically a pointless exercise. Your thoughts? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm disappointed you're disappointed but you had chosen not to comment there (despite what must have been many "pings" as people mentioned you and at least one formal ANI notice) and I simply noted as much. The way the community chooses to interpret that is up to the community and I noted how (in my opinion) the community had chosen to interpret it. It's got nothing to do with guilt or innocence - you were offered the opportunity to respond and didn't. Having since become aware of the way your silence was being interpreted, you have now responded. My point there is really a moot point now on that basis. I still don't favour sanctions because the behaviour that was causing problems (whatever that may have been) has clearly stopped.

To be frank, I think the whole thing is a pointless exercise while ever there are many issues with the Mises/Rockwell walled garden. I don't think uninvolved editors will ever be able to wade through those sufficiently to make any actual decisions about involved editors. At the end of the day, all will simply chant "content dispute, content dispute, content dispute" until that content dispute is at least partially resolved. Stalwart111 08:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Since the ANI is now a giant mess, my comment is probably going to be lost in the shuffle and I really did want to thank you so I'm repeating it here:

Stalwart111, well put, thank you. Now I think I see how this is supposed to work. Doing nothing is not condoning. This is meant to be a notice that the behavior is now identified as disruptive. The editor is free to continue the disruptive behavior and face whatever comes with that, or change the behavior and happily ever after.

Abel (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's basically it. The conversation has now moved on but the other point I would make is that, as one editor pointed out, one-way interaction bans very rarely work and so are rarely implemented. What often ends up happening is that one editor is banned from interacting with another (or multiple others) and so is prevented from collegial participation in various forums and talk pages. Instead, the editor simply edits without discussing those edits, those with whom he is banned from interacting complain/start RFCs/post comments. The editor can either respond and risk being blocked for breaching the IBAN or refuse to respond and instead complain that the ban is preventing collegial interaction. You can guess what would happen then.

To be frank (for the second time in this thread), you guys are probably all on fairly thin ice as far as the rest of the community is concerned. You each have an obvious POV that you are trying to push, but the value of your editing is that you also understand the subject and so your POV is tolerated for the sake of improved articles. If your collective clashing POVs do more harm than good, topic bans for all would not be out of the question. There are many subject areas where topic bans have been handed out or ARBCOM restrictions are in place because of similar editing/conflict patterns. Trust me when I tell you that you don't want libertarian/Austrian economics to be subject to similar restrictions. Already, Austrian/Mises-related topics are disproportionately represented at the "drama boards" (relative to the small percentage of articles represented). Admins are going to get sick of that very soon, I'd imagine. Stalwart111 09:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with 99% of that statement. The "all on thin ice" part is not warranted. That might be true for CarolMooreDC and SPECIFICO. I have only commented on my first hand interactions with SPECIFICO. I have not delved into the details of their exchanges. Regardless, I have a hard time believing that restoring a good article to good article compliance would get me any kind of ban. You still have me convinced that doing nothing is the correct course, which isn't so much nothing as it is a "wait and see if anything changes" strategy. Abel (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but what I'm saying is that if nothing changes (longer term), don't expect sanctions to be limited to one editor. I'm not guessing as to who they might be expanded to beyond (potentially) "everyone with a Mises/Austrian POV". If it gets really silly then ARBCOM will step in and the bans won't be individual, they will be topic-wide and everyone will be subject to them. You, me and Jimbo Wales. Stalwart111 13:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand. One editor can wage a willful campaign to push one point of view, one far outside consensus, then chase editors who point out a problem with that behavior to other articles to make disruptive edits, and all that disruption gets rewarded with everyone and their brother being banned from any topic that the one disruptive editor touched? That just seems like some of the most perverse incentives (in the economic usage of the phrase) that I have even heard of. I hope my comprehension is blurred because that sounds like a terrible solution. Abel (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but this isn't a matter of one editor, or even two or three. The Mises/Austrian stuff has been going on for years but has been particularly nasty over the last 6 months or so. You are witness to the latest battle in a long-running war (I'm not sure whether you've experienced any of the history). Editors have been topic banned, indef'd, etc. and the POV has proven to go both ways. The benefit of the "walled garden" I've mentioned is that most of the conflict has happened behind those walls. But bringing it to ANI means more attention. Maybe that's a good thing for WP as a whole, but I don't think it would be pleasant for those involved. Stalwart111 14:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Having only made a change or two to Austrian Economics, my experience is pretty much those one or two edits then having SPECIFICO follow me to the Foundation for Economic Education and spend like two minutes making changes that took hours to correct. This whole system seems terribly backwards. Why is it so easy to destroy and so difficult to build? Abel (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, your undo button should allow you to "undo" edits in seconds which suggests it was more than just "two minutes" of changes. Sure enough, from what I can see, his first edit to that page was on 23 June. That "string" of edits continued through that day and well into the following day. After that, S.Rich made 8 edits to the article and your next edits were 2 days after SPECIFICO's. In total, SPECIFICO has made 17 edits to the article, compared to your 388 which is 330 more than the next person (S.Rich). Having spent, literally, years working on the article, surely a couple of hours of discussion to address concerns isn't a huge impost? Some of his complaints were probably over the top but many seem well-founded and there have been discussions on the talk page since to try to resolve some of those issues which suggests some legitimately did need resolution. That's exactly the way it should work. And just because an article has been awarded GA status, does not mean it has finished. Quite the contrary, in fact, if you want to get it to FA. Stalwart111 00:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Have said on more than one occasion that much of what SPECIFICO does is both smart and useful. That is not my point. The three tags took seconds to add, and that was only after he had been admonished by S.Rich for multiple infractions. It took hours to undo those tags so that they wouldn't just get instantly reverted by SPECIFICO. Which is my point. It was many times easier to add nonsense than it was to clean up the nonsense. That is a horrible system. Abel (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

