Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:19, 28 October 2013

You may want to take part in this discussion.

Here . Casprings (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

And here's another (totally unrelated to the DRN above): Talk:Gary North (economist). – S. Rich (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

King

Think Progress and the Colbert Report are not reliable sources. It is not my job to fix your POV errors. Additionally that section contains original research which is also not allowed. Arzel (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Please use the Steve King talk page. I'm not sure how to link to it, but I'm sure you can find it. MilesMoney (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

To link to an outside site, http, etc, but to link to a Misplaced Pages site, no http, just, for instance Talk:Steve King sections have a #before the subsection title. With respect to Arzel's comments, no, ThinkProgress is not a WP:RS because they are an advocacy site that PRETENDS to have news, but doesn't, and what "opinions" there are on it can be neither properly attributed, nor are they strictly opinions in the usual sense; they are like opposition candidates' sites; not that concerned with accuracy, nor evidence that they really believe the "opinions" expressed. Colbert report, again, is a comedy site; no evidence that the opinions are serious or not, that is not the reason they broadcast. The "not my job to fix" comment is a perhaps harsh way of expressing what is in fact a universal WP policy, that it is the posting editors' responsibility to back up an edit with WP:RS, not to post and expect others to find WP:RS. It is certainly appropriate to put content on the Talk page, and ask there for fellow editors to find appropriate refs, it happens all the time.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, this is the sort of thing that belongs on the Steve King talk page, ok? MilesMoney (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have brought this up at the ANI board here. Arzel (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Service award

Hello. Please don't let remarks about being a new editor discourage you. Instead, I offer this Service Award in acknowledgment of your contributions. You may leave it here, post on your userpage, or simply delete as you see fit. – S. Rich (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Lemme see if I can figure out how to move it. MilesMoney (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Explaining RSN

Hello again. CarolMooreDC has provided a link to the RSN (reliable source noticeboard) in her discussion. Let me explain. For everything in Misplaced Pages we look for WP:RS (reliable sources). Some things are obvious, like the New York or London Times. But other things get less and less clear. When it comes to blogs, we are very careful. If a source is a newsblog, that is one under the editorial control of a RS publisher, we are okay. (I often look at WorldCat to see if libraries have obtained the material. (My mother was a librarian.)) But personal blogs are another matter. When doubtful or disputed sources are posted, we can discuss the source on the WP:RSN. If the community reaches a consensus that the source is not RS, we do not use it. In the North article, the source you want to post has repeated some of the material we find in other sources, so I wonder if we really need it. If you have questions, feel free to let me know. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Steve King

Hi MilesMoney. I've noticed that you've been making many reverts over the last few days at the Steve King. This does indeed count as edit warring - I saw that you referred to an exception for violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, but this exception is the other way round from what seems to be your current understanding. The exception is for removing controversial unsourced or poorly-sourced information about living people, not for adding it. Note that I'm not saying anything about the actual sourcing in this case, as I haven't examined it closely. Also, I saw an edit summary of yours that said "if you dont like the refs, fix the refs", but actually the BLP policy says that material about living people should be removed entirely if it is not well-sourced. It doesn't look like you have had any messages about edit warring yet, so I'll leave a boilerplate message below - sorry for the impersonal format. Feel free to ask on my talk page if you have any questions about it, though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 14:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius 14:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Where I come from, we call this shutting the barn door after all the cows have left. I've agreed to a moratorium on editing that page, and it looks like it's going to be frozen by admins. MilesMoney (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Interaction with other editors

MilesMoney, please take a look at WP:INTIM. Remarks like "And, no, I really don't have to put up with that" and "you are not competent...." and "I won't put up with it." are divisive. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Try not to quote me out of context. I absolutely do not have to put up with incompetence or pov-pushing. If you think otherwise, you are sadly mistaken. MilesMoney (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and don't misquote me, either. I said "are not WP:COMPETENT", bringing up the Misplaced Pages rule he's violating, not personally insulting him. Now I have to wonder the same about you. MilesMoney (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The statement "You are not ], much less ]." addresses the other editor directly. It is not about the article. Try some diplomacy. Make this a community effort and please address other editors with that goal in mind. – S. Rich (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Srich, your attempts at unsolicited mentoring are unconstructive, and I hope that given Miles' responses to your efforts you will take a step back. Don't bite. SPECIFICO talk 19:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Miles is a noob, so WP:Bite applies, Srich. We all should try to be more civil, but the WP:Competence problems generally characterizing these libertarian articles (note that I'm not speaking specifically to the situation in which Miles invoked that term, which I haven't read) is enough to make anyone lose her temper.

