Jump to content

User talk:SPECIFICO/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 22

Wording

Hi, SPECIFICO. I'm writing you regarding this edit. You justified your revert on the grounds that the previous wording was written in "better English". Semantically, the version you've reverted to is unnecessarily circuitous, describing Biden as advocating for intervention, the expansion of NATO, and then advocating for intervention once again, which will inevitably confuse readers, especially given the temporal and geographic proximity of the interventions in question. Moreover, it fails to mention which part of the world NATO was expanding into. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to say "expressed opposition to" instead of "opposed. If you have a better tweak, I'm glad to look at it and perhaps substitute. Feel free to propose on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. Normally I'd take this to the talk page of the article in question (as you suggested), but since this isn't really a content dispute (rather a minor phrasing disagreement between two users), I don't want to clutter up the article's talk page for no reason. I'll just leave my proposal here: He opposed the Gulf War in 1991, but supported NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, as well as U.S. and NATO intervention in the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s.
It's shorter than my initial phrasing but it gets to the meat of things. Please let me know what you think when you get the chance. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
He opposed the Gulf War in 1991 but supported the expansion of the NATO alliance into Eastern Europe and its intervention in the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s.
That is what I suggest. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. It's even better than my last proposal. Clear and succinct.
If it isn't too much trouble, I'd kindly ask you to add it to the lead (given the attention the article will be getting in the coming days, and the discretionary sanctions ArbCom has imposed on it, I really wouldn't want to be perceived as edit warring). Thanks! Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Leon Black Epstein

What exactly is the "challenged content" and "BLP violations" in my Leon Black additions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltagammaz (talk • contribs) 20:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

All of it. Please read WP:WEIGHT in WP:NPOV. And you should never reinstate such content without seeking consensus on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 21:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Archive pages

Can you help me set up archive pages? My poor page 1 is overloaded and I'm completely unable to understand how to add more pages. I'm looking forward to what number 2 has to offer but I have no idea how to do that. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Is The Spectator a solid source? I didn't think it was. Do you have any advice about the archive pages? I am not very good with computers or code, and I'm too old to get good at it now. I basically copied your format for the talk page header but mine only stays on the 1 archive page. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Using me for information about computer coding is like using Fox News for information about Trump's collusion with Russia. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
You have them already set up, so presumably you could have just told me what you did. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Mr Ernie, WP:HD exists precisely for this purpose. Why one would feel the need to go to a user talk page for something like this baffles me. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

BLP

In a recent comment of yours, which reads:

What garnered the brief attention in the blogosphere and a few press articles was the tenuous use of #MeToo narratives to describe the woman's having failed to extricate herself from an unwelcome situation before she got to tears. None of the commentary concludes that this woman impacted or damaged Ansari's "public profile". Nothing much happened. The noteworthy event was the woman's having held up her personal reactions to public scrutiny on the expectation that people would find them somehow similar to incidents of sexual misconduct. The public reaction was only that "bad conduct" is not "misconduct" and both she and Ansari were viewed as having bungled a rather innocuous interaction that left them both temporarily upset at having handled it poorly.