What am I missing here? If the article needed some cleaning up (beyond what might have been identified during GA review) and the tags prompted you to clean it up (sufficiently enough to nullify the tags) isn't that kind of the point of the tags? He tagged the article, you and S.Rich identified that some were warranted and acted on them, others not so much. Drive-by tagging is an oft-raised problem and I get that having spent so much time on the article, having a bunch of tags at the top is disheartening. But prompting further clean-up is not "destroying" - quite the opposite. I would be inclined to think drive-by tagging would perhaps be disruptive on an unwatched article, untouched in many years. But the article in question has been edited by you and S.Rich at a rate of approximately 1 edit every 2 days. It was always going to be cleaned up, and quickly. Nice? Maybe not. Annoying? Probably. Pointy? Maybe a little. Destructive? Not really. You need to be able to take a step back from articles where you've contributed extensively and survey the bigger picture. Otherwise you get into WP:OWN territory. Stalwart111 02:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The tags were nonsense. Nothing was improved. SPECIFICO labeled text as unsupported by citation even after I added direct quotes proving beyond all doubt that the tags were nonsense. That is not helping, that is attacking. No one owns any Wikipedia article, which is kinda the point to the whole thing. Abel (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Austrian/Mises walled garden/fringe social science

Hi Stalwart. I noticed your concern about the LvMI scholars and wanted to share more about them with you (will be happy to provide links if you have trouble verifying this stuff with a quick web search).

They reject the scientific method applied to the social sciences; instead, they believe that their economic beliefs can be deduced solely from logical (and thus, value-free) axioms. The role and value of logical, deductive reasoning in economics is a matter of mainstream academic debate. But to embrace only deductive reasoning and reject all empirical attempts to confirm or falsify conclusions drawn from this approach, is a fringe methodology. This methodology, which is what the "economists" of the Mises Institute employ, is rejected by virtually all economists and logicians. (Owing to their rejection of empiricism, "Austrian economists" are really pseudo-logicians, though they almost all lack any formal training in logic.)

Given the fringe nature of their methodology, it is no surprise that (by the Austrians' own admission) mainstream journals do not seriously engage their ideas. Unfortunately, this at the only scholars who address LvMI scholarshp are within the confines of the Institute's walled garden. This means that we have a dearth of mainstream criticism for these scholars, and an overload of fringe praise. This gives the misleading impression that these are scholars whose contributions are well regarded in academia.

