User talk:MilesMoney

milesmoney.m2h1n3@gmail.com>

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

We were having this discussion on an article talk page [1], 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." [2], [3], [4]. 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. [5] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...

Is your inexplicable change to my comment [6] meant to further antagonize me? Safehaven86 (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You tell em Miles

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)[reply]

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 [7] and [8]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

	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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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."[9] 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).[reply]

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

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)[reply]

{{unblock|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. [[User:MilesMoney|MilesMoney]] ([[User talk:MilesMoney#top|talk]]) 03:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)}}

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

P.S.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

I withdraw my objection. MilesMoney (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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 apparently 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You were offered one earlier today here (and I did see your rebuttal). I'm still willing to unblock right now but you'd be getting into that conversation late and your block expires in about an hour and forty minutes. So how would you like to move forward? Would you prefer I simply close it how it stands and open the way for you to open a case at Arbcom or should I unblock you and give you time to make a statement and then close? Either way, I don't see much changing in that thread and I'd rather not see a new one open tomorrow.--v/r - TP 22:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was offered one only under the additional condition that I not "smite" anyone, when in fact, the idea that I was going to smite anyone was an honest misunderstanding on GHW's part. When he apologized (and I accepted), he did not offer to unblock without that condition and I didn't press the issue further. By my understanding, I was never offered an unblock.

Anyhow, the right answer is to close it now as superseded by alanyist's RFC/U. MilesMoney (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay now, so there is an RFC/U? Can you point me to it? This new Arbcom case (below), is that related to this?--v/r - TP 23:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:MilesMoney#A_way_forward, above on this page. MilesMoney (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TParisThe arbcom does have some evidence of edit warring by MM, but I think is not at the core of the ANI/RFCU issues (although could certainly be one more bit of evidence of TE, and inability to accept any content that does not fit his worldview. ) Gaijin42 (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom below has little to do with me or with the CC's efforts to get rid of me, although it is definitely about another article that is owned by right-wing editors in violation of policy. MilesMoney (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for everyone's reference who might be following things here, there is a page now created at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MilesMoney. It is not yet not yet a certified RFC/U, and so far I haven't seen any significant discussion at ANI about RFC/U as an alternative to the proposed sanctions. It's mostly been yea or nay on what was proposed (plus the far too typical sideshows). Theoretically any close other than a site ban could be followed by an RFC/U, whether the close mentions it or not. FWIW, HTH. --RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I suppose that one way would be to add a proposal to the ANI to close that section in favor of RFC/U, but with so little time left, it would be pointless. The only ones watching the section closely are the ones who would immediately oppose anything that doesn't look sufficiently like a site ban. MilesMoney (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: it's a moot point now, but the idea of a copy & paste of comments from the usertalkpage to the ANI sounds incredibly awkward. For instance, what if the editor wanted to refute particular statements? With 30+ !votes under consideration, we might get 30+ comments or refutations. In any event it seems that MM's first post-block edit was here. (And now what should we do with the ANI?) – S. Rich (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding you to this arbcom, but expect that it will shortly be moot based on the ANI. [[10]] Gaijin42 (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

For my sake, please refrain from editing anywhere but the ANI thread about you and the Arbcom case to which you are a party for the next hour, when your block would've naturally expired.--v/r - TP 23:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm kind of underwhelmed. My block would have expired in an hour, and you're going to close the ANI in favor of the CC only a few hours after that. The time to unblock me was two days ago, before the accumulated lies piled up and right-minded but wrong-facted individuals followed the lead of the CC pile-on and voted to get rid of me.

Short of removing the entire ANI (which I somehow suspect would be reverted), I don't see any way that my comments will make a difference. Even if I make an argument that could convince everyone who isn't in the CC to Oppose these draconian punishments, what are the odds of them being around in time to change their minds? Seriously, this is one screwed-up ANI, which is why I'm going straight to RFC/U or ArbCom as soon as you stick the knife in. MilesMoney (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well I'll go tie up the ANI end, which will likely result in a ban of some sort from a precursory tallying. I have to go actually read all of it. But if there is a community ban, I'll leave you unblocked provided that you agree to only edit any future Arbcom case.--v/r - TP 23:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom has a reputation, however much deserved, for just smiting everyone indiscriminately, so the RFC/U sounds more productive.

