User talk:MilesMoney

A second (but independent) warning on Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hilary Rosen. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Comment

I note with concern that this appears to be a pattern of behavior you're engaging in across multiple articles.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

I would just suggest you remember the basic process of Wikipedia: Bold, revert, discuss.

You made a bold change, it was reverted. At this point you should stop reintroducing the controversial change until discussion demonstrates an acceptance of the change.

The mistake you're making is re-introducing the controversial change while you discuss. That's not how it works.

In this case, discussion has yielded a strong consensus against your change, and you have again re-introduced it.

I took the time to write all this, because your present trajectory, if unchanged, will doubtlessly lead you to have a very negative Wikipedia experience that ends with you either leaving the project or being removed from it. I don't think that's a good outcome, so perhaps my words can help you hear something that the edit warring template failed to help you hear. Kindly, --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not negotiable and is not subject to WP:3RR. Go away and don't come back. MilesMoney (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, I agree on you with this article. I do not understand however why you do not apply the same standards to articles about libertarian subjects. TFD (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I assure you that I do. You won't find any examples where I supported including unsourced accusations of criminal behavior. We walk a fine line as biographers. If we try too hard to keep it clean, we wind up censoring. If we excessively muckrake, we wind up slandering. This is a delicate matter and reasonable people can disagree on precisely where the line is.

The irony here is that I absolutely despise Hilary Rosen. She's the sort of <redacted> insider that, as a libertarian, I see as a representation of all that is wrong with government when it's coopted by corporatism. Her stint at the RIAA is particularly offensive, given that organization's perennial abuse of the legal system to persecute victimless crimes. Still, however I feel about her, I'm not willing to let her be defamed. MilesMoney (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney; please be aware that BLP also applies to User talk pages. I redacted a word in your comment above and I think you will understand why. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I can actually ground that term in reliable sources, but I'll let it stand. MilesMoney (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Since lobbying is only illegal under certain circumstances, no accusations of criminality have been made. TFD (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's specifically illegal to be an unregistered lobbyist. She is not registered, so if she's lobbying, that's illegal. MilesMoney (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding ANI notice on behalf of another editor told to stay away

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:MilesMoney edit-warring/personal attacks. Thank you. Nil Einne (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but even an editor I've asked to stay away is allowed to post required notices such as this one. MilesMoney (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

History

Who were you before this account was created, and was he subject to any sanctions? You look familiar. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I've always been myself and I am subject only to an article ban on Ludwig von Mises Institute, but let's talk about you. You seem unhappy that I've been trying to keep you from getting punished for violating your topic ban. I've used humor, I've offered polite advice, and I've brought the issue to the attention of others. Throughout the entire process, I've been working to steer you away from the cliff, not pushing you over it. Whatever your political biases, Wikipedia needs more experts, so it is my goal to ensure that you can continue to edit.

I've laid my motives out on the table, and I've been pretty clear about them from the start. I don't really know how to respond to your conspiracy theory, so I'm not going to. Instead, I'm going to remind you that literally nothing stops MrX from getting you blocked right this moment. Are you willing to work with me to prevent that from happening? MilesMoney (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, I see now that MrX has gone to WP:AE. If you do get blocked, which seems likely, I hope you simultaneously accept that you need to avoid Koch-related articles in the future and that this is not a good reason to stop editing. You are very, very far from an WP:SPA, and a couple of weeks really isn't a long time. MilesMoney (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

"Trust, but verify". I would think it wise for a Checkuser to verify that you are (probably) not any of the topic-banned editors from TPm. I can't say your style closely resembles any of them, but it might be one of them trying to be different. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, the accusation has no merit and your motives are suspect. Drop the stick and back away from the dead horse.MilesMoney (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Clean sweep

Some editors have shown a pattern of leaving me warnings which, upon careful examination, do not appear to be legitimate. They are marred by factual errors or policy misunderstandings, or are simply a reflection of disagreement about content rather than anything else.

When I've seen such a pattern, I've responded by asking these editors not to continue it, "banishing" them from my talk page. To the best of my understanding, this is perfectly acceptable and is in fact the right way to avoid further conflict.