From personal experience, I also have to say that I consider your (Rich's) "mentoring" to basically equate to WP:Hounding. Steeletrap (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, and to bring Miles up to date, many the "mentees" on whom Srich has descended have left Misplaced Pages or instructed Srich not to post on their talk pages. My advice, Miles, is to keep focused on your editing and on getting up the learning curve on WP policy and community. Best regards and thanks for your efforts here. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in here. The two of you have pretty much said what I would have, but more politely, and it looks better coming from you.

I'm not going to banish him from my talk page quite yet, but he's not particularly welcome here. If he wants to post something important, I'm fine with that. If it's just unwanted advice or weak threats, I know how to revert. MilesMoney (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Miles. Don't let Srich bait you into confronting him about his behavior on the article talk page. Better to give him a day to consider the matter. After that, if he has no further response to your concerns you may more reasonably infer that he has dropped his objections. Every time he mentions "policy" I suggest you take it as an opportunity to read what the policy actually says. Contentious editors mis-quote and mis-apply policy right and left around here. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 03:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

What's going on here is that the two of them are dragging their feet. One keeps ignoring the fact that "popular" either means "lots of fans" or "amateur", so every mention of the second sort of "popular" is support for "amateur". The other, as you noticed, is just avoiding the whole debate by making vague noises about policy, hoping it'll blow over. Well, it won't. If they won't engage, I gotta just go right past them. They have to shit or get off the pot, already. MilesMoney (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Give it time. These articles will keep changing over and over. Also, each editor is different so try to avoid thinking of "them" -- I only commented because one of the editors made what looked like a weird remark, but give it a day or two and meanwhile work on other things or other articles. SPECIFICO talk 04:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm patient in the sense of being persistent, but it's pretty clear that their strategy here is to drag their feet and then say "oh, we already talked about it". I don't mean "they" in some general sense, just these two dudes. MilesMoney (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If I'm correct in understanding that a total of 6 hours has passed, that is way too short a time to get so frustrated. Take a day or two off and see where it stands. Good luck over and out. SPECIFICO talk 04:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but they've been dragging their feet for days, not to mention edit-warring. MilesMoney (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to say that it is a common Misplaced Pages tactic to provoke editors to break the WP:NPA rule as a way of getting them removed from editing for a period. Not sure if that is happening here, but this is an article with a strong history of meat puppetry and behind the scenes organisation so it behoves everyone to be careful. Sorry to remove part of your text but it was a personal attack and would detract from the important content point you were making. ----Snowded 06:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't intended as a personal attack. It was intended to tell him that, since he admits he doesn't understand simple words, his opinion is worthless. If he wants to play dumb to avoid dealing with what the sources say, he's going to make himself look too dumb to matter.

Still, you have a point and I haven't reverted your change. MilesMoney (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Any passing admin would see it as a personal attack - I know I have been there :-) ----Snowded 06:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right. I left a longer explanation on RL's talk page. Any passing admin who takes that as a personal attack would be intentionally misreading it. MilesMoney (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

and again

You have brought a much needed breath of fresh air and sourcing to the Ayn Rand page, but this is going to get you blocked or topic banned if you continue in the same vein: "This is the sort of tone-deaf, biased and desperately literal misinterpretation that I've come to expect from you. It's the sort of behaviour that makes me question your basic WP:COMPETENCE and write off your opinions as noise."

