Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:06, 1 January 2014

Trying to help

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pull out & edit against consensus?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

strikeouts in talkpage comments

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

Oi

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

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

Scorched earth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reverting good-faith BLP objections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the sort of admin that other admins protect.

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

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

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

ANI Notice

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

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

Blocks vs bans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:CONSENSUS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your use of multiple Misplaced Pages accounts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLP concerns

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

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

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

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

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

A Barnstar 4 U.

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

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

Talkback

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

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pamela Geller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANI threads

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

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

Removal of redlinks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A beer for you!

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

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

Here to help.

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

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

Conservative cloud

We were having this discussion on an article talk page , 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." , , . 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. 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 Misplaced Pages in some unsavory way. As WP:NPA states many times, this policy is subjective. If someone is accused of making a personal attack, it should be taken seriously. Why are you claiming I am "falsely accusing" you? Do you have a reason for thinking that? The fact is, I believe that you've made a personal attack. Perhaps that was not your intent. But the fact that your word choice could cause someone to feel that they've been a victim of personal attack might cause you to reflect on your language. Please don't refer to me as being part of any kind of "cloud" in the future. Safehaven86 (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

On ANI, Mangoe said:

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

You tell em Miles

Tea Party

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

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

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

Justice's wife launches 'tea party' group

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Fishing expedition

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

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

Reliable source.

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

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

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

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

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

ANI

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