As for the ANI, it's completely invalid. Any attempt to close it against me, as opposed to closing it to make room for the RFC/U or ArbCom step, would only add you to the list of involved editors. MilesMoney (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make the same non-block promise for an RFC/U as I can for an Arbcom case because an RFC/U has no actual authority. It's essentially a structured discussion but there is no "action" that can come out of an RFC/U and so it doesn't make for a substitute of ANI. Arbcom has the actual remit of modifying or absolving a community sanction and so I could leave you unblocked to pursue that route. Essentially, if you are community banned, RFC/U is no longer an option.--v/r - TP 00:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, for here and the threads above, I was inclined to unblock this morning when I realized the "smiting" misread mistake I made, had I not been on a mobile device and having enough problems fat-fingering typing (as you can see in my apology subsection...) that pushing admin buttons seemed unwise.

I think I should have said that, so another admin could have done this a bit earlier. This has been lousy timing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it has, but I don't hold it against you personally. This entire process is fucked up beyond all repair. MilesMoney (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion as to MM's fate, but its a disgrace that we have many Admin eyes on ANI and they routinely allow these farces to unfold same way each time. In case anybody thinks it doesn't matter, we need only look to the good faith error that Georgewilliamherbert made or the good faith nonsense that Adjwilley posted accusing me of badgering an editor for a simple application of WP policy earlier today. It's propaganda 101 that repeating half-truths and miscellaneous accusations eventually results in a significant number of readers accepting them as fact. I'm appalled at the unwillingness or inability of the community of Admins to keep things more orderly on WP. SPECIFICO talk 00:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just about admin mistakes, it's about the whole process being broken. I should not have been blocked in the first place; it was initially punitive and it was quickly abused by the CC to ram a site-ban down the pipe while I was silenced. The fact that I was not immediately unblocked with regard to ANI is a failure of each and every admin who was familiar with the case, even if it was often a failure of nerves, not intellect. The fact that TParis is once again ready to close an ANI against me prematurely is a different sort of failure. MilesMoney (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, I won't address specifics of this case because, obviously, I'm preparing to close the thread. However, on a process scale, you might want to not only check out the opponents of a particular person but also the proponents. Imagine if Person A has an issue with Person B. Person B and Person C are friends. What if Person C were to have started the RFC/U instead of Person A? Do you realize how much more could be accomplished, how much more collegial things might be of a neutral/friendly 3rd person were to have opened the RFC/U? Think about it.--v/r - TP 00:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably explain. TParis closed an ANI against me, favoring draconian measures. It was immediately reopened and led to just a single-article ban. Later, when Rocco's ANI against me didn't quickly lead to a ban, it was allowed to fester for two fucking weeks until I demanded that they close it. Now, TParis is closing an ANI against me just hours after an unblock. This isn't purely about TParis, but it's a sign that something is very wrong with the timing of these reports. There is a tendency to rush to draconian punishments. MilesMoney (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reopened a discussion about you that someone pointed out had a chance of a change in the current status. I don't see that here. And the block doesn't affect the normal procedures for closing the discussion. SOP has been followed. You might suggest changes to WP:CBAN later. Real quick, can you answer my question above?--v/r - TP 00:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're just restating the broken policy, which ignores common sense. How can you expect someone to get a fair shake if they can't even point out the dozens and dozens of errors and lies? This is why I brought up WP:IAR earlier; the rules are broken. If I had been able to speak, this would have gone the same way as Rocco's attempt; nowhere. There is no merit to any of the Support arguments, but you have not historically shown any sensitivity to merit; you just take a count and you treat CC slander as gospel.