Passive aggression is a standard Misplaced Pages tactic on controversial articles and it allows an experienced polemical editor to get opponents blocked. I suggest you strike that and replace it with something along the lines of "Its getting very difficult to work with you if you misinterpret sources and comments in this way" which says the same thing but does not break the civility rules. ----Snowded 05:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll make that change right now. Thank you. MilesMoney (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That having been said, Snowded, there are instances in which disruptive editors do indeed lack WP competence, including the social skills or willingness to interact collaboratively. As noted, however, and graciously acknowledged by Miles, his statement above was inappropriate. SPECIFICO talk 14:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to be very careful to stay civil while still being honest and direct. It's not that easy, and when I slip, I will apologize and correct myself, especially if it's pointed out. MilesMoney (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes it's just better to ignore what Snowded indicates could be a passive/aggressive provocation strategy. Regardless of whether it is that or simply incompetence, it may be pointless to engage such an editor. SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I have sinned greatly in this respect in the past ....----Snowded 16:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The incompetence strategy is widespread on these fringey articles. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I am more than ready to disengage from this person, but they keep edit-warring against all comers, as if they WP:OWN every article about Rand. Just look at Objectivism, where I fixed it to be consistent with Ayn Rand and it led to an edit war that I walked away from. I've looked around to see if there's a non-stupid way to resolve these conflicts, but haven't found a thing. MilesMoney (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

Howdy- I have noticed that when you're done with a conversation, you generally just delete them. I wanted to let you know that it is possible to Misplaced Pages:Archive talk pages, meaning that after a certain time without comments (say 21 days), discussions are automatically moved to a subpage in archiving. This makes it easier to find old conversations, and makes it so you don't have to delete discussions at random. PrairieKid (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. So far, I've only deleted stuff that's obsolete or irrelevant. If this page keeps growing, I'll turn on archiving, but I don't want to go research it now. MilesMoney (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Mises Institute

Miles, due to your recent absence, I wonder whether you're aware that there's a tread at RSN here in which srich is trying to impeach some of the Mises Institute RS content. You might be interested to see the discussion there. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 14:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, here . SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Murphy blog as RS for article (BRD)

A few days ago you reverted my deletion of the Murphy blog material on LvMI. I have opened a BRD on the edits here: Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Murphy blog as RS for article .28BRD.29. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This was reported in bad faith, and led to a warning. MilesMoney (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:Competence

Hello Miles. I want to tell you that I appreciate your insistence on raising questions of WP;Competence when appropriate. I think "are you competent"? is a very important question; one which every editor must ask her/himself. I am so happy that you feel the same way. Steeletrap (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I keep running into this, and as much as it may hurt some feelings, I feel that I have no choice but to raise the issue. MilesMoney (talk) 05:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich32977 banned from this talk page

Rich started by trying to "mentor" me, then used that one-sided relationship to manipulate me, as by taking away the trivial Wiki-awards that he gave me. Since then, our "relationship" has gone downhill, as he's edit-warred viciously against me, reported me for daring to object to having my own words dishonestly summarized, and peppered my talk page with nonsensical boilerplate templates in what appears to be some sort of attempt to intimidate me.

I could go on, but civility restrains me. The question on your mind shouldn't be why I'm banning him now, but why I didn't do it much sooner. As of now, Rich isn't allowed on this talk page except to post short, required notices (like the next time he reports me on a drama page for something I didn't do). Anything else will just get deleted, and I'll eventually report him for it. MilesMoney (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

rm test edit

I noticed you edited the page on capitalism with a "rm test edit". Please use the sandbox for any things you want to test. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojo1498 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't my test I was removing! MilesMoney (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the miscommunication! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojo1498 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. MilesMoney (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the second time you've complained on a drama page about the simple fact that I called you out for edit-warring. Do you see a pattern forming? MilesMoney (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI

In case you weren't aware, I feel obliged to mention this and this. Given the preposterous nature of earlier interactions I suspected "trolling 2.0", and this later bolstered by his mention of "a little field study". In any case it's all a bit weird. vzaak (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, this does explain a bit. I was wondering if maybe he was trying to influence me through the morphic field, but my perpetual motion device blocked him successfully. MilesMoney (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk: Ayn Rand, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. In this diff you removed my comment. Please restore. – S. Rich (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It's obvious from the timing that this was an edit conflict. Veteran editors have seen this happen rather frequently. Was the template really necessary at this time? Please try to de-escalate your involvement with other editors. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The template request is a polite one, and when MilesMoney fixes the mistake I shall be quite happy. – S. Rich (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I earnestly suggest you stop responding to other editors with knee-jerk denial and counterargument. The preferred alternative -- which will leave everyone better off -- is to review, consider, and evaluate the statements of other editors. Your recent cock-up with unsourced edit-warring on the Mises Institute article is a case in point. SPECIFICO talk 16:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Rich, it was an edit conflict, not anything intentional. If you AGF, you'd just ask instead of accusing me and posting this BS warning on my talk page. I'm only going to say this once: Do not post on my talk page unless you are obligated to (such as when making false accusations about me on yet another drama page). Now I recommend that you re-read WP:AGF until it sticks. MilesMoney (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Reddit raider sockpuppet report and Orlady

