Trial and Tribulation
	Enjoy your ANI. Trick or Treat. SPECIFICO talk 04:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many tanks for the heads up. I'll respond appropriately. X4n6 (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that you are watching the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎#WP:BLP violation at Ludwig von Mises Institute, but if you are not, the consensus of the community is that you are banned from engaging in any edits or interactions with respect to the article, Ludwig von Mises Institute. I wish you the best of editing in other areas of the encyclopedia. Please remember that you can't go wrong if you stick to clearly reliable sources. bd2412 T 01:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. Does this topic ban have an expiration or a period after which I'm expected to request its conclusion? MilesMoney (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm just a closing administrator (and not ArbCom), you are free to request removal of the topic ban at any time at ANI; however, you will need to obtain a consensus in favor of such a removal. In practice, this is unlikely to occur absent a period of conduct on your part which creates a substantial impression that you will not revisit the practices that led to the topic ban in the first place. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You comported yourself very well during your "trial", young man. Ironing your suits and tying your ties for you always made me gleam (it was mature of you to ditch the bow-tie to avoid the impression that you were making a statement against Murray). I know that Ms. User:SPECIFICO was happy to give you daily rides to court. We both thought you were particularly poised when that tough guy military prosecutor got in your face (I had to hid my eyes at that point, and luckily, Ms. SPECIFICO was up to the task. ;) ) And all things considered, the verdict -- no sanctions on 99.9% of libertarian WP pages -- ain't too bad. Steeletrap (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the details still make no sense to me, such as the absence of a BLP violation, but any trial you can walk away from is a good one, I suppose. It's not the hanging that some would have paid to see, nor was it the exoneration that I deserved. MilesMoney (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leave aside the absence of a BLP violation. None of your diffs of your alleged "misconduct" that the community based its decision on (with the possible exception of the closing admin) had anything to do with your edits to BLPs! Steeletrap (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The more you explain it, the less sense it makes. MilesMoney (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Your input is requested in the discussion at [1]. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you have been mentioned here regarding issues which have been repeatedly connected to Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions. User:Carolmooredc talk 17:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you haven't already, please take note of the details of Template:Austrian economics enforcement. This is a general reminder, and not given in response to misconduct. I've decided to err on the side of caution to try to make sure that people involved in this topic area are aware of the discretionary sanctions. Consider this a "no-fault" notification. If you're already aware (which you probably are), feel free to remove this message. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's a bunch of diffs about your behavior, not anything to do with me. Note that any attempt to try to distract from your behavior by bringing me up is a violation of good faith. MilesMoney (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should this link stay or go? I don't think the user intended as SPAM, but there is WP:COI. I'm tired and may be mistaken about it being wrong there. Thanks, Dlohcierekim 01:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think this comment is probably sarcasm, but just in case it isn't: Asking another editor to make changes in an area where you are topic banned is a fast track to trouble for both you and them, as explained at WP:PROXYING. I posted a reminder about this at Arthur Rubin's talk page, and although I don't think you were being serious, it seemed only fair to do something similar here. --RL0919 (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the edit comment. MilesMoney (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I totally missed that! Thanks for confirming what I suspected anyway, that your post wasn't a serious request. --RL0919 (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification in lieu of official template that doesn't seem to exist for users - Re: your off topic and/or no evidence/diffs and/or manufactured evidence and/or trumped up allegations against me at two recent ANIS (here and here), as well as in past talk page discussions which I should have reported to ANI previously.

• I’d like you to be aware of Israel-Palestine arbitration and Sexology arbitration. Both allow reports regarding questionable or false accusations of bigotry in Wikipedia discussions. Please study them and cease your false allegations.
  

If you truly believe there is an issue, bring it with actual evidence/diffs to the proper forum and I will be glad to debunk all of your false or extremely trumped up accusations. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about: none of my posts have involved either of these two subjects. No notification from you can force me to be involved, much less get me into any sort of trouble. For that matter, such sanctions traditionally do not apply to WP:ANI, else there would be no way for someone thus sanctioned to protest. I am not responsible for others posting examples of your bigotry, and I am absolutely not responsible for your bigotry. Your notice is therefore egregiously hostile and irrelevant.

I do note that you violate WP:AGF by suggesting that any of my constructive criticism on WP:ANI was somehow less than genuine. If you're going to waste my time with this nonsense, I don't want you on my talk page. Please consider yourself very unwelcome. In other words, go away and don't come back. MilesMoney (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MM. I'm not sure if I got the right link-- the Huffpo bio I'm lookng at actually begins by saying she's a managing director at SKDK. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, we'll continue this discussion on the article talk page, just to keep it centralized. MilesMoney (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Saying consensus has been reached if not correct. This edit, re-adding the worst of the versions, is inappropriate. [2] – S. Rich (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]