User talk:MilesMoney

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.[1] 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.[2] 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)

A Barnstar 4 U.

	Barnstar of Secrecy
	CONFIDNENTIAL !!! Mum's the word !!! SPECIFICO talk 04:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Off the record, on the QT, and very hush-hush. MilesMoney (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MilesMoney. You have new messages at Talk:Mohan_Rakesh#3rd_opinion.
Message added 16:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hitro talk 16:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:MilesMoney reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: ). Thank you. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

And you lied in your report, which I was glad to point out. MilesMoney (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You really need to back down on some of these fights. I just don't see how your crusade to lay the homosexual marriage material on Scott Rasmussen is justifiable. Mangoe (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, we have newspaper articles which say he was president of the organization and he personally told that couple that they couldn't marry at the pavilion. This is enough to justify a couple of sentences. MilesMoney (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the most that can be justified is a statement that the was president of the organization at the time of the controversy. Mangoe (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, that much is true, but we also know that he was the one who spoke to the couple, and that he spoke with the board. Really, I think this just deserves a sentence or two on his bio, so we don't need to say much. MilesMoney (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Pamela Geller

Hi, I noticed you edit-warring to include material on a living person which is in flagrant breach of WP:BLPSOURCES. The article has now been protected by another admin to prevent further edit warring. If I see you do this again, ever, on any article I shall block you. As you have never been blocked before, your first block would be for 31 hours. Please be advised and desist from adding poorly sourced material on BLPs as I do not think you would wish to be blocked. --John (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

John, with all due respect, you are barking up the wrong tree. The page was protected at my request, precisely to stop the edit-warring. There was no BLP violation, as the material I inserted was supported with THREE sources, all of high quality. The issue is being handled on WP:BLPN as well as the article talk page.

Again, given that I requested the page protection, this is a pointless threat that borders on harassment. I'm going to have to ask you to leave now. Please don't return until next year. MilesMoney (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I see your request to leave you alone, and I apologise if you are feeling harassed. Let me assure you I am not part of some conspiracy against you. I noticed these spectacularly bad edits and I don't want you to go away thinking they were ok. They were not. Tabloids are not acceptable for adding this sort of material or really any material to a BLP. Please don't do this again. I'll leave you alone now, unless I see any more edits like this from you. Best wishes, --John (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it the New Year yet? You must be in some strangely-accelerated time zone.

John, we have multiple newspaper articles which say, in headlines and in body, that Pamela Geller is right-wing. The Daily News and Daily Mail are both reliable sources, and the SPLC and the Guardian also support this material. There is absolutely no doubt about this and absolutely no BLP issue.

Despite this, you made the mistake of summarizing my edits as a "flagrant breach". I don't know what you're thinking, but you screwed up and now you look like you're completely biased. Don't repeat your mistake; just drop this and go away. Take a few weeks off and let this situation resolve itself on WP:BLPN, instead of through your threats. MilesMoney (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear John: I don't know anything about this article, but those three sources are not "tabloids" and regardless of whatever's going on, your tone is way too harsh and abrupt for effective communication. Most Admins do a much better job at style and substance and I suggest you reflect on this feedback. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I know nothing about the "Daily News", but I know all too much about the "Daily Mail", and I cannot fathom why anyone either regard as a reliable source or deny that it is a tabloid. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm with JamesBWatson here: the Daily Mail is about as reliable as a chocolate teapot and has always been thus. Oddly, I've not long since done some work on an article about one of their journalists of years gone by, William Beach Thomas. - Sitush (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

James, Sitush: Don't worry, we got rid of the Daily Mail from our list of prospective sources. Instead, we have two academic books which directly state that Geller is right-wing. Check out the article talk page for details.

Ultimately, this is a matter of getting sufficiently high quality sourcing that it allays all reasonable concerns. MilesMoney (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI threads

Sometimes less is more. Others have told you this before but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. Hectoring on article talk pages etc is bad enough but if you are perceived to be hectoring others at ANI then the outcome is unlikely to be good because in many respects it just makes people scratch that itch harder. I'm not saying that you should entirely refrain from responding but I am suggesting that you should think twice beforehand in order to avoid kneejerks etc. A. E. Housman: "Three minutes' thought would have told him he was wrong but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time". - Sitush (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. MilesMoney (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Removal of redlinks

Of all the articles to edit, and of all the articles which result in a revert, this one take the cake: List of Asian pornographic actors. I'd hope that WP:WTAF would be a motivator to remove all the redlinks. But that did not happen in this case. One redlink was removed and one redlink was added. My gosh! (This message is being posted on both user talk pages.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don't stalk me. I noticed the unexplained removal of a single redlink, so I reverted. My edit was itself reverted for no more reason than the original removal. It's inane. MilesMoney (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm stalking Wolfowitz. Or perhaps you and Wolfowitz are stalking each other. In any event, you are correct that a single redlink should not have been removed when others remain, but adding it back was WP:POINTy. (Also, Miles, you might place a colon inside the wikilinks on your talk page, like I did with [[:List of Asian pornographic actors]]. As I understand it, the colon prevents the links from being transcluded.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Transcluded? Huh? MilesMoney (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am incorrect. If you look at the List article, and click "what links here" on the left margin of the page, your username and this talk page will show up. I thought that the colon would prevent such listings. So this suggestion is a Emily Litella#"Never mind" moment. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"Having learned nothing from the experience, she is back with a similar mistake (and another "Never mind!") in succeeding episodes." MilesMoney (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually Srich, the history shows that you've been stalking Miles. Just him. Time to get back to your own stuff and stop ruminating on Miles' colon, etc. SPECIFICO talk 01:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone know what Srich's exact problem is with Red Links on a Talk page? I've been trying to create a list of names of actors that have been removed from the main List article to keep track of them, but Srich keeps removing them (and now claiming a 3RR exception because its BLP related) saying its a violation, but not referencing how or why. I've even adding references that a person with the name or stage name of each name listed is actually a porn actor/actress.

Its not even my list, I just took the most recent names that have been removed and moved them to the Talk page. What more do we need? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither Srich nor Wolf are what you might call cooperative editors, much less good communicators. It looks like Wolf is the one with the real problem and Srich is just jumping in to edit-war. Of course, regardless of their hostility, edit-warring back is pointless.