I don't see a question. MilesMoney (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You and I can't solve what you perceive as broken policy here by ourselves. What I can do for you is allow you to open a case with Arbcom, whom can supersede any sanctions you receive in the close, by not blocking you (if that's the result, which seems likely without actually reading) if you assure me you'll only edit in Arbcom's area. You could then ask them, and I'd be amiable to, allowing you to make an argument for change at WP:CBAN at the same time. But I'd want to leave that decision to them. If you can agree to that, I can wrap up this whole ANI thing now and you can proceed to Arbcom.--v/r - TP 01:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can. Nobody is forcing you to close it with a ban. You can follow alanyst's request, instead. MilesMoney (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm not here to argue meta issues. I'm offering an opportunity for simplicity. I'm going to go ahead and wrap up the thread, then. I'll just follow the normal processes.--v/r - TP 02:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if simplicity is the goal, don't even bother looking at ANI, just indef me. It's not the least bit fair, but it's simple. MilesMoney (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TParis you could, to keep it simple and all, link to these discussions that MM has been prevented from acting in his own defense, point out that the RFCU process has been started, and put a virtual pin in things. I find MM's statements about how the opening TFD statement was mostly invalid quite persuasive. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, Sportfan, the RFCU process started. The instructions were "Be as dispassionate and neutral as possible, and save debate for later phases." But MilesMoney added an asterisk (*) here to one of the names, with an edit summary about the "CC". As you can read above and elsewhere, "CC" is Miles' abbreviation for Conservative Cloud. Alanyst edited some more, and StAnselm removed the asterisk as "dubious". Seven minutes later at this point, Miles added more asterisks, and did not provide an edit summary. I could not figure out what they were for as I did not see the "CC" edit summary. But I commented on the RFCU talk page. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/MilesMoney/Phase_1. Perhaps, I thought, they were to designate minor or major players in the dispute. But an explanation was needed. It wasn't until StAnselm mentioned the obvious that I saw what Miles was actually doing. So, was Miles being dispassionate and neutral with the asterisks? Was Miles savubg debate for later phases? No. Even in this very opening of the RFCU, Miles was being WP:POINTy. It is more amazing that Miles did so during the process of resolving the issue without topic or community restrictions. Another opportunity for Miles to collaborate in the community was offered, set up, implemented. Miles squandered the opportunity. – S. Rich (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, after a series of SPI and ANI attempts to remove him, he may have felt under attack. I offer that as an explanation, not an excuse. We can all disagree without being disagreeable but that clearly does not happen as much as it could. Hopefully some good will come out of all this. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[insert] I think it's pretty clear that Srich has a pony at this picnic, to wit: Looks to me like it's quite convenient that Miles has been banned and unable to participate in Srich's eagerly anticipated Request for Adminship later this year. Unfortunately, what with the magic of email, the defiant and unpredictable MilesMoney might decide to email his file to others still empowered to testify at the RfA. It's like Friday the Thirteenth. Full of surprises. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to mention the previous SPIs and ANIs, Miles. It is a clear example of canvassing. Steeletrap (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing up a response to ArbCom questions now, and I'll mention it, but I don't want my own experiences to take front and center. I'm just one of many editors who's been driven off this way. I'm not the first, but I'd like to be the last. MilesMoney (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you already have guessed, the consensus at WP:ANI was that you be Community banned from Wikipedia. You may appeal to WP:BASC at any time or you may contact an uninvolved administrator, such as myself or anyone you trust, to appeal to WP:AN no earlier than 6 months from now. Alternatively, since you've already raised the option, if you choose to proceed with an Arbcom case, you may request to be unblocked for that purpose.