Your filing of a sockpuppet report against Orlady is preposterous. I suggest you remove her name and give her an apology. Continuing this nonsense will probably put you at risk of being blocked. Iselilja (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Facts are really important, so I'm going to share some with you.

One fact is that the sockpuppet report is not frivolous. I witnessed a huge influx of new editors united only by their interest in removing a single line of criticism from the lede of Ludwig von Mises Institute and I correctly reacted by filing an SPI. I then, rather mechanically, added all of the editors who supported the puppets, as they are obvious candidates for sockmaster.

Another fact is that Orlady jumped in and insisted that there was nothing funny going on, that there was no sign of puppetry. She was wrong. She interceded -- in violation of policy -- to protect the puppets, both by defending them on the SPI and by switching the article to their version and then preventing all editing. That was wrong, too. She has been their very bestest admin friend from the start, so I was not insane to add her to the list of suspects. Even now, there seems to be no way to reconcile her actions with those of an admin who follows the rules and knows what's going on around them.

She has yet to acknowledge her errors, much less remediate the damage she caused and continues to cause. Given this, I can't imagine that I have anything to apologize for, and I'm still not convinced that she is unrelated to the Reddit raiders that she so consistently helps. In light of the facts, I must reject your request. MilesMoney (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Blind accusations

Please actually look at the diffs before reverting an edit]. Blind reverts are inherently disruptive. Yworo (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You failed to mention that I immediately corrected my error. As such, your warning here is worse than useless, so I'm going to delete it now and request that you not post anything on my talk page unless you are required to. For example, if there was really anything to discuss about my edit to that article, the proper place would have the talk page of that article, not here. MilesMoney (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll do what I want. Just like you do. Yworo (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean like prematurely archiving the section debating whether Rand is a philosopher at all? I got a chuckle out of it, but you do know that you violated policy by archiving an active discussion.

See, that's where we differ: I don't do whatever I want, I follow policy. Perhaps that's why you got blocked. Now, I'm going to remind you that you are no longer welcome here. Policy requires you to honor my request, and I will not hesitate to report you anytime you violate policy. MilesMoney (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to issue a formal warning. You changed the heading in my post here. Remember, you don't get to change what others have posted, even on your own talk page. So there you are, not following policy. Please change it back to what I posted.

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:MilesMoney. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Your warning is invalid. If you read WP:TPO, you'll find:

Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc.

You have made a habit of issuing false warnings. MilesMoney (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Ayn Rand discretionary sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Ayn Rand. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

I'm issuing this warning per this and similar edits. Per the closure of the Rfc, a consensus has been reached on the topic of qualifiers in the lead. Continually attempting to re-fight the battle over that wording is disruptive. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Mark, once an admin ruled on the closing, did you see me edit against the RfC or even further protest it? MilesMoney (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't, and I trust that this will be the end of the matter. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Then, by your own admission, these sanctions are inappropriate, so I'm going to have to appeal them. Where do I start? MilesMoney (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, you haven't been placed under any sanctions. This is just a warning that you could be placed under sanctions if you continue to fight against consensus (since you've promised you won't I doubt you'll be placed under any). There is actually a process to appeal warnings, I think you can apply at WP:AE. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I am stating that I will not dispute the results of this RfC nor edit against its stated consensus. On that basis, will you retract this warning as unnecessary? MilesMoney (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments here and they are reassuring. But since they were made after the warning was issued, I don't think I'll retract the warning. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The comments were simply a restatement of the behavior I was already showing, not any sort of reversal made in response to your warning. As such, I reiterate that the warning is gratuitous and I object to it.