The edit comment from Wolf said: "for well-established BLP concerns, we do not allow lists of redlinked names identified as porn performers". It's not clear what these "well-established BLP concerns" are, and it's not as if he seems willing to explain. Maybe he's making it all up, maybe it's a realistic concern. Hard to tell. You could try asking on WP:BLPN; it's officially the right place, but the truth is that it's full of random editors who aren't necessarily knowledgeable, reasonable or helpful. Still, it's worth a try. You could also try reading WP:BLP for any hints. MilesMoney (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I read BLP and even laid out what I thought the basis for their complaints might be on the Talk page. I'm over it, I wasted too much time trying to logically discuss it with SR. That's an hour of my life I'm never getting back... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You're not the first person to walk away from an encounter with Rich feeling that it's all been a waste of time. The more I deal with him, the more firmly I conclude that Wikipedia is doomed. MilesMoney (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Doomed because of the likes of SR, nah... Ever heard of or crossed paths with a User that goes by "Andy The Grump"? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not his winning personality that threatens Wikipedia, it's his participation in WP:POV railroading. That's how the site loses editors. I've seen Andy on Gun Control, where he's dealing with some serious POV pushing from NRA extremists. He's not cuddly, but he's not exactly dealing with reasonable people. MilesMoney (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so you are familiar. Yeah, the GC article is a minefield these days. I keep trying to get things organized with suggestions of sections or how to organize the content, but to no avail. I know I'm probably put in the category of "gun nut", but I've gone out of my way to be neutral on a great many topics. I am fairly proud of the fact that the "Context and terminology" section that I wrote seems to be accepted, I wish it was an attribute of other articles to help stem the debate. Its silly really, why we can't just talk about the subject instead of debating the subject in the article, this would seemingly make all of this diatribe go away. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Can't argue with that. There's no reason people who like guns shouldn't be able to contribute to these articles productively, and some do. The problem Andy's having is that there's this crazy theory linking Hitler to gun control, and it's taking up a third of the article. It's a violation of WP:FRINGE, not to mention common sense, but there are a few editors who are being intentionally uncooperative. The theory is an NRA talking point, but it's being presented as fact.

Seriously, I don't see why liking guns means wanting that article to lie about gun control's history. I also don't see why liking guns means opposing laws to keep guns out of the hands of felons. This is just extremism. MilesMoney (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for your insightful editing at WP:POV Railroad — Keithbob • Talk • 02:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm only polishing up the nice job you did. MilesMoney (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Here to help.

See: WP:PORNSTAR. – S. Rich (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry it is not of more help. I think it's the only thing out there. I can't think of where else BLP or BDP notability guidelines might be set forth. – S. Rich (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Conservative cloud

We were having this discussion on an article talk page [3], but this isn't relevant to the article, so I am moving it here. I told you that I believe you are violating WP:NPA by regularly referring to me and other editors as being part of "The Conservative Cloud." [4], [5], [6]. I believe this violates the tenet of the policy which states: "Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors." When I brought this up with you, you said I was falsely accusing you of violating WP:NPA. [7] You said, "The quote was about "epithets", and "conservative" is not an epithet, it's their preferred term." First of all, "their" preferred term? What about my preferred term? Am I an individual, or just part of a mysterious "their" that you've lumped me in with? Second, I think "cloud" is what you're using as an epithet, more than conservative. What do you mean by "cloud?" It sounds like you mean some sort of menacing group of people hovering over Wikipedia in some unsavory way. As WP:NPA states many times, this policy is subjective. If someone is accused of making a personal attack, it should be taken seriously. Why are you claiming I am "falsely accusing" you? Do you have a reason for thinking that? The fact is, I believe that you've made a personal attack. Perhaps that was not your intent. But the fact that your word choice could cause someone to feel that they've been a victim of personal attack might cause you to reflect on your language. Please don't refer to me as being part of any kind of "cloud" in the future. Safehaven86 (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

On ANI, Mangoe said:

Every time I go to look at this material, it's the same cloud of conservative defenders.

Mangoe coined it, but it stuck because it's fitting. Many of the editors who got involved with helping you protect Scott Rasmussen's bio from inconvenient facts undue material about the lawsuit also happened to vote on that ANI report in favor of various draconian punishments for me which the rest of the community did not see as appropriate. Note that nobody suggested it was a conspiracy; they're simply likeminded individuals or fellow travelers . They're a cloud, not an army.

Clouds are amorphous; you're not a core member, but you blend in with them on certain articles while parting ways with them on others. You blend by acting like them: you were less than honest about the role of OCGMA, you removed an easily sourced quote for lack of sourcing, and you've been whittling down material that some people would consider embarrassing. If you don't want to be associated with the cloud, that's entirely up to you. All you have to do is act as an individual.

As for the term, "conservative cloud", I don't actually use it much, and I certainly don't throw it around as an insult. I can't stop you from feeling insulted, but there's no insult intended. If you can come up with a better term that captures their essence, I'd be glad to use it. MilesMoney (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

...

Is your inexplicable change to my comment [8] meant to further antagonize me? Safehaven86 (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It turns out that you don't own section headings. It's well within my rights to refactor them as I see fit, especially on my own talk page. Since false accusations of personal attacks are themselves personal attacks, I toned down your section heading. It is generally bad form to edit-war on someone else's talk page. MilesMoney (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

"Helping me protect Scott Rasmussen's bio from inconvenient facts." WP:AGF much? I was "less than honest?" The hits just keep on coming. I see there's no use in engaging you; you've made it quite clear what you think of me. I'll choose to ignore you and wait for the wider community to tire of your incivility. Safehaven86 (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to remind you, you characterized OGCMA as "a group located in the city", which is not an entirely honest description. It founded the city and owns its land outright. Some people might say you were lying, but I was more tactful than that.

Nobody disputes the facts that I wanted to restore to Rasmussen's bio. Instead, arguments were made that a couple of sentences in a large article were "undue". The supposedly disparaging nature of these facts was brought up repeatedly as one of the reasons it was "undue", so this isn't so much a matter of assumption as basic literacy.

I think it's disingenuous to complain about my alleged incivility while you edit-war over Ocean Grove and remove embarrassing material. It's not a very effective smokescreen. I have to say that my comments are astoundingly civil given the provocation. MilesMoney (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You tell em Miles

Tea Party

It appears Arthur Rubin has been blocked from editing Tea Party articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#Arthur_Rubin_topic-banned and also using a sock puppet to evade the block http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive142#Arthur_Rubin which I believe you reported which is why I'm posting here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virginia_Thomas&action=history who is a Tea Party person. He deleted her External links: official, her own jobs, column archives and statements on C-SPAN, Open Secrets several times - nothing controversial or outside guidelines, just another blatant whitewash attempt. This is an Admin? ArbCom candidate? What's going on here? 71.23.178.214 (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

As both you and Miles have been told a number of times, I am allowed to revert sock puppets of blocked editors, even on articles or subjects on which I am topic-banned. In the case of Virginia, the improper edits I reverted included [9] and [10]. I wasn't aware that she was associated with the Tea Party movement; it has never appeared in the body of the article, and the category would be questionable even if it hadn't been repurposed. If she is considered part of (not associated with) the TPm, then the latter revert was of an improper edit, but neither the blocked anon nor you have requested or received an exemption. I'll stay out of this, now, except to continue to revert the blocked anon. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not Arthur Rubin's keeper. But if I were, I'd search Virginia Thomas for "tea", and would come up with two sources entitled:

Justice's wife launches 'tea party' group

Secret donors make Thomas's wife's group tea party player

I don't know why the article doesn't reflect its sources, but it's clear that she's part of the Tea Party, so the topic ban applies. MilesMoney (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

i am not a blocked editor! As the Virginia Thomas history page makes clear, I made the original additions to External links on December 15. I see Binksternet, Thargor Orlando and Roccodrift are now doing the reverts on that article and on other Tea Party articles, citing the same oddball "interpretations" of the rules for External links. I believe that's called "tag teaming". Their goal is clearly anti-encyclopedic, as they are determined to repeatedly remove basic facts. Open Secrets, the FEC, C-SPAN et al were never intended to be blocked from External links, as they well know. I suggest these fanatics restrict their "contributions" to Conservapedia and similar partisan websites. Wikipedia shouldn't be enablers for them. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't call them fanatics, but they've come to be known as the Conservative Cloud. MilesMoney (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The post about Collect (further down your Talk page) led me to an earlier but quite similar discussion about External links and highly partisan editing. That discussion also included Jimbo Wales, Killer Chihuahua, Sandy Georgia and Chzz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hugo_Chávez/Archive_26#External_links The more things change.... 71.23.178.214 (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, well. Seems your "Conservative Cloud" got their usual go-to guy Plasticspork to do their dirty work delete for them with Template NGOlinks

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_15#Template:NGOLinks
• The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork 22:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Not long before you were blocked for 48 hours. They'll do absolutely anything to conceal facts, won't they? Just for the record, these are the sources they were so terrified to let the encyclopedia readers see: ( NGOLinks | ballot = | nndb = | votesmart = | charity = | guidestar = | factcheck = | politifact = | influence = | opensecrets = | worldcat = | c-span = | imdb = | bloomberg = | economist = | ft = | guardian = | huffpo = | nyt = | wsj = | washpo = | washtime = )

• Ballotpedia, NNDB, Project Vote Smart, Charity Navigator, Guidestar, Factcheck, Politifact, Influence Explorer, Open Secrets, Worldcat, C-SPAN, IMDb, Bloomberg News, The Economist, The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Washington Times

So now "their" articles are back to their preferred mix of spin and whitewash, "their" definition of the role of an encyclopedia. Thandor et al now have their sites set on getting Template:CongLinks deleted - check the Talk page for that template. What a way to start the new year, eh? Wikipedia morphs into Conservapedia. Bell Pottinger is going to look like a tempest in a teapot compared to this. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• • I seem to have gotten caught up in some sort of gang fight here. Now I'm wondering if this is a gang of nothing but sockpuppets, as I don't believe they're communicating by mental telepathy. You can read my last post here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Virginia_Thomas#External_links - i thought I had seen some pretty bad bullying on Wikipedia before, but nothing like this! You have my sympathy for having to deal with these wannabe Ninja warriors, darting in and out, appearing suddenly as a group first one place and then another. Like Bell Pottinger editors on steroids. I mean really - who deletes OpenSecrets and Project Vote Smart? That's like protesting Girl Scout cookies, baseball, mom and apple pie! Good luck, whoever you are. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, some of them are definitely sockpuppets, but this isn't so much telepathy as meat puppetry. They're canvassing off-wiki to pile on me all at once. It's against the rules but since when do the bad guys follow rules when it doesn't suit them? This sort of ganging up is just what they do when someone pisses them off. It's how they keep Wikipedia clean of impartiality. MilesMoney (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Presented to User:MilesMoney in recognition of his rapid growth from newbie to valued contributor on WP. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, old man. Wait until you hear my new year's resolution. MilesMoney (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Fishing expedition

Just FYI: User_talk:BD2412#Query --Calton | Talk 04:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I noticed. I even gave Collect a "Thanks", although there might have been some irony in there. It's not the first time someone has tried to misinterpret my single-article ban into something broader, and I know I can always count on Collect to maintain an interest in me. MilesMoney (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source.

I heard a rumor that User:Adjwilley was really a sockpuppet of User:Jimbo. I think it was on a self-published source, like a biased blog or something. MilesMoney (talk) 07:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of reliable sources, don't make bad faith edit summaries about me. Reliable Sourcing had nothing to do with that edit you so haphazardly reverted. Arzel (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong, and I explain why on the article talk page. MilesMoney (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

you double down on your lie and then edit warred on top of it. And then made a snide comment. I can see you have started 2014 just like you ended 2013. Arzel (talk)>

What's wrong with you? Get off my talk page if all you're going to do is violate WP:NPA. Don't come back for a month. MilesMoney (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Note discussion started. Collect (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014: blocked

I've blocked you for 48 hours for abusing the thanks function as well as the other notification function, compare this conversation on Someguy's page. See WP:BATTLE. You stated on ANI that "If I had known it was annoying him, I'd have stopped."[11] Yet you you didn't stop after this. I'm glad to see that you undertake (on ANI) not to thank Collect again. Please don't replace the sarcastic thanking with linking to his username over and over again or any other puerile clever breaching experiments for annoying Collect or others. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 00:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC).

ANI

You are being discussed at ANI and may respond here. TFD (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Well you obviously can't actually reply there for the next 45 hours or so. You can either post replies here asking for them to be copied over. Alternatively request to be unblocked solely for the purpose of participating in that discussion, bearing in mind any other activity or even using that privilege inappropriately will lead to a longer block and I can't guarantee that your request will be granted anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

MilesMoney (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I agree not to Thank or otherwise notify Collect. Unblocking would give me the opportunity to explain how the misunderstanding occurred and defend myself at ANI. If you would not agree to unblock me on this basis, I ask that you at least unblock me for the purpose of responding on ANI. MilesMoney (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I agree not to Thank or otherwise notify Collect. Unblocking would give me the opportunity to explain how the misunderstanding occurred and defend myself at ANI. If you would not agree to unblock me on this basis, I ask that you at least unblock me for the purpose of responding on ANI. [[User:MilesMoney|MilesMoney]] ([[User talk:MilesMoney#top|talk]]) 03:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I agree not to Thank or otherwise notify Collect. Unblocking would give me the opportunity to explain how the misunderstanding occurred and defend myself at ANI. If you would not agree to unblock me on this basis, I ask that you at least unblock me for the purpose of responding on ANI. [[User:MilesMoney|MilesMoney]] ([[User talk:MilesMoney#top|talk]]) 03:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I agree not to Thank or otherwise notify Collect. Unblocking would give me the opportunity to explain how the misunderstanding occurred and defend myself at ANI. If you would not agree to unblock me on this basis, I ask that you at least unblock me for the purpose of responding on ANI. [[User:MilesMoney|MilesMoney]] ([[User talk:MilesMoney#top|talk]]) 03:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Comment WP blocks are supposed to be preventive, not punitive. There seems little need for a preventive block in this case, now that the issue is resolved. Seems like some ANI warriors have too much time on their hands. Miles is chastened and I'm pretty sure he's not going to be thanking any of this crowd any time soon. SPECIFICO talk 04:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• All that happens with MM is that they withdraw from one spat and start another, often encouraged by Specifico and Steeletrap. I'd agree to an unblock so that MM can participate in the ANI discussions but nothing more until those discussions are concluded. - Sitush (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, I read your comment to state that I encourage Miles to engage in battleground behavior. That statement is not true, (quite the opposite, in fact -- look up the history-- and I consider it a personal attack which you should strike through. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You can read it however you want. The pair of you are repeatedly, although not always, supporting MM's dire efforts with barnstars etc and referring to him in terms that are suggestive of him being some sort of pupil of yours. I don't mean an academic pupil but certainly one in the context of Wikipedia. So sue me. - Sitush (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