It has come to my attention that some editors consider these ongoing banishments to be a sign of lack of culture fit. I don't agree. At all. Nonetheless, I'm declaring all banishments removed. If I asked you not to edit my talk page, you are now free to do so. Consider this to be an olive branch or fig leaf or lettuce wrap.

However, I reserve the right to banish you again if you reoffend. I think that's a fair compromise. MilesMoney (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Invitation

Hey Miles, I'm glad to see I've been un-banned (although I haven't been able to find the diff where I got banned). I'm sure many will appreciate that lettuce leaf, and I think it's a step in the right direction. As you have been one of the regular editors participating in articles related to Austrian Economics, and I was hoping I could convince you to participate in a small experiment on dispute resolution. It's formatted as a simple question and answer, with a hint of RfC/U, aimed at getting participants to talk with one another, recognize potential problems, and with any luck, commit to fixing those problems. The page is at User:Adjwilley/Austrian_economics and you are free to edit at your leisure. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, if this avoids going to ArbCom, I'm all for it. MilesMoney (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Liberty U

I suggest you move your comment here into the threaded discussion. (That way you have your say, in the discussion, without looking like you are taking additional bites of the apple in the Survey.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Economic inequality. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Roccodrift (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Rocco, if you're going to annoy me with false accusations, do it somewhere else. You are no longer welcome on my talk page. MilesMoney (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic post

This comment has nothing to do with the AfD, can be seen as PA & lacking AGF, and should be removed (or hatted) in accordance with WP:TPO. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Austrian economics". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 22 December 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Unsupported categories

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Family Research Council. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Please obtain consensus on the talk page before adding back unsourced and controversial categories. The categories were all recent additions, and so it is inappropriate to demand consensus for their removal. StAnselm (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

These category additions are obviously correct. They are easily sourced (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/right-wing-leftovers-121313) and already sourced in the articles. MilesMoney (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Roccodrift (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI revert

Sorry about that, but TPG says "To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial." I figure you changing that was. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The section title falsely claims that this direct quote of his public speech is "defamatory content". It's Rocco's fault, not yours. Or so it was until you got your own hands dirty by repeating this lie. Good job! MilesMoney (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at this edit: [8]. It had the effect of reverting another editor's remarks, which I'm sure was unintentional. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like accidents all around, but it's all fixed now. MilesMoney (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

A bit of advice

Your editing shows the signs of a campaign to right great wrongs, which is eventually going to end up with you getting hit with some sort of a topic ban. I would suggest taking a less confrontational approach. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not really my motivation. I just dislike dishonesty. MilesMoney (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Another bit of advice, stop responding at ANI, believe it or not that will be seen as a sign of battlefield mentality. You made your point, probably best to let it run its course now. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That's probably good advice. MilesMoney (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Trying to help

Hey, so just noticing the issue you're running into, and I think there's a pretty good way to solve it. You can deem this unhelpful, tell me to go pound sand, whatever, but it appears that your issue is not so much negative information or the information you're adding, but where you're getting it from. Yes, there are people on this project who are going to be against any insertion of negative information about those they support on either side of the aisle, but you're going to get a lot more people on your side if you stop trying to push the issue with obviously terrible sources like ThinkProgress or someone's blog (even if the subject writes the blog). It gives the appearance of wanting to grind axes as opposed to improve the encyclopedia.

If a group like ThinkProgress is saying something, some legitimate media outlet is getting there first. If NewsMax is saying it, that's enough reason alone to question as to whether it's accurate. If the mainstream media isn't picking it up, it's probably not worth including at all.

Again, I'm just one guy, but I think you're probably generating more heat than you should be simply based on an easily-avoidable fix. Your heart is clearly in the right place, and this might be an easy way to take some of the heat off you as the editor and put it toward improving the articles overall. Good luck in any case. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I don't disagree. As I see it, there are two separate issues here: whether the quote violates BLP, OR and is defamation, and whether we ought to include the quote. It's entirely possible to argue that the quote isn't a good idea without making these serious accusations. In order to discuss inclusion, we must first resolve those accusations, though.