My question is: What should we do about this? I am thinking of creating a "fringe social science" sub-page on the fringe science page, with which we could tag LvMI scholars. I ask for your advice because you appear to be a straight-shooter with no dog in this fight. Steeletrap (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I would think a category like that would be a bad idea without plenty of reliable sources to back those claims up. It might be possible if we had lots of reliable sources that suggested Mises-related Austrian school economists were pushing a "fringe theory" or "alternate reality" or "non-mainstream view" or some other language synonymous with fringe thinking. It's not our place to make that judgement or categorise them in that way. But walled gardens are unhealthy in any context. The issue here is whether or not we can find independent reliable sources that discuss these subjects. If not, we should be cutting these articles back to stubs, not expanding them exponentially with empty praise from friends and colleagues. Stalwart111 02:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

In purely practical terms, Stalwart that sounds difficult to implement. The praise from friends and inside-the-wall colloquy has the appearance of RS material. Some of it is published by houses that also publish mainstream material. Some of it is from what are, at least in form and appearance, refereed journals -- even if the referees are all from within the walls. In operational terms, it's not clear how to resolve disagreements concerning such material. The Soto article is a strange case in which the inside-the-wall material is actually highly critical of the subject. It's clear that you've considered these issues, so any guidance from you is very helpful. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, certainly not easy. I suppose the comment I would make is that a source can be editorially reliable but its lack of independence can make it unreliable in particular contexts. The New York Times might be a reliable source in almost every circumstance but we would probably still insist on independent sources for commentary on the listed company NYT. Likewise, the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics might be considered a reliable source for economics-related content and commentary, but I would be wary about using anything in it as an "independent" source for the LvMI itself or any of its fellows. In that regard, it should be considered a primary source. I'd have the same sort of reservations about the ubiquitous Lew Rockwell blog. Stalwart111 03:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The BLP for Joseph Salerno is a good example of what I'm talking about. Stalwart111 03:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thomas the Apostle

Hey mate. The latest edits remove some images claiming "there's to many" what is the limit? The user also deleted some text as citation needed was 8 months old, again how long do we wait before deleting something like that? Tyros1972 Talk 09:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Cheers, Stalwart111 00:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Pending AFC

hey mate it's been a long time since I created an article. I created one today and it won't publish like it used to, now it's put into a review process? I guess Wiki changed something or did I do something wrong? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pending_AfC_submissions Tyros1972 Talk 11:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess they changed things but that is optional. When you get time you can double check this article? It's basically a stub as I don't have time to expand it, but wanted to create it. New Media Rights Tyros1972 Talk 17:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Cheers, Stalwart111 00:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Thomas the Apostle

Thanks buddy. I have made a few more changes to the article. Please do verify that nothing has gone wrong. PalakkappillyAchayan 03:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries - it's all looking good so far. Stalwart111 04:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

AFC Partial Victory

Hey m8, not sure if you have been following that debate. But basically they are going to add a button at the start to opt. out and one at the end, even if rejected. That satisfies what I was asking for.

I still don't like 1 editor deciding what goes on Wiki but I think to push the issue any further would only hurt the objective. Tyros1972 Talk 02:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page, but yeah, a good result. Stalwart111 07:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Now that THAT unpleasantness is behind us forever

Your name, when I read it, always invokes a memory of this Russian fairytale/ poem. You'll know when you get to the part. Thanks again for being stalwart (You should have been Stalwart33 instead of Stalwart111). Now, let us all move on to new things that involve less screaming and less salt! KDS4444^Talk 05:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, salt is good in the context of bacon. But yes, less screaming. "Tall of stature, young and fair" - now I like the sound of that, but along with "All alike beyond belief", it gets a bit von Verschuer for me. Ha ha. And all from the "Marxists Internet Archive" - I don't know what to think! And after all that, it seems wrong to now opine that removing people for the good of the wider community is the right thing to do. I might just stop digging and just thank you for the poem. Keep up the good work. Stalwart111 07:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say stop digging. It was a story that my mother read to me from a book of such fairytales when I was a wee lad, certainly not anything Marxist (all those jewel-encrusted tsars and whatnot) or eugenic (I had never heard of von Verschuer before— how dreadful). Just a compliment! Dig less, enjoy more. KDS4444^Talk 08:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I certainly did enjoy it, it was just a strange confluence of ideas after a strange day. Makes for a hell of a bedtime story - she must have started somewhere around mid-afternoon! Again, thank you. Stalwart111 09:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello there! Regarding the AfD and my NAC