--v/r - TP 03:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not on the consensus and I'll see you at ArbCom. MilesMoney (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would go to Arbcom with the charge of off-wiki canvassing and hounding; there were loads of unsuccessful ANIs but they kept going until they "won." TP also fails to recognize that involved users cannot constitute a consensus for a block. Steeletrap (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Steeltrap, but suggest you draft carefully and focus on the evidence on off wiki canvassing. There are also wider policy issues here that need to be raised. Will try and monitor for case coming up, but modify your talk page when it is posted so people know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 07:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded, I'll keep you updated. MilesMoney (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like EllenCT has petitioned TParis to reverse his refusal to allow the RFC/U to continue. There's more at User_talk:TParis#Please_un-ban_MilesMoney, but highlights include Rich "helpfully" butting in to support the ban and Ellen mistakenly thinking I have some interest in Asian porn actors. Bring some popcorn. MilesMoney (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, it used to be harder to site ban someone. There was some sort of procedure that took a bit of time and offered checks and balances to prevent a lynching. Naturally, this was done away with because it's so inconvenient. Now, EllenCT has suggested a minimum duration for ANI reports leading to site bans, which is entirely reasonable and therefore enormously unpopular. MilesMoney (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly encourage you to bring up the SPI accusations that the users who pushed for your block previously made against you. These previous (and frivolous/dismissed) attempts to get you booted off WP illustrate their vendetta against you. If anyone on Arbcom has taken high school stats, s/he will consider the reasoning used in this SPI to be highly revealing. Please compile a list of examples that illustrate the limitations of your accusers and the lack of credibility underlying their allegations. Steeletrap (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll drink to that. I recall that SPI, at which I tried, gently, to explain the flaws in the "statistical evidence" presented at great length in several of the arguments against MM. This is a critical flaw in WP process. It's one thing to entrust the Checkuser and SPI Admin functions to a select group of users who understand statistical method and its proper application. It's another thing entirely to drape a mantle of pseudoscientific jargon on personal gut reaction, loosely articulated and ill-defined. There are similar problems on all the WP talk pages, for example editors who pick what could just as well be a random wiki-link to a irrelevant and inapplicable policy as if the like per se would prove their argument. At some point, WP must deal with these issues if the Project is to survive. Otherwise, we're looking at the Decline of the Roman Empire, part deux. SPECIFICO talk 23:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to mention to Arbcom that the closing admin either ignored (or was ignorant of) the rules. Per WP:CBAN, a consensus for a community ban must be established by uninvolved editors. TP's vote count failed to take into account whether a user was involved or not. Steeletrap (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. It was neither strictly a vote count nor contrary to CBAN or general practice. I think you need to revisit WP:CONSENSUS. The more you and Specifico carp on here, the more likely it is that you are going to be drawn into the mess that MM has created for himself. - Sitush (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your idea of a helpful comment? I've always considered you to be, at the core, reasonable, despite having something of an abrasive and combative personality. Please don't make me reconsider my estimation of you.