That's what the BLPN report I created (and then recreated) was intended to do and I think it's succeeded. The ANI report was a sideshow that, as one might expect, blew up into a lynching. The original issue appears to be resolved; all that's left is bloodlust. MilesMoney (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

(You'll notice that I'm not participating in the bloodlust bit - the !vote). I think that Thargor raises an important point here, Miles. Rather like the numerous libertarian-related articles, a lot is being constructed on a flimsy foundation that could easily be resolved. Frequent recourse to BLPN, RSN, DRN etc is one way to deal with it but such repetitive appearances at centralised discussions can easily draw more attention to you than perhaps is wise.

As in real life, people become entrenched. Also as in real life, you'll encounter people on Wikipedia who can start a fight in a empty room. Although such people are often found circling round contentious topic areas, one of the most prolonged disputes on the project has been the seemingly-innocuous Monty Hall problem (another was, I think, Bathrobe!). Again, you'll find people who have a lot of experience here on paper but still don't seem to "get it" - Carol, for example, repeatedly has problems with refactoring issues and with understanding what constitutes a reliable and relevant source, hence the various "house of cards" situations in the libertarian sphere. Don't fall into the same traps because they'll kill your Wikilife eventually.

There are a couple of ways to deal with such things but more often than not they basically boil down to fight or flee. Sometimes, if only for your own sanity, the issue is determining when to do the latter, not if. This is not the place to right great wrongs and anyone who approaches it in that manner will almost certainly end up being blocked. When people are arguing the toss about non-mainstream sources such as blogs etc and that awful Lewrockwell.com thing, and when they are resorting to personalised commentary on article talk pages, then that might be the time to flee. These things tend to ebb and flow: there is no deadline and a revisit somewhere down the line will often find a different set of characters involved, if only because others have had their Wikilives terminated. In the interval, there are ca. 4 million other articles in need of attention. One way I deal with it is by sneaking away from time to time and writing stuff like William Beach Thomas, Stubbington House School and John Horsefield.

FWIW, I think that you are well-intentioned but suffering from a bout of righteousness, for want of a better phrase. Some time spent in less contentious areas would give you experience without the frustration and better equip you to deal with the awkward squad when you feel that you really must. "Choose your battles wisely" was a piece of advice given to me by (I think) Nthep when I was a newbie: I pass it on to you with a heartfelt belief that it is a significant mantra for those seeking a fulfilling experience on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I really don't see myself as any sort of Warrior of Truth (tm). I just run into diffs where good stuff gets cut out because someone is needlessly offended, so I speak up.

I read an interesting management article that spoke of the difference between employees who add value and those who multiply it. Basically, editing an article to fix the grammar adds value, but restoring an entire paragraph that was wrongly removed multiplies the value created by others.

In other words, I see my role as a force multiplier. I am an inclusionist, a restorationist, an incrementalist. Rather than righteous work, it's rather tedious and frustrating. Nonetheless, I believe that this lets me do more for the bottom line than any other use of my time here. MilesMoney (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, it might do more if what you added stayed in. But usually these type of things do not - even if you "win" the battle now, you'll lose it in the future. There is also the issue of pyrrhic victories: you're not much use to anyone if you're not allowed to contribute. - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't argue with either of those points. MilesMoney (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Pull out & edit against consensus?