Based on your comments and on section 4 of WP:AC/DS, I'm going to interpret the warning as being about the RfC on qualifying Rand's status as philosopher. Since I have the option to file a new RfC in a month, the warning will become obsolete at that point in time. MilesMoney (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Checkuser request

It's no wonder that your SPI case never got considered for Checkuser. You didn't request Checkuser. --Orlady (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing that. As it happens, it wouldn't have made any difference. But I'll keep it -- and you -- in mind the next time I need to file an SPI. MilesMoney (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheers

I encourage everyone to drink to the MILESMONEY VICTORY, or his discrediting of "sockpuppet" charges leveled by users lacking WP:Competence. Steeletrap (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Sock Investigation

Sorry if you thought I was being vindictive. That was not my motive. It cost me if I report someone falsely, not you. I didn't think it would have any effect on you, except if you were the sock. You exhibit the same behavior, discussion style, interest and popped up right after he was shut down. He continually creates new accounts and uses all sorts of methods and different computers to avoid detection. He claims it's not him until the last moment when checkuser proves it is. So it's difficult for me to converse with you when the entire time I'm thinking you're a sock of someone that has been banned two dozen times. I'd be happy to know you're not the sock and I can feel at ease discussing the articles with you. Morphh 16:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I sure hope that you meant you are happy to know... Otherwise, you are merely repeating an accusation which has already been rejected by due process. If so, you'd do well to strike through everything which follows your first sentence above. SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about a different sock investigation. I'm not sure what sock MilesMoney was suspected of in the last investigation, but I opened my own today. I wasn't even aware of a prior investigation. My suspicions are based on my interaction, topics, and content with regard to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nrcprm2026. Morphh 16:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to politely point out that you reported me in secret, and only now apologize, and then only for what I might think, not for your actions. If you Google "checkuser false positive", as I did the first time I was falsely accused, you quickly learn that being innocent is no defense. This is especially the case when there's no technical evidence possible, so it comes down to touchy-feely subjective stuff.

The problem is that people see the present through the distorted lens of the past. The two who filed the previous false SPI on me were apparently convinced that I was some editor that they hated. They were wrong. Now you're convinced that I'm some editor that you hated. You're wrong. Their claim had exactly as much basis as yours, but it was hot air. This means your claim is hot air.

Still, every trip to the SPI gallows is another opportunity for a fatal mistake. Or, to put it another way, any fishing expedition means throwing some hooks around, and people can get hurt that way. MilesMoney (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I had just posted the sock investigation before I went to bed last night. Haven't had time to do much else, such as notify you. I didn't hate the sock, nor do I hate you - I've been doing this for a long time, so I'm fine with such disagreements and conflict resolution. I don't like socks that use multiple accounts to get around the system. As for your check, I don't think it will happen because the sock is a bit older.. the information is stale. So I expect the entire thing will be dismissed, but I've put my concern on record. I don't see that I should have to apologize for suspecting that you're the sock - the information fits and that is what the system is there for. You're correct that I'm seeing this through a distorted lens - wish that wasn't the case. Morphh 16:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I struck through the post above because I thought that it referred to another sock investigation in which MilesMoney was recently exonerated. Now I see that MM faces another unfounded, undocumented charge at SPI. Shame on you Morph. Your accusation is entirely subjective and is based on purported coincidences which you assert without basis, are explained only by your theory that MM is a sock. WP should impose some standard of care on accusers such as yourself so that you don't get a free pass filing such a claim, citing as "evidence" various weak similarities which in fact are widespread in the vast population of WP users. I urge you to withdraw and close your SPI. If you decline to do so, I believe that you owe it to the WP community to present a more reasoned case with specific details you can credibly demonstrate support your claim, not just your suspicion. By your reasoning I could open an SPI that you are Adjwilley (a trusted Admin here) merely because you both dislike MM's tenacious advocacy of his views and have accused him of being a sock. Sounds suspicious to me. Please withdraw. SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Morph, your statement strikes me as cowardly and irresponsible. You might review the thread at Miles' other recent SPI to see some discussion of the issues in these baseless SPI filings. SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I specifically said "I also don't dislike you, nor did I dislike StillStanding-247.". I still stand by my assertion that you are a sock of StillStanding-247. - MrX 17:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

So you said, but as I pointed out, you happen to be an ardent supporter of Bink, who does not hold me in high regard. As for the second part, I am literally holding my face in my palm. Your incorrigibility is exactly what I've been talking about here: sock accusations based on gut feelings or shared opposition are irrational and no amount of counter-evidence can make the true believer back down. Remember how you repeatedly pointed to things that you claimed were proof, yet nobody else could see it but you. That's pretty much a description of how hallucinations work. This is literally all in your head.