There have been a number of editors, including some who have had little interaction with me, who protested the ANI as being hasty and meritless. The original post of the report was, as I explained at length above, almost entirely false, and I was in no position to begin to correct the many falsehoods brought up by the usual suspects because I was blocked. Uninvolved editors were therefore led to believe that these false claims had merit and therefore voted against a straw man. GHW admitted that he would have unblocked me much sooner so that I could have responded.

As things turned out, TParis unblocked me minutes before closing it himself, refusing to extend the close or to allow the RFC/U to continue. I never even got to post a single word directly on ANI. As others have comment, TP did not take into account the falsehood of the claims against me, instead counting votes blindly and then rounding in the direction of most harm.

Besides the votes from editors who have had frequent content conflicts with me, SPI accusations were raised on the ANI to discredit me, and a few of the editors who voted against me did so on the basis of the false belief that I'm a sock (StAnselm, MrX, MONGO and others). There were protests after the fact, but they've been ganged up on, including just now by you.

I could go on and on, but it's pretty obvious that my site-ban was rushed through and did not reflect consensus, much less merit. Given this, how is your comment in any way helpful? Please consider this question -- it's not rhetorical -- before you post again. I'm absolutely certain that my ability to post on this one page will soon be taken away on some flimsy pretext or another, but while I can still edit it, I will not hesitate to remove comments that serve no purpose, including yours. I have not done so yet because I retain the belief that you can do better. MilesMoney (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the other editors who supported a ban, but I totally reject the accusation that I supported a ban because I thought you were a sock. This is a personal attack, and I would like you to withdraw it. StAnselm (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you denying that you have accused me of being a sock and have never taken back those accusations? MilesMoney (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do deny that,[11] and I further deny that any thoughts of you being a sock had anything to do with my support for your ban. StAnselm (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your diff shows you withdrawing a particular claim about one phrase being evidence, not admitting that I was never a sock. But even if we put this aside, we find both Viriik and Beyond My Ken bringing up the sock accusation at my ANI, with Carol saying, "it certainly is telling that these investigations were brought". We also have TFD, MONGO and Collect chatting on the latter's talk page about which banned user they can accuse me of being, with Roccodrift laughing along. MrX has never let go of his sock accusation and it's not clear that Adjwilley has, either, although he did not participate in this ANI except to chastise SPECIFICO.

I think it's fair to say that an otherwise reasonable and uninvolved editor is likely to see all these accusations and come to Carol's conclusion: where there's smoke, there's fire, so let's just throw the whole thing into the ocean. MilesMoney (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have never accused you of being a sock. Thank you for striking out my name. StAnselm (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it sure looked as though you were supporting the accusation for a bit. Regardless, following the link you posted, I found something that I wish I'd known about from the start: Mangoe didn't need to coin a term, there was already one in use. MilesMoney (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miles, I was merely pointing out that Steeletrap is completely off-beam and needs to rein in their absurd interpretations. As for the mess that you are in, well, you paid lip-service to my past comments about where you were likely to end up, the nature of pyrrhic victories and so on but chose to continue. That was your choice. This is your mess. - Sitush (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think Steele is "off-beam" or that her interpretations are "absurd". There's also a huge gap between what's foreseeable and what's legitimate. It was my choice to keep on editing in a manner that could be expected to make certain people unhappy. It was not my choice to have them POV-railroad me. I think this is an extremely important distinction, one that must be made in order to avoid blaming the victim. MilesMoney (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, lemme give you an analogy. If I took a midnight stroll alone in Jane and Finch, it's a foreseeable consequence that I might get mugged. But if I do, that doesn't mean that it's my fault. Only the mugger is guilty of the crime, even if I could have been more careful. Being there at midnight might be unwise, but it's not illegal and it certainly didn't cause someone to break the law when they otherwise would not be willing to. So, yeah, I got mugged on Wikipedia and I could have avoided it if I'd stuck to a better neighborhood, but that doesn't mean I deserved to get mugged. The solution isn't to blame the victim, it's to make the neighborhood safe for everyone. That's what the ArbCom case is about. MilesMoney (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a great analogy because it idealises the world. Neither real life nor Wikipedia are ideal environments and the fact is that if you take risks then you assume the consequences. Do you remember when I passed on some advice that I'd been given about choosing your battles wisely? You're less likely to be mugged if you frequent dodgy areas once in a while rather than camp out in them. Anyway, I really think that you need to concentrate your efforts on the ArbCom filing now - anything else is a sideshow, I'm sure that those who feel you have been mugged can email you and I'm sure that a lot of people will be very interested to see your evidence of off-wiki canvassing. I know that I am. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's safer to avoid bad neighborhoods, but it's the bad neighborhoods where I can do some good. Somehow, the articles on minor characters in soap operas will be just fine without my attention. MilesMoney (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the "bad neighborhood" analogy, what you were doing wasn't just taking a midnight stroll. It was more along the lines of parading up and down the streets every night with a bull horn announcing what a bad neighborhood it was. Sure, this side of Wikipedia isn't the best neighborhood, but it is entirely possible to live in, and improve, bad neighborhoods without getting mugged. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; it's not a good analogy. I've been Jane and Finch in the middle of the night often and never got mugged or even threatened. The only hassling I ever got was from police. See, it's a bad neighborhood, so the TPS is used to pushing its residents around without repercussions.