Rather than ask on the mediation page, I'll ask here. When did I pull out and/or edit against consensus? Diffs or talk page comments would help. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Remember AdjWilley's attempted mediation? You withdrew when your feelings were hurt. MilesMoney (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Not quite correct. I told AdjWilley exactly why I did not want to continue with the project. My feelings? You misread me entirely – I'm pretty coldhearted. (After all, there are more important things in life!) MilesMoney, you are not privy to my feelings or anyone else's feelings. So trying to tease me about them might work with others, but not me. With that out of the way, I am interested in knowing where you think I edited against consensus. (Such diffs would be appreciated, even if the Mediation is a dead horse.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't ask me questions if you don't want me to answer them. MilesMoney (talk) 06:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I asked about pulling out and you answered. That's fine – I responded and said you were incorrect. That does not mean I did not want to you to answer, only that I disagreed with your answer. I still invite you to post diffs illustrating where I edited against consensus. Perhaps I will disagree. If I do, it will probably be because I did not think consensus was reached, or policy was an overriding factor, or perhaps some other reason. But I can't provide rationales about where I disagree with you unless you post the diffs. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Look, I gave you a short answer and you complained about multiple aspects of it. This really doesn't motivate me to answer. MilesMoney (talk) 06:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Disagreeing is not complaining. I thought I was explaining why you were incorrect about trying to read my feelings. So only one of my two questions was answered -- about the mediation. I'd still like to know where I edited against consensus. I won't complain, but I won't necessarily agree either. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The other demotivator is when I give an answer and you seem not to understand it. It's frustrating. MilesMoney (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There were two parts to the question. The first you answered when you pointed to the Adjwilley mediation. When you added a comment about why I pulled out, I corrected you. The second part of the question is when did I edit against the mediated consensus? You haven't explained that. Please let me know what the diffs are in that regard. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@Srich32977: - Pardon my intrusion on your confusion, Srich, but really why all the nitpicking and denials? It seems apparent to me and at least some others that your overriding concern now is to accelerate your Admin candidacy and protect yourself from open discussion, should an RfA be mounted. At a Notceboard last fall, you gratuitously and shamelessly mounted a matrix of spurious links which -- smelling blood perhaps? -- you feebly claimed to show various misdeeds of MilesMoney. What with Miles having studied your example, you appear to have realized that Miles -- benign but frisky young zealot that he is -- learned from your example and may now have compiled a much longer, more detailed, and better documented dossier of your own behavior. (Dontcha just hate when stuff like that backfires?) So by whatever means, wouldn't it be convenient if MilesMoney were to be site-banned or at least thoroughly discredited? Barring that, what if he could be coaxed into some preposterous bargain and agree to link resolution of the Austrian content disputes to a Code of Silence on your RfA? Strange thoughts indeed. Srich, please take a step back and chill out for the holidays. Best wishes for peace and reflection the next two weeks. SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no confusion on my part, Specifico. Miles answered one part of the question and has not answered the second. And there are no details to nitpick at, because there is no answer from Miles. Nor is there any denial – MM claims to have understood my feelings, and I issued a correction. There is no need for me to "accelerate" my RfA – I realize you and others might/would oppose and it would be bothersome to respond to vague accusations. An example is your description of my matrix as being shameless, feeble, spurious. I had no shame in posting it and it was not spurious – the diffs spoke for themselves. It was not feeble – it was read by the community for what it was and it had a powerful effect. As you imply, MilesMoney or you may have learned about the power of such a matrix. As you should know, I've invited you to start up one on me by setting up a table on a subpage. You've said I misquote, misrepresent, misapply, misunderstand policy on various occasions – instead of making such vague statements, you (and/or Miles) ought to provide the diffs and analysis. Receiving the gift now would certainly give me something to reflect upon. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Your problem, however, could be that Miles -- a serious and capable young scholar -- is unlikely to present "vague accusations" when the RfA is on the line.

Ho Ho Ho. Enough of this. Merry Xmas. SPECIFICO talk 17:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

strikeouts in talkpage comments

When you use strikeout in commentary, it means you have gone back and retracted/changed a statement or phrase or wording used in an earlier version. See WP:STRIKE and WP:TPO: "Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, ...." I think I understand your intent in the SPI commentary ("full of good cheer accusations and excuses."). Just that it looks like you originally said "full of good cheer", but came back later to retract the "good cheer", and changed it to "accusations and excuses". E.g., you were not creating a change in meaning. My point is a small one, but I think it is a better editing and editor-interaction practice. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Oi

Stop being a knob, I get dragged to ANI quite often, next time listen to my fucking advice, you were right on this edit, and that is the only reason I have supported you. But you really need to step back and look at what a RS is man, recall the anarchist blog you used? Use better sources, hell ask me, I will help out. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to convince me. I don't think I need to say anything more at ANI, and I'm going to focus on edits that can't be easily misunderstood. MilesMoney (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Scorched earth.