you suggested that a specific, unnamed accuser of Aziz Ansari had mischaracterized or exaggerated an "innocuous" interaction. You provided no sources for this statement and it sounds like pure conjecture. Let me remind you of that this a living person, and suggesting that a person is un-credible or misrepresented an accusation about sexual assault is a blatant BLP violation, as well as WP:FORUM. Please do not post any further comments of this nature, and I would encourage you to strike this remark. I may seek redress at ANI to have the remarks removed, from you or anyone else, that continue to cast doubt on the allegations without reference to sources. Thank you. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: SPECIFICO's comments appear to be a faithful distillation of what sources have reported. What sources are you relying on that characterize the date as a "sexual assault"? Keep in mind, Ansari is a living person too, and we actually know his full identity. - MrX 🖋 21:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes take it to ANI immediately. SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
MrX CNN referred to it as a sexual assault allegation: "Master of None" star Aziz Ansari has responded to an allegation of sexual assault by a woman he went out on a date with in the fall. It has also been referred to as a sexual misconduct allegation by the New York Times. Whatever semantic variation you want to use, both are supported in reliable sources.
SPECIFICO did not reference any specific piece or attribute the views in the above comment: those were pure expressions of opinion by an editor. I see that there are commentators who have defended Aziz as documented in this interview and this opinion piece by the former NYT editor Bari Weiss. These are not reliable sources for what happened: these are reliable for the opinions of those authors only. And SPECIFICO is rehashing them, without attribution, and in his own words. Nowhere in any source do I see a suggestion that the woman "bungled" the encounter which she described as sexual assault. BLP applies to the accuser just as it does Ansari, whether or not she is named, because we are referring to a specific person. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO You are quick to accuse me of a BLP violation over a content disagreement, yet you put out extremely inappropriate and unattributed conjecture about a sexual assault accuser without any indication of remorse. This is disappointing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
You are repeating yourself. Yes, the upshot is that she mischaracterizes the incident as assault. That is what the sources say. SPECIFICO talk 22:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
That is the opinion of two commentators who had no first-hand knowledge of the incident. Neither are reliable sources for anything about the incident. You are confusing WP:RS with WP:RSO and violating WP:BLP in the process. Last time I'll ask: please strike the comments. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Please don't forget to notify me when you file ANI. SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I filed a notice at WP:BLPN seeking input on this issue. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
That's not ANI. There was already a thread at BLPN. Better not to duplicate. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
OK. I think BLPN is probably the appropriate venue, but this is an entirely separate issue. If an overseer of BLPN thinks the two can be merged I wouldn't have a problem with it. Merged. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually it is not. You are making (silly) behavioral accusations against me. Those would be resolved at ANI or Arbcom Enforcement. BLPN is for content and sourcing issues, such as the ones you do not appear to understand. I think this thread has more or less run its course. SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
You are suggesting a sexual assault accuser basically made it up. What you are doing is a textbook example of a BLP violation, and that isn't cured by the fact that you vaguely referenced a couple of opinion columnists. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Leon Black edits

I have no particular interest in Leon Black but I saw the discussion on the BLP noticeboard and fixed an small error in the article, so it is on my watchlist. A couple of days ago, an IP added a "Jeffrey Epstein Controversy" section. Today Deltagammaz added to that section. I don't know if Deltagammaz and the IP are the same person, but you have previously warned Deltagammaz about such edits about Black. Mo Billings (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The IP is not me. I have no idea who added the Epstein stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltagammaz (talk • contribs) 20:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

You mean you have "no idea who added it" apart from the stuff you added today, right? Mo Billings (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained?

Regarding this edit - with the edit summary "unexplained content removal" - I explained why I removed it, both in my own edit summary - "article about Barr, not Trump", as well as on the talk page - where you are conspicuously absent. Please undo your revert, made based on an apparent oversight. Trying to reconnect (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Also note that that article is subject to the following restriction - "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article" - you seem to be in violation of that, which is likely to result in sanctions unless you revert . Trying to reconnect (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I replied on the talk page. I see consensus to include. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Pronouns