Hello there Stalwart, I NAC'd the article for deletion, but so far as I'm concerned a discussion can be NAC'd and a speedy deletion tag can be put into it its article pointing out to the fact about its outcome, and the article may be presumably deleted needing just that admin intervention, the article was also tagged with salt template. However there are other reasons why the discussion must be kept on. Regards Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 10:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Not really - WP:BADNAC pretty much covers it, but I'll leave you a note. Stalwart111 23:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Do not feed the animals

The discussion there about the title of that article might interest you somewhat, though I can't be sure it'd interest anyone at all. It's been a while since I visited after leaving the discussion due to a bit of hostility from another editor, but it seems they're still at an impasse. More input is definitely needed there; every single voice helps. Thanks, Ansh666 22:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Happy to have a look. I would seem there is still fundamental disagreement about what it is WP should be covering there. Are those signs and the message behind them notable enough as a concept (having been adapted in various contexts) to be considered worthy of coverage in their own right? Or; is the a broader definition we should be covering that could include coverage of those signs? If I have anything useful to contribute, I will. Stalwart111 23:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering the content of the article currently has 0 mentions of the title beyond the first sentence, I'd say both of your questions are moot at the moment...but hopefully it gets fixed up! Thanks, Ansh666 05:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, probably right. The best "alternate title" I could come up with is Warnings not to feed animals. In the same way that No standing (the sign) redirects to Parking violation (the thing). That would seem to explain why the signs exist and some of the concept behind the signs while still being broad enough to include the other stuff but narrow enough so that a redirect from the title Do not feed the animals isn't strained or out of place. But even that is probably far from ideal. I think Artificial feeding of animals has problems - are we talking about feeding them artificial food or about feeding baby animals artificially (like they do at rescue centres where they have been orphaned or abandoned). The latter has been the subject of significant study and research and might be a notable subject, but is obviously not the subject of the article in question. Stalwart111 05:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The way I take it, the article isn't about signs anymore - that was declared in the AfD as non-notable. It's now about policies and other stuff (pardon the informal) regarding what I believe is the most appropriate title (which is still admittedly far from appropriate), Human feeding of wildlife. But don't let me cloud your judgment at all. Ansh666 05:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC) (On a side note, somebody's trying to get my username changed because it contains 666! Can you believe it?)

Yeah, I think an article about that would be a good idea and would be interesting, though that's not exactly what we have now. But I think there's more of a chance of that working that anything focused on the signs or abstract concepts in any way. An article at Human feeding of wildlife would obviously need to be far more broad than what we have now. It would need to cover things like bird feeders, wildlife rehabilitation, probably something about the human impact on food sources, domestication of wildlife and a whole bunch of other related concepts. Jeez, I can see how you got frustrated (with that discussion and with the issues more broadly). LOL @ forced name change. There was a guy a week or so ago called GayAirlineEditor or something and someone objected to the "gay" part. He's a gay man who edits airline articles... Um... Stalwart111 06:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

MarioNovi

Still at it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Punkcast_2 - if you think it merits another wrap on the knuckles, go ahead. But I can tolerate it. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Wwwhatsup has also been wiki stalking me like at Jeff Berlin. I do not like being talked about in this way, thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

See? In his/her role as my ongoing nemesis I do keep tabs on MarioNovi and I did indeed revert him/her on Jeff Berlin. IMO "dont know relevants" is not a good rationale for deleting ELs, especially when the cause for ignorance is that the same editor has just deleted the relevant information from the article. I would've done it for any editor. This article was a suitable case for a {{refimprove}} tag, rather than wholesale deletion. Hopefully someone will find time to do the research and rebuild. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

MarioNovi, if I know Wikipedia, there's probably a bunch of people watching your edits and tracking what has now been a 6-month campaign of harassment and attempted outing and a complete inability to drop the stick, though you have been told to do so by multiple people in multiple places. Despite your claims in January that you were here to edit productively, much of what you have done here since continues to confirm the single-purpose nature of your editing and continues to suggest you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Despite a handful of edits here and there, most of your activity here has still revolved around Wwwhatsup and your forum-shopping about his alleged conflict of interest.

I can tell you I am certainly among those watching your edits and have been tossing up whether they have yet risen to the level of disruption that requires immediate administrator intervention. Who do you think requested closures for both your completely inappropriate userspace RFC and your completely unsupported RFC/U? That would be me. Stalwart111 08:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)