MM removed my comment above. I've done an IAR regarding TPG because it contained a valid comment regarding the unblock proposal, If Specifico wants to report me per NPA then they can. - Sitush (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggest he not be unblocked for commenting on ANI. While he has a right to defend himself, let him do it from this page. Otherwise he will flood the conversation and cause unnecessary distraction, which is his usual M.O.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

At Sitush's urging, I am leaving this personal attack in place but striking it. Pork is basically arguing that I shouldn't be allowed to defend myself because I might actually defend myself. MilesMoney (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

We have SOP's for a blocked editor commenting on an active AN/ANI thread about them - being unblocked is NOT part of the SOP ES&L 13:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that this block is not needed to protect Wikipedia from an unwanted Thanks, which makes it punitive. By your own rules, I should be unblocked. But it's not as if we're following the rules, is it? Maybe it's time to ignore all rules and do the right thing. MilesMoney (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Please add this comment to ANI.

This ANI report is the sequel to that one. The same people who tried for two weeks to get me banned then are trying again. Here's what TP, the closing admin, wrote:

No consensus for any of the proposals. This topic has been discussed to exhaustion. The next step is an WP:RFC/U or Arbcom request. All participants in the disputes at hand here should evaluate their own behaviors before proceeding down either track.

He's right. ANI is not the place for this. If the community has a problem with my behavior, then we should take this to RFC/U. MilesMoney (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Done Nil Einne (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, this comes off as a pretty good summation of things, and includes some helpful advice for anyone trying to deal with clouds. Sportfan5000 (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Not so coincidentally, it's really hard to respond effectively without the ability to post on ANI, but the short version is that nothing has changed since the last time these very same editors tried to get rid of me. They just saw an opportunity after engineering the block.

As with Rocco's two-week marathon of persecution, we already know in advance that the Cloud will vote to get rid of me under any circumstances: it's their game and I'm a piece of the wrong color. So far, TFD has perjured himself shamelessly; not just the part where he denies that all of our sources recognize Geller as right-wing, but the whole false narrative woven out of random diffs that nobody thinks to check for themselves. I'd like to be able to say I'm surprised or disappointed, but this has happened too many times already.

It really comes down to whether the community has the will to oppose them. If not, then it gets what it deserves: more articles owned by the Cloud, fewer editors willing to contribute their free time. If we forcibly recused every member of the Cloud, the report against me would evaporate. MilesMoney (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S.

Let's see how this response gets misquoted against me. MilesMoney (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that another sockpuppet accusation has been thrown at me. Obviously, ANI is the wrong place for such things, but they've already tried SPI a few different ways, and there's no puppeting going on. So why would they bring it up? Well, one reason is to justify getting rid of me. Can you think of any others?

Speaking of accusations, I'm told that I "harassed Collect's talk page". This isn't true, but it sure sounds bad, almost as if it reinforces ThanksGate. Really, what's with all the falsehoods? How can you pretend this ANI report is more than a lynching when my accusers can't stick to the truth? MilesMoney (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not an accusation FYI. Feel free to think that though. You missed this part "the fact is the behavior is both the same where both StillStanding & Miles employs tendentious editing and creates overwhelming discussions even where there is clearly no consensus or is overwhelmingly against them". So if you want to interpret that as sockpuppet accusation, I'm not stopping you. It's not my problem. All I merely suggest is that it can fall under "The duck test". Quack! ViriiK (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

There's exactly one behavior in common, and it's the only one that matters: Stillstanding also pissed off the Conservative Cloud by trying to remove some of their POV-pushing. There's one result in common: being ruthlessly hounded on SPI, ANI, and user talk pages.

I could delete your unhelpful comments, but I think they do a better job showing how morally bankrupt the Cloud is than anything I could ever say. MilesMoney (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"how morally bankrupt the Cloud" This kind of points out your contempt for anyone who actually opposes your warring style. Maybe that's why there's a site ban in discussion against you?

It's interesting you weren't here around the time StillStanding was doing his POV-pushing ie "anti-gay"/SPLC inserting (not the other way around) but you know so much intimate details about his editing that you actually say it's actually an attempt to remove their POV-pushing. The fact is, he started the push by INSERTING, not removing. Guess who that is like. Oh right, you do the same thing. Quack! ViriiK (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

What I know is the ANI report that did him in. So many familiar faces, so many familiar false claims. Amazing. MilesMoney (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The claims against you could be false, but that discussion is past because I wasn't involved. But what I do know is that the claims against StillStanding-247 are not false since I was a participant back then. ViriiK (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

So I point out that lying about me on ANI is morally bankrupt and you prove it by misquoting that on ANI. Pathetic. MilesMoney (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

In order for a statement to be a lie, it would have to be proven false but I didn't make any bold statements. All I did was make comparisons the styles of tactics that you do to manipulate and game the system to your advantage just like SS. Now that last part is a statement. But I don't make dumb statements like "morally bankrupt" to show I'm unwilling to work with others. That's your own prerogative. This is from a show I watch. "You ever hear the saying "you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole; you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole."" Now I'm not saying you are but you should rethink your choices of words before attacking people. But with a siteban possibility on the horizon, not much I can do there. I don't make admin decisions. ViriiK (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to explain why I've been accused of being a half-dozen different sockpuppets. If your explanation assumes good faith, try again. MilesMoney (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Half? I missed whatever conversation that was. That must have been a doozy. I'm not the one under a site ban review because of bad conduct. I'm explaining to you of my actions which are in good faith so I can share that information with others. You on the other hand seem intent on disregarding everything I say. Why is that so familiar. Because you do the same exact crap as SS. You don't work with others, you maintain your cutthroat stances, you refuse to compromise, and you certainly type and type and type until you try and wear down the people involved in order to claim consensus in your favor. AGF doesn't apply here when you don't apply the same. Quack! ViriiK (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I've been pointlessly patient with you, so we're going to end this now. Your comments have not been helpful and I will not allow any more.