If I'm wrong, I apologize, but your current behavior isn't helping you any. Rocco is big on erasing embarrassing things from his talk page and now you're doing the same. Even if you're not also a sock of Belchfire, this is not very collegial of you. MilesMoney (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Listen, MilesMoney. It is your right to accuse me of being a sock of "belchfire" or "rocco". That is your right. Of course, you are wrong, but that is not surprising because you are wrong about so many different things. Also, I have right to remove each and every thing written on my talk page. I will continue to do that, especially since many, many of the things written there are just flat out lies. For example, you have stated that I am a sock of "belchfire" and I am a sock of "rocco". These statements are bald faced lies. I don't have to let you keep those lies on my talk page. I tell you what you go fight your PROV-tainted fights with "belchfire" and "rocco", but leave me alone. I have no idea what those fights are about, but I do know that you are always full convinced that your point of view must be adopted by all of the other editors. I also know that you have a history of not working cooperatively with others. These are facts. Now, go and get back to your POV pushing and stay off my talk page, unless you have something constructive to discuss concerning an article that I am actually editing.--NK (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Since it appears that Rocco is a sock of Belch, calling you the sock of one is effectively the same as calling you the sock of another. If you edit from far away from Seattle, it would be very hard for a checkuser scan to yield a false positive, so you have nothing to be concerned about. I suppose if you're the sock of someone other than Rocco/Belch then that may well turn up, but it really depends on how thorough they are and whether they see any reason to mention it.

As I said, it's possible that I'm wrong about you being a sock of those two accounts, and if so, I apologize. I've been on the wrong end of a false sock accusation too many times myself not to have sympathy. However, I am not being malicious. Your edit record is extremely suspicious, as is your overall behavior. For all that you keep accusing me of POV-pushing, you are obviously projecting, since your career has focused on adding your political bias to articles, just like your alleged sockmaster. Moreover, even if you were as much a new user as I am, there is something very objectionable about the way you interact with others, such as this edit, where you deleted material without explanation.

So, while I would not knowingly make a false sock accusation, my sympathy is tempered by the lack of merit in your participation. MilesMoney (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The edit you pointed out as a supposed example of POV-pushing was not POV-pushing at all. I removed a reference to Steve Stockman running in the Republican primary against John Cornyn. I removed it because there were two other references to Stockman's primary challenge to Cornyn already in the article. Also, in the next edit that I did I added a better reference for the primary run. I was the editor that put the original reference to the primary challenge in the Cornyn article in the first place. See, it is bald-faced lies like that one that you just wrote here that gets you in trouble. You are a POV warrior in the first order. You attempt to slander people that don't agree with your editing--just like you are attempting to do here to me. You have ZERO evidence for allegations--just made up, bald-faced lies. I am not in Seattle and I am a sock of either of those people. I am not a sock of anyone. You edit in bad faith and the way that you have been treating me in an example of your bad faith editing. I don't have anything to be concerned about in relation to your sock allegation. I've known that all along. I said it before you did. I did not need you to tell me. Your apologies are out right lies also because when you apologize you come up with five or six more allegations against whomever you are apologizing to. All of your apologies are fraudulent, just like your sock allegations. Please just stop responding to me because you're fake apologies just embarrass you further and make you look worse. Stop it. Go away.--NK (talk) 14:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that removal, but isn't that something you could have at least hinted at with your edit comment? In fact, you left no edit comment at all. That's not what I'd call cooperative editing. As for the rest, you're basically just ignoring WP:AGF. MilesMoney (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverting good-faith BLP objections.

User:Neljack raised an interesting issue on ANI, but I'd rather discuss it on my own talk page, instead. I'll start by answering a question with a question: How do you determine when a BLP objection is in good faith? MilesMoney (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well the starting point must be assume good faith. Thus one should be cautious in dismissing a BLP objection as not in good faith. I would say that should only be done if it is obviously frivolous - e.g. the person in question is not living (or only recently - within the last couple of years - dead). Another example might be Jclemens's recent claim that prevented the deletion of an article because the subject would probably gain financial benefits from its existence.[9] It's better to be safe than sorry, so I'd encourage you to discuss rather than revert when a BLP objection is raised, save in exceptional cases where it's clearly frivolous. Neljack (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That's the obligatory starting point, yes, but the initial assumption can be difficult to maintain. In the case of Dana Rohrabacher, we had an editor with a solid track record of right-wing POV-pushing remove an entire section by claiming "Obvious BLP problem. MUCH better sourcing needed for this sort of material."