That's how Wikipedia is. The fact that you can edit without committing to an identity, or even logging in, encourages constant vandalism, and the endless war on vandalism, like the war on drugs, justifies a police state. They're used to executing druggies on the spot; no trial, no fuss.

I didn't get mugged; I got ratted on by criminals. I made a lot of noise at the street corner where they sell Mexican black tar heroin, so the dealers informed on me, telling the cops that they saw me smoking MJ. It doesn't even matter that it was just tobacco; the police have photos of me lighting something and taking a drag, so that's good enough reason to put some bullets in me. After all, MJ smokers are dangerous criminals!

In the meantime, the heroin dealers are dancing in the street with joy, laughing at how they tricked the people who should be stopping them into stopping me. The police are sure they did the right thing because the blood they extracted from my corpse shows that I've been exposed to MJ in the last few months. And justice for all... MilesMoney (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A battleground mentality is not a good thing. But admitting you have it is the second step to getting better. The first is to stop accepting high-fives. MilesMoney (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What an utterly snide remark to make. You can't accept the fact that PraireKid, a teenager, has extended a complement, without deprecating it. Sad. Sad indeed. – S. Rich (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your response appears to be a personal attack, so rather than engage, I will simply suggest that anyone reading this can follow the link and decide for themselves. MilesMoney (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are being discussed at ANI and may respond here. TFD (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that he can't respond at the page because he's banned. StAnselm (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he can. SOP is that he puts a {{helpme}} tag, followed by exactly what he wants copy-pasted ES&L 15:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between a personal attack and pointing out a problem is that the latter comes with a link or diff. Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Collect#SPI

Feel free to read that and decide for yourself if my complaint is reasonable. As for the Koch list, this is part of an answer to an ArbCom question, so it serves a purpose. It should not have been removed and the editor who did so is no longer welcome here.

While you're reading, search for the word "pretext" on this page. I should quit and pick stocks for a living, since my crystal ball works so well. MilesMoney (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the koch list is intended as arbcom evidence, maybe a userspace subpage would be more appropriate, especially if a header indicated its intended purpose. However, as is going on in the current gun control arbcom, they are quite clear that they don't involve themselves in the content dispute, but only behavior (ANI+?) so evidence would need to be on point to be plausible. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to tone it down it bit. Getting blocked/banned again hasn't help the project and wasted a lot of folks' time. Just saying. --Malerooster (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you share with everyone your IP address? That would helpful. I know you want to be honest about your ban, so just come clean right now.--NK (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this just more baiting? Accusing MM was already done in a couple of closed SPI cases. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Was trying to avoid this, but...) Why did you revert S. Rich's edit. The comments above are not kind to you. He had the right of policy to remove them and it looks like he was doing you a favor. To say that those comments will be used to help your side is ridiculous. It is better to leave with honor and dignity. PrairieKid (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This behavior leaves my dignity intact, but dancing around and celebrating victory just shows that it was all just a game. Rich scrubbed it off, as if to take the high road, but when you congratulated him on his victory over me (on his talk page) he took a bow and spiked the ball.

If there were any truth to the banned editor narrative, none of this would be happening. You'd all be relieved that a disruption to Wikipedia was removed, but you wouldn't be acting like you just kicked a field goal to win at the bottom of the fourth. You're thrilled that there'll be less interference in your ongoing rightward political push, but mostly, you're ecstatic that your personal grudge was satisfied. My resistance pissed you off and this is your revenge. How does it taste?