Bottom line: If you want to repeat the long-refuted sockpuppet claim, take it to SPI or keep it to yourself. MilesMoney (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I love how an ANI report that is supposed to be about my behavior is being distorted by the same old trick of claiming I'm a sockpuppet. Again, this line of attack has been tried a half dozen times, most of which made it all the way to SPI before being laughed away. Despite this, we have yet another editor muddying the waters (or blooding them) with more of the same. ANI is not SPI, people. MilesMoney (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring

MilesMoney, left the following comment on my (NK's) talk page: This revert constitutes edit-warring, particularly as you left no edit comment and did not participate in the subsequent talk page discussion. Please do not edit-war. MilesMoney (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a damn lie. I have made one edit to the Progressive tax page. One edit for the whole time the article has been in existence. You just did not like the edit that I made. You saw my edit and then you went to my talk page and left the above lie. Please stop lying about those who simply disagree with you on edits. Please stop being an edit warrior. It will get you banned from all of Wikipedia eventually--not just topic banned as you are now. Please review all of Wikipedia's rules before it is too late. There is an article on Economic inequality, please push your position over there.If there is no article on "Income Inequality" then make that article and stop attempting to use the progressive tax article as a coathanger to add POV about income inequality.--NK (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your WP:BOOMERANG post. Your response is aggressive and disproportionate. MilesMoney (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

talk page comments

Standard wikipedia practice WP:TPO is Miles Money may remove any comment from their talk page except declined unblock notices and notices of sanctions. I recommend they do so with either a neutral summary or no edit summary, but not liking his edit summary is not a reason to reinstate it. Except for admins declining unblock requests, the only legitimate reasons to be posting on a block user's page is to provide advice or counsel the blocked user may find helpful; if the editor removes the comments that's a really strong clue they're not finding the commentary helpful. NE Ent 17:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but it doesn't really matter. I have evidence of massive off-wiki canvassing against me. I'm sure ArbCom would care to see it. MilesMoney (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

IAR

I am asking for an admin to WP:IAR by closing the WP:ANI report against me as invalid. MilesMoney (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how IAR is relevant to the closing of an ANI. However, I note an Admin's link to WP:CBAN at the top of the thread. I don't see that the discussion there currently supports the draconian sanctions contemplated by your fan club. Think of it this way. if you keep going to contentious articles all over WP and getting in peoples' face, then eventually everyone on the site will be an "involved editor" and you'll be practically immortal. The current thread, which is long on accusation and short on detail, diffs, and discussion, seems to fail the CBAN tests. If I were you I'd think about that rather than IAR. SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:CBAN:

When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments made.

This is precisely what happened when I got banned from a single article instead of broadly banned. However, this rule is mostly ignored; look at how TParis just counted votes and closed the report. Given how many CC votes there are, we can expect an admin to take the easy route by ignoring the quality of the arguments in favor of their quantity.

Rather than debate about whether it's ok for an admin to put aside these votes, which would be interminable, I'm invoking a rule intended to cut through bureaucratic nonsense and just do the right thing.

As for the type of ban, it doesn't matter at all. There's no point contributing if I'm not allowed to edit the topics that interest me, so any ban is effectively a site ban. MilesMoney (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

IAR is not a good reason / standard reason for closing these. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

IAR is never a standard reason; that's why it exists. As for good reasons, there's no shortage of those. This is the same bunch as last time up to the same tricks. MilesMoney (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Someone could try closing it with IAR as the reason; under the circumstances, they'd be reversed. And probably blocked if they persisted.

Reading the tea leaves, I think you are at the point of having exhausted the community's patience, on the whole. IAR doesn't cover trying to stop that conclusion. The community overrides individual admin IAR. The admin community and Arbcom have both spoken on that point.

You have a point that the reasons for this are not articulated in the best of manners, but "exhausted the community patience" is a long-standing block, ban, and !vote reason, and regardless of the rest can easily be seen in the individual and totality of the comments.

If you want to try to explain your case better that it's not well founded on details, I will copy another statement over to ANI for you if you care to create one. Talking with me here is going to be missed by the great mass of the ANI participants.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

GWH, I've agreed with you above that IAR is out of place here. However what I hope MM will choose to enlist you for is a list of which of those posting on the ANI are "involved" editors. That would be responsive to your reminder about CBAN at the top of the thread and it would help the unfortunate soul who closes the thread to parse the muck. SPECIFICO talk 02:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yuck. That's a lot of effort, but someone will have to do it. I was eyeballing it, but trying to make a solid list presumably would require using the editor interaction tools and the like. ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I endorse Specifico's statement. The problem here is that I haven't exhausted the community's patience, it's that I've royally pissed off a bunch of people who don't like it when I bring in sourced material that goes against their political bias. They're the ones who organized this tailgate party and brought the rope, just like they organized over a dozen distinct attempts to remove me, starting with the first SPI.

I'm not paranoid, I'm not suffering from a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. These people are, by their own admission and doubly clear from their actions, out to get rid of me. Any talk about "community" which ignores this background fact is lying by exclusion. These are not neutral parties; they are, in their own minds, combatants in a culture war.

Right now, the ANI report is jam packed full of lies by inclusion, to the point that otherwise reasonable people who haven't put in the time to check out the claims might be fooled into joining in. But, since it was strategically timed to coincide with Collect's block, I can't respond. Your kind offer of ferrying my comments is insufficient; you should unblock me, at least for the purpose of ANI.

I made that request already and it's been IGNORED. So don't talk to me about community standards when policy is being violated up and down the line to make my lynching possible. This has nothing to do with the community and everything to do with a few right-wingers who want our articles to be whitewashed and are willing to do whatever it takes to make it happen. I'm not their first target, I won't be their last. The question is whether you want to enable them or do what's right. MilesMoney (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to clarify something. If I'm blocked or banned or otherwise left in a position where I can no longer edit the articles on my watchlist, the next step is to visit ArbCom with all of my accumulated evidence against the Conservative Cloud. I've been hesitant because they have a reputation for smiting everyone equally, but if I have nothing left to lose then I have much to gain. MilesMoney (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I... ah... A lot of the complaining is about how you've dominated prior discussions, to the point that a lot of people feel it was disruptive. And you seem to be hinting that you'd do the same now, which I presume they'd see as disruptive again. That would more or less be more battleground behavior.

If you're talking about smiting people, I will not unblock. If you think you can restrain yourself and behave better than normal then I will consider such. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The complaint translates to: "When I lied about him last time, he pointed out that I was lying. I don't like this so please keep him from calling BS on my personal attacks against him". I "disrupted" previous conversations about me by insisting that they stick to the truth. You've intentionally allowed them to make false claims about me unopposed for days, so that reasonable people might come to the conclusion that these claims must be true since nobody's even denying them. After all this, you talk about my behavior, or about "the community"?