I'm going to have to ask you to leave my talk page now and avoid returning unless policy requires it. MilesMoney (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. It was nice visiting with you. Have a fabulous day! - MrX 17:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

On the same line as MrX, I should repeat that I didn't "hate" StillStanding either (see my statement here) nor do I hate MilesMoney. I disagree with the combative and disruptive way in which they edit. Also, Re MilesMoney being "exonerated", I wouldn't put it that strongly. The closing admin simply said that there wasn't "enough behavior evidence to justify a DUCK block". ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought you agreed to keep your distance and maybe even drop the stick. I'm going to have to ask you again not to visit my talk page unless policy requires you to. MilesMoney (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, Please WP:NPA Most sock investigations are subjective and based on purported coincidences - that's why we take them to the admins that can check it. Most often they check out - I've only had one not check out and that was due to stale information, not proving false. If I had solid proof, which is very difficult to gain, then I wouldn't request a checkuser. Point is, the sock is skilled - he's not your ordinary sock. As for me, I'll be labeled as crying wolf and any future submissions will be more easily dismissed. As for "widespread facts", I'm not sure what you're talking about. Excluding MilesMoney and one other editor, the sock is the only one (using a least 4 accounts) that I'm aware of that repeatedly attempts to insert certain content. That's a very narrow pool and in my view, worth investigating considering the sock. So it's the sock history and skill that's the big challenge and it's unfortunate that it looks similar. Morphh 17:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I restored EllenCT's graph because the reasons given for removing it didn't make any sense to me. They don't even now. You risk crying wolf, I risk a career-ending injury; still no parity. In fact, both of my accusers continue to insist that they were right, just as earnestly as you do. This is why accusations should be based on something more than gut feelings about editors whose only commonality is that they disagree with you on one point. What you're alleging is, in every sense, a conspiracy theory. MilesMoney (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

My statement is very clear as to why my disapproval of your behavior is not a personal attack. Please strike your accusation, which is itself a personal attack per policy. SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI thread

I understand you were responding to Steele. Indenting helps clarify who has said something when. See WP:TPYES: "Keep the layout clear: Keep the talk page attractively and clearly laid out, using standard indentation and formatting conventions." I suggest you add a {{ping|MilesMoney}} template or simply say something like "Steeletrap, that is a good idea." Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict, so I never saw your response. MilesMoney (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

FRB talk page thread

Please take a look at your comment. It has a layout error. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. MilesMoney (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

S Rich talk page

You are the one who made false accusations at User talk:Srich32977, not me. If you cannot get a grip of policies etc and cannot be bothered reading threads before sticking your oar in then your best bet is to say nothing. You are not dealing with an idiot here & you'll find that I am far more familiar with the system than you. Don't wikilawyer when you can't win. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It's becoming quite clear what I'm dealing with. MilesMoney (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Good because if you take me on then you will lose. - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I'm totally intimidated by your WP:BATTLEFIELD attitude. Mission accomplished. Now get off my talk page and don't come back; I have no time for people like you. MilesMoney (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been thanked me for my post here but, sure, I'll go. Given that I am not the first that you have banished of late, and given your obvious incompetence, it does rather beg a question concerning your righteousness. But, hey, I've seen this happen before and the result is always the same. Have a great life, even if it is unlikely to include involvement in Misplaced Pages for much longer. - Sitush (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It's been my practice to remove nonsense from my talk page. I'm going to make a very special exception for you, so that anytime you go to some drama page and try to attack me, I can point to this to show everyone what your motives are. Your hostile rant is reason enough to get you blocked for personal attacks, threats and more. It's more than enough to permanently undermine your credibility with regard to me.