In fact, the source was just fine and there was never any question about the quote being accurate, it was a public statement made on the congressional record and Dana did not deny making it. There was no BLP problem, there was a POV problem; the quote made Dana look -- to moderates and liberals at least -- bad. That is obviously the only reason Rocco removed it; to whitewash the article. Yet WP:NPOV requires us to keep the article balanced, not cleansed.

Now, I should not have edit-warred back against Rocco, but the assumption of good faith is like a dandelion in a hurricane here. This is just one example out of many where BLP and other sane policies are used as an excuse to push a POV. I don't know that all of it is right-wing bias, but that seems to be much of what I've personally encountered. So when I see something embarrassing but true disappear from a bio, I have good reason to think that my good faith assumption will be overturned by the evidence. MilesMoney (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Neljack, how would you categorize and deal with this? Given all of the reliable sources we have, is it in good faith? Should I revert it a second time and be immediately accused of edit-warring and BLP violation? Should I go to BLPN, RSN, or ANI? Should I just wait for Rocco to be indeffed for being a sock and then revert? MilesMoney (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I can see how that would test your AGF - they are clearly reliable sources. I've noticed a disturbing trend of people claiming that The Guardian isn't a reliable source, basically because they dislike its political views. That is, of course, totally unsupported by policy. I'd suggest raising the matter at BLPN or RSN - regardless of the good faith or otherwise of the revert, I think it's fairly clear that the editor in question is unlikely to back down (from what I've seen, they appear to be the sort of tendentious editor that will never concede a point), so the issue needs some uninvolved eyes. Then if they continue to edit against a consensus that the sourcing is fine, you can report them. I note that our article on the English Defence League describes them as "far-right", citing not just The Guardian but also the The Daily Telegraph (no doubt the Torygraph is full of left-wing bias too!) and several academic sources. Neljack (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that BLPN is the way to go. Besides newspapers, the SPLC directly supports the statement, and that alone should be more than enough.

In any case, I didn't revert back. I didn't lose my temper. In other words, I did not respond to their tendentious editing by taking the bait and setting myself up for yet another ANI lynch mob. I just wanted you to see what my editing life looks like thanks to these people. MilesMoney (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I understanding how frustrating it can be when you come up against that sort of tendentious editing - I've experienced myself on occasion. I'll comment at BLPN when you post there. Neljack (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the bottom line is to not let them successfully bait me. I've posted to BLPN; let's see how that goes. MilesMoney (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the sort of admin that other admins protect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SimpsonDG&diff=next&oldid=499536433 MilesMoney (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we please drop it, completely, and move on to doing something more productive, please. You are aware, I hope, that if any administrator were to indefinitely block you and submit it for review at ANI, consensus would likely be to endorse that block. Please treat this as impartial advice - I don't really care either way if you're blocked or not, but I'd like to see less of your name at ANI, if possible. Nick (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. MilesMoney (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice

I see that you started an ANI thread regarding Arthur Rubin. In it, you referenced me several times, but never notified me of the thread. As it so happens, I missed the notification on Arthur's page, and didn't have any opportunity to respond to comments you were making about my edits. In the future, please try to be more careful about posting ANI notices. I'm sure it was just an innocent oversight, but it creates a big problem from my perspective since I am unaware I'm even being discussed. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the report has been closed, but as I see it, it was never about you. If I thought about it at all, it was that you were already watching Rubin's page and would notice the ANI template there, much as NewsAndEventsGuy did. Still, since you asked, should something like this come up again, I'll drop you a note. It was definitely an oversight. MilesMoney (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocks vs bans

The ANI section is now completed, but I wanted to bring this up for your information.

Editors who are blocked for a finite time for a particular incident, and who have backed away from the issue that caused the block, are still blocked from editing. As such, they aren't supposed to edit via sockpuppets or proxies. However, your interpretation of WP:EVADE is harsher than is normally imposed in such situations.