Are you joking?! You just admitted to sabotaging my attempt to defend myself against false claims! Instead of considering my block and giving an answer that could be argued against, you ignored it just so people like Isilija could fling shit at me for two days unopposed. And now that they've done this, and I'm covered with the stuff, you're going to pretend that you didn't act to manipulate the votes against me. Now, when people vote against "me", they're actually voting against the stinking straw man that you defended from me!

This isn't a matter for an RFC/U; it's going to ArbCom and your actions will be placed under proper scrutiny. This is not the community speaking, this is not legitimate. MilesMoney (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Did I block you? ... ??

I (or any other reasonable admin) will copy anything you post here you want posted over there.

Again, as I do quick head counts, about half the people commenting have not had anything particular to do with you other than watching your contributions on ANI and elsewhere. And they're overwhelmingly voting to ban you. That is the community talking.

Again, if you will agree to restrain yourself in commenting over there, and not go "smiting people" as you put it, then I will unblock for you to go comment directly. "Smiting" is pretty much the attitude that got you blocked and is going to get the rest of the community to ban you the way things are going. Treating me like it's me blocking your defense is unreasonable; I'm doing everything I can to make sure this is fair (reminding closing admins to review the CBAN policy and protocol, and not go too quickly so you wouldn't be able to effectively respond or defend yourself under the circumstances with the block etc.; agreeing that a lot of your existing critics are among those !voting to ban you and that others should be the group considered most legitimate for considering community consensus; willing to copy statements over or even unblock you if you will not blow up the conversation over there immediately by "smiting" people...).

If you don't want me involved I can just back away and keep my mouth shut. Someone else may help you on other terms; I have no objection. I will assist you under existing policy as I see it and in a desire to ensure that you get the most reasonable and fairest chance you can get. Wikipedia is not served by injustice or bad application of policy.

Again, up to you, if you want to ban me off your talk page or just leave you alone on this issue, will do. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to harp on this, but I should have been allowed to defend myself from the get-go, and now it's too late. There have been two days of unanswered slander against me. The well is poisoned and the ANI has snowballed into a full lynching. There is a pretty obvious feedback mechanism, where even non-involved editors are influenced by the tide of involved editors and their slander. This ANI is spoiled. MilesMoney (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• 1. Looks like I'm a bit late to this thread, but I agree with Specifico and GWH. I doubt Jimbo (my sock) himself could do an IAR close of that ANI thread and make it stick. 2. Your comment above "...starting with the first SPI" seems to imply that User:MrX and myself are part of this Conservative Cloud. Was that your intention? 3. On the subject of clouds, is what you're talking about a cabal? If so, perhaps you could just call it that. Cloud seems, well, nebulous. Also, I suggest reading the page before going down that road. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Oh, I bet if you logged into your Jimbo account, you could get away with it. Only one way to find out, really.
2. To clarify, the first SPI was launched in good faith, but was piled on by a CCer named Arzel. He's also the first one of them to latch onto me, and other CC'ers since (such as StAnselm, MONGO, and a few more) have repeated this claim, either on ANI, on their talk pages, or on my user page. For latter SPI's (and also for sockpuppet claim that never made it that far), the participation of CCers has been much more significant, often with them initiating the claim or immediately supporting it.
3. I didn't coin the term, but I like it a lot better than "cabal", as it accurately reflects the nebulous nature of the group. There's no secret handshake, no membership cards, no conspiracy. It's simply that right-wingers seem very willing to back each other up, and are quite comfortable with the WP:BATTLEFIELD technique of targeting and removing loud opponents. I also like that "cc" means carbon-copy, which describes what their "burn the witch!!!" comments look like at ANI, or in any other dispute.

MilesMoney (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

misread "smiting" subject

Last night I mis-read and misinterpreted who Miles was referring to doing smiting. I believed he suggested he rould. That is, on reread, clearly NOT what Miles wrote and I apologize for that. My comment sections above where I warned him against smiting people or wanting to flowed directly from that mistead and were not helpful under the circumstances. I retract those specific comments and will go through and detail strike out those sections once I am editing from a desktop computer later today. I think Specifico was the one who commented on my talk page and pointed this out (not enouvh browser tabs left to recheck/verify that credit) and is thanked for noticing and calling my attention to my mistake. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, the smiting was in reference to how I expected ArbCom to treat everyone involved. It was not something I planned to do. Thank you for acknowledging your unintentional error (and please don't extend my block for Thanking you). MilesMoney (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

A way forward

MilesMoney, you have expressed a desire to get evidence-based feedback from editors who don't bear a particular grudge against you. I think I qualify: we have not had any acrimonious disagreement that I am aware of, and although I have general concerns about your behavior (as well as behavior of some of your interlocutors), I think I can help direct a reasonable and dispassionate analysis of the disputes you've been in.

I propose to open an RFC/U with an unconventional structure. The focus of the first phase would be on cataloging the disputes you have been involved in, without seeking to assign blame but just to identify the parameters of each dispute: when it started, how long it lasted, who was significantly involved, what it was about, what parts of Wikipedia were affected, what the outcome was. The end result of this phase should be something that basically everyone should be able to stipulate to as factual, and will provide a common reference for later phases of the RFC. The second phase would be to solicit input from the RFC participants, asking them to identify a few specific diffs from each dispute (not limited to your contributions only) that they feel were particularly constructive or unconstructive. Debate over what other editors have identified will not be allowed at this point. The third phase is to have a moderated discussion on the talk page about the diffs identified in the second phase. The fourth and final phase is like the traditional RFC format, where each editor can summarize their opinions of the matter, express support for others' opinions, and suggest behavioral changes and/or sanctions that should take place (not limited exclusively to your behavior). A wholly uninvolved administrator will be asked to review the RFC, close it, and take any necessary measures indicated. I envision each phase taking three or four days.

This will require a fair amount of my free time to do properly so I must ask first whether you are willing to participate in good faith in such a process and on your best behavior. You must also be willing to step away temporarily (for the duration of the RFC) from all current disputes you are involved in, and to refrain from engaging in new ones. (As a formality you will also need to waive the normal RFC/U certification requirements.) If you are willing to do all this, and if administrators following this page or the AN/I stuff are comfortable with it, then I will initiate the RFC and propose that the ANI discussion be closed—neither as invalid nor resolved, but as superseded by this more formal process.