To the editor who thanked Sitush: Sure was brave of you to show your support while hiding your identity. MilesMoney (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, I think you should disengage at this point, I don't see anything productive coming from this conversation. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

For anyone eating popcorn and watching, you really have to look at this. Aside from once again threatening to get me blocked forever, Sitush said:

"Thankfully, I've no great interest in libertarianism or economics but unless they gain some clue fairly quickly I doubt that this will be the last that they see of me, even though I'll keep off their talk page."

By some coincidence, the very next article edit I made was immediately followed by a nuisance tag from Sitush. Extra style points for the passive-aggressive comment: "someone has just added another unsourced entry here - not good enough". Someone. Could be anyone?

Of course, it could all be a coincidence. However, the article is one that Sitush had never previously edited. It's about libertarian novel; a topic he admits he has "no great interest in". If I didn't know any better, it's almost as if Sitush were stalking and harassing me.

Good thing I have these links sitting around, and I'm sure I'll accumulate many more long before Sitush tries to make good on his threats. Then we'll see how well he likes boomerangs. MilesMoney (talk) 05:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atlas Shrugged, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bender (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ted Cruz, citizen of the U.S.

What INS (now known as CIS) immigration paperwork do you believe that Cruz filled out (or his parent's) when he moved to Houston from Calgary? An immigrant to the U.S., according to U.S. law, must have the proper immigration paperwork in hand. What was that paperwork that Cruz had to fill out and present to an immigration official? Also, please explain how the definition of "citizen" and the definition of "alien" under the U.S. immigration laws applied to Cruz. If Cruz was not a "citizen" then he was an "alien" or "immigrant". You want to characterize him as an "immigrant". Another name for that designation is "alien". I believe most people find him to be a U.S. citizen and not an alien or immigrant, but you claim that the category for immigrants applies so I need to understand your logic. Please advise. I will help you out by providing you with the applicable definitions (since you like definitions so much) under the U.S. law:

Permanent Resident Alien - An alien admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. Permanent residents are also commonly referred to as immigrants; however, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) broadly defines an immigrant as any alien in the United States, except one legally admitted under specific nonimmigrant categories (INA section 101(a)(15)). An illegal alien who entered the United States without inspection, for example, would be strictly defined as an immigrant under the INA but is not a permanent resident alien. Lawful permanent residents are legally accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States. They may be issued immigrant visas by the Department of State overseas or adjusted to permanent resident status by the Department of Homeland Security in the United States. Permanent Resident Alien Definition

Citizenship: The country in which a person is born (and has not renounced or lost citizenship) or naturalized and to which that person owes allegiance and by which he or she is entitled to be protected.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 18:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The note on top of this page informs you that discussions about a specific article belong on the talk page of that article. I'm not going to respond here. Feel free to copy this to the article talk page, in which case I will respond there. MilesMoney (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI: Ludwig von Mises Institute RfC

As you had commented earlier on the topic, you may be interested in this RfC: Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#RfC: Should "Views espoused by founders & organization scholars" be in the article? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Just did a few minutes ago. MilesMoney (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Noted. Punch-Counterpunch is at play. – S. Rich (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

RSN Noticeboard

I made this posting (1) in relation to the Volokh Conspiracy source, and thought you might be interested in commenting. Steeletrap (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

PrairieKid (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP violation at Ludwig von Mises Institute

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Templates

Please stop leaving warning templates on the talk pages of established contributors. That's generally frowned upon by the community, and it's very unlikely to provoke a behavior change. I make an exception for {{Uw-3rr}}, but that should typically only be used after three reverts. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'd never encountered WP:DTR so I wasn't aware of this soft policy. And, to be frank, I just installed Twinkle and it makes it hard not to template.

In the future, I'll stick to handwritten notes with regulars, except when it's the final step (such as notifying them of an ANI thread or a 3RR violation). MilesMoney (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic Ban

I have closed a discussion on the administrator's noticeboard that found a consensus to topic-ban you from Libertarian topics for six months, with the typical 'broadly construed' caveat, to include articles, talk pages, and all other pages on any namespace that is predominately a libertarian topic or a section that is predominately libertarian. If you have any questions, please address them to my talk page.--v/r - TP 13:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)