It's not unusual for short-term-blocked users to leave edit lists on their talk pages to remind them of things they want to get to. Other than where they are repeatedly threatening and returning to disruptive activity, I don't recall the last time we further sanctioned merely for that.

This is not "WP:EVADE as written" but it is as usually enforced.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to drop this, so I'm going to respond and then drop this, ok?

It would be one thing if he made a list, but he had editors executing his requested changes and literally checking them off that list. That made it very clear that it was not a list of things he intends to change after his block. Despite this, when he was asked about it, he lied. You don't lie unless you know you're guilty; he knew.

That's what pushed me to report him, along with the fact that his current block was over another attempt to evade restrictions through the use of proxy editors.

I am not a lawyer, not even on Wikipedia, and I've been asked to drop this, so I'm not going to argue over whether his behavior conflicts with a soft or hard interpretation of WP:EVADE. I'm just saying that I took the hard line because it was clear to me that he knew he was fucking with us.

Now, I've responded and I'm dropping this. Hope that helps. MilesMoney (talk) 03:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS

Does not include discussions where you are the one and only person asserting a position. An edit summary asserting that you as a lone editor with a position have reached a consensus is a teensy bit ludicrous. Kindly avoid such Hubris in the future. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Please be more clear. If you have particular article in mind, you need to mention it by name.
2. You are mistaken about consensus. It's not actually a vote, so a single editor who has policy on their side outweighs any number of editors whose strongest counterargument is that they really, really want things to go their way.
3. Accusing me of hubris is a personal attack. This is not the first time you've done this. Any chance you'll make it your last?

Think about it. MilesMoney (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I suggest you read your edit summary at Scott Rasmussen, and you appear to be a sole editor against several who disagree with your single-person consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding your statement because it's not true and I can't imagine how you could be unaware of this. In fact, the material about OGCMA is something I've been working with Safehaven86 to fine-tune. We're on the same page regarding its inclusion, and we're working out what to do with the last sentence. If my research pans out, we'll wind up keeping some version of that last sentence. If not, I'll be just fine with removing it.

Meanwhile, in another universe, you and Rocco are pretending that various irrelevant policies, such as WP:COATRACK, somehow justify whitewashing. This is tendentious editing on your part. It doesn't matter in the long run, but it's rather counter-productive in the short. MilesMoney (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Um -- Safehaven86 specifically stated that the last sentence (the one I removed) did not have his support. Did you mean to aver his support for the sentence I removed? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The last sentence doesn't have my support, either, but that's no excuse for Rocco removing the entire thing. That was just TE. MilesMoney (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Steeletrap, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. - MrX 20:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

MrX, thanks for letting me know. This is ridiculous and retaliatory. MilesMoney (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You can ask the SPI clerk to perform a checkuser, which would lay this to rest. TFD (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

User:The_Four_Deuces, can I (alone) ask for such a check? Or do I need Miles' consent. I am more than happy to prove my innocence, after which I hope to address issues with User:Collect, whose lack of understanding of policy has caused a host of problems. Steeletrap (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing to prove here. Given that Collect jumped in to defend Rocco from the latter's SPI, the fact that Collect and Rocco have launched an SPI against us is obvious retaliation. This is the fourth time I've been accused of being a sock, and each claim contradicts the previous. I'm low on patience with this sort of thing, and not interested in coddling bad-faith accusations.

Let them try to make their case: they have none. Both of us are prone to editing on days ending with "y" and fond of using words containing the letter "e". If they can convince someone to go through a CU, they'll get egg on their faces, but let them work for those eggs. They'll appreciate them only if they earn them. MilesMoney (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You can. Checkuser will then check if you are using other accounts, which is what the SPI report alleges you may be. TFD (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If that SPI report is proven then I'll need to buy a hat. I don't have one lying around, consumption for the use of. OTOH, the checkuser is already requested & so I guess that you agreeing to it merely circumvents the need for the reporter to provide any diffs in evidence. I can understand why the reporter feels as they do but, as Adjwilley and I have said (them better than me), there is only a coincidence of interests here, not of styles etc. Relax. - Sitush (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't go rushing to the mad hatter quite yet. This report is as legit as a $3 bill with the face of Joseph Willcocks. MilesMoney (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind words, my darling Sitush (Your gruff exterior is totally an act; underneath that exterior lives a marshmallow and a cuddle-bug). <3 Regarding Checkuser, my concern is that I sometimes use WP in public places (mostly just the campus library at the university I attended, and the one I now teach at), and thus someone else could have logged on to the same IP that I did at some point. (Obviously, there would in this case be no (or virtually no) overlap in articles edited, etc, with the user who "shared" my IP by using the same public computer.) Does Checkuser account for such misleading false positives? If so, I'm happy to consent. The process would certainly prove that I have no relationship whatsoever with Miles.