Is this agreeable to you? alanyst 16:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I've been asking for an RFC/U instead of this ANI procedure, because the latter just doesn't work. I'm willing to work with you on this. MilesMoney (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@Georgewilliamherbert: @Bishonen: do you feel comfortable with this proposal? alanyst 18:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: I don't believe Bishonen is neutral, due to his relationship with MONGO. MilesMoney (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Bishonen engages in light banter with a lot of users. I don't regard that diff as evidence of such a strong relationship with MONGO as to cloud their judgment. alanyst 18:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a data point. Another is that Bish misread my exchange with Collect and blocked me on the basis of his misunderstanding instead of giving me a chance to explain myself. This is someone who shoots first and asks questions never. MilesMoney (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@Alanyst:, for what it's worth I support any alternative means of addressing this matter outside of the pile-on at ANI, and thank you for volunteering for such an effort. I don't see any problem with Bishonen's participation either. Gamaliel (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't believe I'm neutral, Miles? Good to see you come out of your closet of hints about my block and say so. You could perhaps be more explicit still. When you piped a link to my New Year's greeting to my old friend User:MONGO in your comment above, "it's not as if we're following the rules, is it?", do you mean to suggest I was guided or prompted by MONGO to place the block? Also, I wondered about how, quoting you again, "these very same editors" (=the Conservative Cloud?) saw an opportunity to get rid of you "after engineering the block," my block. Engineering? And how was the "Apparent Battleground/POV editing" ANI thread "strategically timed to coincide with Collect's block [or as I would call it my block, unless I'm conspiring with Collect as well?]," so that you wouldn't be able to respond? Am I in cahoots with The Four Deuces as well as MONGO? Nobody likes being blocked, I can sympathize with that. But you and I have never interacted as far as I can recollect; I've never taken any interest to speak of in the articles you edit and discuss, and I'll also mention that I think you and I are in the same political "cloud" (you and me and Drmies, all three of us). It was for these collected reasons I thought I was a proper admin to block you over the "thanking" business. Nobody contacted me to suggest it, and I didn't advise with anybody, but I read the ANI thread carefully first, especially your own comments. Am I part of a right-wing conspiracy in your opinion? Canvassing or being canvassed against you off-line? If so, I hope it is going to ArbCom and my actions are, as you say, "placed under proper scrutiny," along with my co-conspirators. As for the kind of RFC you describe, Alanyst, I've no opinion, but anyway certainly no objection. I blocked Miles; I have no regrets; the block will expire pretty soon, and I've rather disengaged from this matter. You may notice I haven't commented in the second ANI thread. Bishonen | talk 20:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC). P. S. Miles, also, I didn't know TFD was going to open a ban discussion on ANI after I'd blocked you. AFAIK I've never communicated with him/her, on or off line. Bishonen | talk 20:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC).

Not sure how to respond to this wall of text, but I'll focus on what actually happened.

• Collect started off the new year by deciding to get me banned. We know this because he went to BD2412's talk page and tried to get my one-article ban interpreted more broadly and retroactively.
• Since I've posted on BD's talk page before, I had it watchlisted. I noticed Collect's actions, and sent him a semi-ironic Thanks to show him I saw what he had tried to do, without cluttering BD's talk page further. Even if I had missed it, I later received a note from someone named Calton, who apprently thought that what Collect was saying about me behind my back was my business.
• Collect then reported his failure to AQFK on the latter's talk page, and AQFK then went to BD's page to add more weight. I also have AQFK's talk page watchlisted, due to prior interactions, so I once again Thanked Collect's comments on AQFK's talk page to gently remind him that I noticed again, without cluttering up AQFK's talk page and risking a revert there.
• This enraged Collect, presumably because he didn't expect me to have noticed and he was startled at getting caught in the act. More accurately, it annoyed him a bit, but he played it up as over-the-top rage for effect. On the Geller talk page, he rabidly accused me of stalking him on these two talk pages (even though they're watchlisted and he was working behind the scenes on both to get rid of me). I did not and do not consider this to be a reasonable concern. When you plot to get rid of someone, getting noticed is just the sort of thing you can expect.
• Here's where there was a misunderstanding. Collect's accusations ended with "STOP THE STALKING". This was a false accusation; I never stalked him. As a result, there's no way for me to stop, so I rejected his demand in its entirety.
• Collect did mention Thanks, but only in the context of it being evidence of stalking. He wrote of "your harassment of me via "thank"ing me to show that you are, indeed, now stalking my edits". It's true that I thanked him to show I was watching, but watching is not stalking, and thanking is, in itself, harmless. I said as much in my reply, "A thank you is not an insult."
• To be very clear, my interpretation -- supported by his ALL CAPS DEMAND -- is that he was concerned with "stalking", and that he saw the Thanks as bad only because it shows that I am stalking. Since I wasn't stalking, Thanks could not be bad on that basis, and they don't seem bad on their own, either.
• On the other hand, if Collect had dropped me a short, sane note on my talk page, directly asking me to stop Thanking him without wrapping this request in false accusations, I would have done so, just as I'd accepted his request that I not post on his talk page.
• Collect engineered the block by communicating with antagonism and hyperbole instead of clarity, then filed an ANI report that intentionally skimped on the whole context of him trying to get me banned that day. He got you to do the actual blocking, but he deserves full credit for manipulating ANI (and you) into doing his bidding. He played you like a tin whistle.
• My gripe with you is that you jumped to block me while I was explaining myself, based on misunderstanding the full context of the events. Your block was also a violation of the goal of blocking, which was to prevent additional harm. Obviously, I wasn't going to Thank Collect any more after he opened an ANI report about it, so blocking me only helped Collect's fellow CCer, TFD, launch a new ANI to fulfill Collect's original goal while I could not respond. Tin whistle, again.

You can be angry at me for saying you were manipulated, but I'd save that anger for those who manipulated you, not for the bearer of the bad news. MilesMoney (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Closing ANI Thread

I am about to close the ANI thread concerning you. I see on your talk page that you have concerns that perhaps you haven't been given an ample opportunity to defend yourself. I'll offer you an opportunity now to address any specific concerns. The format that would be most helpful would be if you could point to a specific accusation in the ANI thread with a diff and then provide diffs that conflict with the accusation. I'll give you a few hours, but I can't promise that I'll wait for your response if I don't hear from you soon. This is kind of an unorthodox opportunity I am offering.--v/r - TP 21:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

1. I appreciate the opportunity, but the falsehoods have been piled on for two days now without an opportunity to immediately respond, so people have already voted on the basis of accusations that they took as true. It's also unclear how I can even respond to that much in so little time.
2. Please look at the section above, which would replace the ANI with an RFC/U. I've signaled my agreement and there's been support from others.