As for socks, I'd focus instead on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxWjcQa7bWE 04:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

While the comments of Malerooster and NK were completely out of line and uncivil, and may even deserve some sort of administator intervention, Outing is much worse. MM your link to YouTube seems to fall under outing. TParis has really been a fair administrator giving you many chances despite what you see as a concerted effort to ban you. If you have information for offsite canvassing please present it to arbitration, any other outing is wrong. VViking_TalkEdits 11:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no outing; you just didn't understand the meaning of the link. Next time, try asking instead of assuming. MilesMoney (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was an accusation of outing made on ANI, but it's false. It turns out that, when I search for "rocco drift", this video is one of the first that comes back. There is no reason to believe that Roccodrift is personally involved with what's shown in the video. Rather, it's clear that he is simply a diehard fan of automobile racing. Now, it also happens that Belchfire's account name was a reference to automobile racing. So, to sum it up:

1. Roccodrift's behavior was immediately recognized as that of a sock. If it's not clear to you why, just ask me by email and I'll explain. I'd rather not give him any tips.
2. He was before my time, but a few other editors quickly concluded that Roccodrift was Belchfire returned. After tracking some of Belchfire's contributions, I have to agree that the similarity is quite strong.
3. Belchfire has been indeffed for using socks to evade blocks, which shows that he's willing to sock and that he has good reason to. However, a CU failed because data on Belchfire was stale.
4. Now it turns out that the two of them based their names on racing themes. It's a huge stretch to think that this is a coincidence.

It is openly known (from SPI) that Belchfire posted from Washington State. In my humble opinion, a CU should confirm whether Roccodrift is posting out of the same region. If so, then this -- along with behavioral evidence -- provides a convincing case for recognizing Roccodrift as a sockpuppet of Belchfire. Even without the CU, it is my opinion that there is only a tiny chance that it's not Belchfire, and there's no chance that it's not a sock. MilesMoney (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Viewmont Viking, I don't think my comment was out of line or uncivil. It was serious advise to this editor if he decides to return. What admin action would you want for that? --Malerooster (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rooster, your comment plays into the dynamic I mentioned above, where I was repeatedly accused of being a sock of various other editors - some still here, some long gone - to discredit me. The assumption that I'll violate the ban by socking is, in itself, insulting to the point of being a personal attack.

Unlike NK, you stopped short of trying to get me to reveal personally-identifying information, though, so you were only warned. MilesMoney (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was warned because that is all that could be done unlike yourself. --Malerooster (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a sense that's true. You were only warned because there wasn't a lynch mob ready to take you to ANI, make false accusations, and get TParis to close a site ban against you. MilesMoney (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of lost laundry, I thought you might find this video interesting. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Cohen is Canada's gift to the world (and our sincere apology for William Shatner), but this is a good cover.

Speaking of copies of an original, that's a fascinating edit history. It's obviously a sock. Every article edit is marked as minor so that it's more likely to be ignored. They almost never comment on the talk page, but their edit comments casually mention policy acronyms. The best part is how infrequently they edit at all, as if they're just logging enough edits to get past semi-protection. They're interested in chess, relational databases, and Japan. Japan, where drift racing originated. Coincidentally, they just got their preferred version of Duck Dynasty restored by Roccodrift. They also scrub their talk page and prefer a red-link for their user page, just like Roccodrift.

Looks like Belchfire has two feet, with Roccodrift as his left sock and LyricalCat as his right. Excellent detective work, good sir. MilesMoney (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bishonen, you told User:Malerooster not to post here again, and yet he did. Guess he ignored your warning. MilesMoney (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from User talk:Malerooster)