As to your remark, Miles, I'm a bit disappointed. We have longed shared a concern with the WP:Competence of users; why not expedite (through Checkuser) the process of exhibiting the incompetence of the incompetents? Steeletrap (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but CU is invasive and can be error-prone. Let me give you an analogy: Imagine that some cop accuses you of having drugs in your purse. Sure, you could just pop it open and let them peek, but why should you? It's up to them to show any basis for the search. Besides, what if drugs were previously planted or if the cop plants them during the search? You have nothing more to gain from the search than refusing it.

Given that this is clearly a bad-faith accusation, I say we should make them work for it. Let them waste more time digging up diffs that show nothing. Let them try to bully someone with CU rights into invading your privacy and mine. And if all of their hard work succeeds, it'll make the CU's negative results all the tastier. MilesMoney (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You can e-mail the SPI clerk and direct your concerns to them. From what I know, checkuser identifies the IP addresses you have used when you logged in for the past several months, and checks if other editors have used those addresses. Whois and similar tools provide information for the address. You can type in your IP to see what type of information is available.[10] If the IP is registered to a university, it will say that. But of course it is entirely up to you, and I am merely pointing this out to you, not advising you what to do. TFD (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll wait for User:Collect to continue to add evidence of his inept editing to the SPI. Steeletrap (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there is no basis for this SPI case, and I can't help thinking that what goes around comes around. --Orlady (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

No parallel. With QuebecSierra, there was a flock of meat puppets, and you were caught in the mess because you helped them. I included you in good faith, and you were never in danger.

In contrast, this is just Collect retaliating for Rocco. But it's nice to know that you're not holding a grudge or anything. Speaking of which, Rocco's ANI report against me is, just barely, still open. You could make the gesture of voting for my execution. Perhaps it'll make you feel better. MilesMoney (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

@Steeletrap:, I've said before that I have no interest in participating in a popularity contest on Wikipedia. Perhaps I am gruff but I am more concerned with being fair. I think that there are many involved in the present libertarian-based disputes who need to back off and they come from both sides of the argument (yes, it is that polarised). That said, I've instigated or participated in discussions regarding both sides and I'll grant you and Miles one thing: unlike Carol, you haven't obviously changed your opinion of me simply because you happened to object to something that I have said.. That would be ridiculous but, alas, it seems to have happened in her case. Sometimes people cannot see the wood for the trees. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right: It's ok for us to disagree, even strongly, and it doesn't mean we have to make it personal. The disputes over right-wing politics (including but not limited to libertarianism) have become intensely personal, and to put it mildly, this is counterproductive. I don't know what the solution is, but mediation is out of the question now. MilesMoney (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm also glad that, at least in some articles, you (Sitush) agree with Miles, SPECIFICO, and I that the claims to notability are preposterous. Whether or not you think we are biased, it's clear that there are major problems on the libertarian articles we haven't edited regarding NPOV. Steeletrap (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It's quite normal for people to agree on some things but not others. When you see someone disagreeing about everything, that's when it's likely personal. MilesMoney (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

BLP concerns

I don't understand this edit. What is the BLP concern? StAnselm (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The lede names various supporters of Christ myth theory. Adding a "Bible conspiracy theories" category means calling them conspiracy nuts, when really they're just skeptics who happen to be mistaken. MilesMoney (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Our (my) 'disagreement' with you (myself/my sock) on Jesus Myth

What an ingenious plan! But will it be enough to throw Perry Mason aka Collect off our/my trail? Steeletrap (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, but it's worth a try!!!!!!!!! MilesMoney (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)