MilesMoney (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I see in WP:CBAN that "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members." Seems that allowing MilesMoney 24+ hours to respond on the ANI would be appropriate. In an earlier comment on this talk page (since removed) I suggested that MM prepare commentary as to voluntary topic ban(s) and/or list who's involved or not involved in underlying disputes. Also, support for MM seems to be picking up. Closing now, without MM's input or a determination, would be unfair (and frustrating) to those editors who have commented. (IMO the idea of getting community participation in an RFC/U is problematic.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I think 24 hours to respond is excessive. But I'll be closing other discussions for a few hours so I have no problem holding off for ~3 hours if that'd be sufficient. To clarify, I'm willing to address any evidence you can provide in a closing rationale. But since MilesMoney intends to go to Arbcom anyway, I think just closing it by the consensus and allowing the Arbcom process to sort it out, which is well tailored to address MilesMoney's concerns about process, might be the most logical solution. Let me know, Miles, I'm in no rush.

S Rich, you're fairly familar with these processes and you're well aware that blocked users often have their comments copied over to ANI. There has been no misuse or misapplication of process here. That the process isn't convenient isn't at all a convincing rationale to not close the thread. I suggest you make a proposal at WP:CBAN if you feel strongly about users being unblocked to contribute in those discussions, but I'll note that MilesMoney was offered an unblock if he agreed to only edit to that ANI discussion for the rest of the duration of the block. He sees it as too late, but he knew how to use the unblock template to request such a thing. No, I'm not convinced that there is a reason not to close the thread. I also don't see support for MilesMoney picking up. I see a roughly 80% of a ban of some kind for Miles, though I haven't read all of the discussion yet. I'll read it all at the time of the close. Thanks guys, I'll be poking around for a bit on ANI if you need anything just ping.--v/r - TP 22:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't offered an unblock, just an apology for misunderstanding "smite". My unblock request specifies that I'd be willing to constrain myself to ANI, but that's been ignored. Nobody has expressed any willingness to unblock me. MilesMoney (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom on gun control

I am adding you to this arbcom, but expect that it will shortly be moot based on the ANI. [[12]] Gaijin42 (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Attempt to do as TParis asked; this is for WP:ANI

I can't respond to everything in the time remaining, but I can at least respond to TFD's original post.

• "An example is trying to link Murray Rothbard to holocaust denial, "evolution denialism", and falsely claiming that he endorsed a political campaign by former KKK leader David Duke. (See "Revisionism", "Evolution" and "Kirchick's opinion piece allegations even supportable?".)"

It turns out that everything I tried to link to Rothbard is legitimate.

1. Rothbard really did endorse the Holocaust revisionism of Harry Elmer Barnes, with one reliable source saying, "Rothbard endorsed Barnes's revisionism on World War II and the Cold War, which included Barnes's denial of gas chambers and his alternate explanations for American entry into the war, and promoted him as an influence for revisionists."
2. Rothbard really did endorse the political platform (not campaign) of former KKK leader David Duke. In an essay that started with "Well, they finally got David Duke. But he sure scared the bejesus out of them.", Rothbard stated that, "there was nothing in Duke's current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians", and went on to suggest embracing Duke's right-wing populism as a model for libertarians.
3. Rothbard did express doubts about evolution. He said he "had doubts about the official church of Darwinism".

On all three points that TFD tried to characterize as trying to link Rothbard with "bad things", I was right to do so. In fact, the article currently does link him to all three. What TFD did here was to weave a false narrative in which I'm trying to discredit Rothbard, when the truth is that I was on the side of not whitewashing the article, and that side won out.

• "He added Pamela Geller, which is a "biography of a living person" to Category:Far-right politics in the United States,[210] although the source used does not call her far right or right-wing for that matter.[211] The term far right normally refers to neo-fascist, neo-nazi or similar groups. Most of Talk:Pamela Geller is now devoted to a discussiion about that."

This is 80% lies, 20% BS.

1. We have many reliable sources calling her right-wing. Despite this, a variety of editors (all of whom have voted to ban me, by the way) have worked very hard to keep this out of the article. There is literally not a single source, even an unreliable one, which denies that she's right-wing. Scholarly works say it, newspapers say it, her own blog says it. It's ridiculous!
2. We also have many reliable sources saying she is aligned with far-right organizations, including neo-fascist ones in both in the USA and abroad. I believed this was reason enough to put her in that category, though I haven't pressed the issue.
3. The BS part was in suggesting that I'm trying to defame a woman who is, in fact, openly right-wing. Instead, I've been fighting against whitewashing. What's ironic is that TFD has actually been arguing in favor of calling her "right-wing", yet he blames me for doing the same. Hypocrisy.

• "MilesMoney's battleground attitude is evident by his comment, when he moved a discussion thread from AN to ANI: "wrong drama page."[212] He also uses frequent personal attacks, such as accusing other editors of vandalism[213] and tag-teaming.[214]"

This is a combination of misinterpretation, cherry-picking and ancient archeology.

1. I call WP:AN and WP:ANI drama pages, but that's the opposite of a battleground attitude. Rather, I'm saying that they're bad places that should be avoided because they're full of unnecessary drama, crazed accusations and lynchings. This report is evidence enough of that!
2. He claims "frequent personal attacks", but his links don't show any such thing. The first isn't calling anyone a vandal, it actually says "removal of cited material without explanation is akin to vandalism". In fact, removing cited material without explanation is Very Bad, bad enough to be akin to vandalism. I stand by this and so should you. There's no personal attack here.
3. The last link dates back to July, when I had just started editing and admittedly had no clue of what I was doing. Nonetheless, I don't think I was wrong to call it tag-teaming: there were two editors who demanded citations but reverted each of my attempts to add citations, taking turns. If this is a personal attack, we're all personal attackers.

Now, I don't claim to be an innocent, but I deal with some of the ugliest places on Wikipedia, where there are actual personal attacks all the time and I've learned to just redact them and move on, instead of responding in kind. The fact that he wasn't able to find any clear and genuine examples of personal attacks just goes to show how wrong-minded and unfair his summary is.

• "In his six months here, he has been banned from the article Ludwig von Mises Institute[215] and blocked 48 hours for wikistalking Collect. I therefore request the following:"

My response to Bishonen on my talk page covers the Collect issue, which is a misunderstanding, and the LvMI article ban is old news. How does any of this translate to "burn the witch"? In my six months here, there have been dozens of attempts to get me blocked on any basis possible, using tools such as SPI and ANI. It's not primarily about my behavior, although that can often be misinterpreted to provide an opportunity. It's about my goal, which is to keep libertarian-related articles honest with reliably-sourced, relevant facts prominently in the articles. This goal is opposed by the Conservative Cloud, which includes TFD and which has uniformly voted to get rid of me (again), which is what motivates them to pile on to ANI's such as this one and pack them with false accusations.

I believe I've shown that the original post by TFD was predominantly false. I can do that for all the rest of the other attacks on me, but time does not permit it. If you've voted to get rid of me based on false allegations, you may wish to reconsider your vote. This is more complicated than it looks, and "kill the bad editor" is not an honest narrative of what's going on here. It's more like "West Side Story", except without all that singing and dancing. MilesMoney (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)