Malerooster - If you fail to abide by Wikipedia:Banning policy#Conduct towards banned editors you yourself can be blocked. Leave him alone. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the points that I've made is that the block is about settling personal grudges. Each time someone comes here to taunt me or defaces my user page [12][13], it just proves my point again. If it wasn't personal, why all the venom? Why the back-patting between PrairieKid and Rich? Why the baiting by Rooster and NK? Please don't tell me that this is a calm, reasonable decision to deal with a disruptive editor. MilesMoney (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A case is under review by the ArbCom at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case on Austrian economics. If the ArbCom accepts the case, that case would be a reasonable vehicle for you to appeal your "community ban" to request that it be reviewed in the case. If you wish to be included as a party to the case, you may email them at arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did that, and it was rejected without explanation. Is this how things "work" on Wikipedia? MilesMoney (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't usually discuss ban appeals on-wiki but since you are publicly commenting about it I will reply to you here. I'm looking at the email you were sent right now, and I see an explanation in it. Just because you don't like the explanation doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. You are community banned. The committee only overturns community bans if there was an abuse of the banning process, and our conclusion was that no such abuse occurred and all appropriate procedures were followed. Indeed, the admin who enacted the ban provided copious amounts of analysis of the ban discussion so as to clearly demonstrate that there was in fact a consensus to ban you.

You have repeatedly told us that you don't even want to be fully unbanned, you want a limited unban to allow you to participate in discussions about the areas where you were editing. As it was your activities in those very areas that led to the community deciding to ban you in the first place that is not really a sensible request. For the moment, you are banned. As I have already endeavored to communicate to you more than once, you need to accept that and go do something else for a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you did not read my message very carefully, as you clearly did not understand it. I was going to follow up by email, but since you made this a public matter against my wishes, I will respond in public, and I will use exactly the same words I would have in email, civility be damned.

As to whether there was an abuse of the banning process, of course there was, and you can't even begin to plausibly deny it. I was banned for Thanking an editor who was working to get me banned and baited me for this very purpose. I was banned while muzzled so that I could not speak in my own defense. I was banned in a rush to keep me from responding once I could.

I was banned because a bunch of editors -- including obvious socks -- disliked the fact that my edits countered their political bias and therefore decided to POV railroad me, not because I violated policy. I was banned for actions that barely deserve a warning, much less a block, much less a ban. I was banned by a bunch of editors who conspired off-Wiki to arrange my ban and tried a variety of tricks until they finally found one that worked. I was banned by a bunch of editors who then loudly patted each other on the back, spiked the ball, and kicked me while I was down, showing that this was not an impersonal and regrettable enforcement of policy but the joyous beatdown of a political opponent.

I was banned by TParis, who previously tried to ban me from the entire topic of Austrian economics, but was overruled by an admin with better sense. I was banned by TParis, an admin who has not only shown a history of intentionally draconian misinterpretations of community consensus in my own case, but has previously banned others who ran afoul of Wikiproject Conservatism's ongoing attack on Wikipedia's neutrality, such as StillStanding-247. I was banned by TParis, a politically conservative admin who makes it his job to ensure that there is right-wing bias on Wikipedia, and you enable his misbehavior.

None of these facts has ever been addressed by ArbCom, and none of them ever will because you have no answers. You're going to ignore them and wave your hand over the whole thing, as you've done all along, pretending that this fucking-over was somehow legitimate. It's despicable and I hold you personally accountable. Your behavior is why Wikipedia editors are fleeing in droves and the project is dying. You are killing Wikipedia with your bias and incompetence.

I never got to defend myself from the ban, I never got an RFC/U, and I never got a chance to defend myself in public in front of ArbCom. Now, there's an Austrian Economics case and I've been asked to participate. Not surprisingly, when I ask to be unbanned for the purpose of participating, you deny me. This makes the ArbCom case illegitimate from the very start. It makes ArbCom illegitimate. It makes you personally illegitimate.

I can't force you to do the right thing, and I doubt you have the slightest bit of interest in doing so, but I won't pretend for a moment that this is anything more than a farce. There is no connection between your actions and justice. You are not following the policies that you are sworn to, you are not acting in fairness, and you are not even vaguely competent. You need to accept that and go do something else for a while; I recommend that you quit Wikipedia and master Angry Birds, instead. MilesMoney (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have received and considered an appeal of MilesMoney's community ban. We have now decided to dismiss this appeal, and the appellant has been informed to this effect. For the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, AGK [•] 23:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I previously supported removing the Nazi gun control nonsense, but I am not currently able to participate. Good luck with it. MilesMoney (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]