Hi Specifico, don't refer to people as "it". [1] If you don't know someone's pronoun preference, the singular "they" is usually okay. SarahSV (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Got it, will change to "they" - one instance was referring to the user account, but I see the first was to KB, who has objected, so I will change to "they". I mostly refer to them as KB, they being of unknown gender. Thanks for the note. SPECIFICO talk 23:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: - The personal reference to "it" was inappropriate, and I should have changed it when KB mentioned it. The other, as I said above, I did not think of as a personal reference. Because I believe KB has not indicated a gender preference, I took pains to use no pronouns and to call KB by those initials. As you may have seen on my talk page, I am indifferent as to the gender editors attach to me. I have a record of NPOV and civility on gender-related issues. Please let me know if you wish me to make any further statement at the AE thread. If not, my apologies and thank you for pointing this out. I assume that my edit will constitute a sufficient personal response to KB's mention of the matter at AE. SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for changing it. I'm still ... I guess I'll just say disappointed, or maybe nonplussed, if I'm using that right ... because I find it hard to imagine making such a mistake innocently myself. Hard for me to imagine the mindset. I don't need any further statement from you at AE, I can't speak for others. Just as a suggestion (rather than having "civility" imposed on you by an admin), just an FYI, in your shoes I'd probably say, at AE, something along the lines of "I'm sorry KB, that was very rude of me". --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Veering away from "nonplussed" and more towards "really very disappointed": [2]. Really, don't do that anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO: I have a record of NPOV and civility on gender-related issues. Also SPECIFICO: [3] There is a pattern of misogyny here that I am experiencing personally, and that he is exhibiting at articles. (I did verify his gender, not that only men can act this way.[4]) Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Specifico is a she. Also {{gender}} returns a she. PackMecEng (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Are you a she in real life SPECIFICO, or is the wikipedia gender setting arbitrary? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Also for the record in my younger days I was a draftsman even though I am a woman. PackMecEng (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
"But ain't I a woman", too PME--I plumbed our new lake cottage from top to bottom (with the help of those nice boys at Home Depot and a Plumbing for Dummies directions book). Gandydancer (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Uhmmm...anybody else besides me catching the irony in the word woman? Atsme Talk 📧 16:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO once referred to me as "shehe" [5]. Sure, it was a long time ago but... how hard can it be to avoid this kind of (particularly juvenile) insult? -Darouet (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Obviously should be she/he. I'm surprised this typo was so memorable for you. Next time, please voice any concern. Try AGF. SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
On the topic of "assume good faith," do you mind if I ask if you stalked my edits to revert me here [6] recently? I've previously asked you not to follow me on Wikipedia, and didn't raise the issue after your edit at Kiki Camarena, but now I'm curious. I don't see any record of your editing there or on this topic before. -Darouet (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
No. SPECIFICO talk 18:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO - I can certainly understand the backlash you're getting from some of my esteemed colleagues, and hope an acceptable compromise can be reached. How about using "(s)he" or is "they" a better choice? I'll be first to admit my ignorance about proper pronouning but I'm also of the mind that we're never too old to learn. Atsme Talk 📧 19:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I have always used she/he and never dreamed it would be seen as problematic. Gandydancer (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
(t)hey there, Atsme. On the advice of OP, I adopted "they" for current purposes. I bet I'm older than you, too. They don't even have a cute name for my generation. SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy to oblige with a generational name...hmmmm...older than me...??? You must be somewhere during, between or after the Magnonimous Baby Boom and the Baby Stoner generation. Atsme Talk 📧 21:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
In 2018, SPECIFICO was told never to refer to any editor as "it", and he responded, that "it" is the preferred politically correct way to address our colleagues of unidentified gender.[7] In this very talk page above someone complains about him "(mis)gendering". This is after being familiar enough with gender topics to participate in a Sexology arbitration request about "TERFs" in 2014[8] (where Floquenbeam happens to mention "singular they"[9]), and adding a w/e pronoun infobox in 2013.[10] Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

How many people are the same gender they were 7-8 years ago? Who knows? SPECIFICO talk 23:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

May I ask what your real life gender is? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind, I don't want to get distracted; this outdented thread might make people miss the previous comment I made which includes diffs which I believe show you are very familiar with singular they pronouns. I'm sure you wouldn't deny being referred to by "they" many, many times. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Came here from AE; I'm most amazed at how this is not the first time you've called someone "it" and been told that referring to people as "it" is wrong. Let me add to the chorus of voices with a friendly heads up: When you use the pronoun "it" to refer to people (anyone in any context), it's like holding up a big red sign that says "I AM TRANSPHOBIC! I BELIEVE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT CONFORM TO TRADITIONAL GENDER IDENTITIES ARE NOT PEOPLE AT ALL AND DO NOT DESERVE THE BASIC RESPECT ACCORDED TO ALL HUMAN BEINGS!!" I'm sure you don't actually feel that way, so unless that's the message you're wanting to send out, don't call people "it". Lev!vich 01:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
No, no, that's the wrong narrative. There is no plausible deniability. SPECIFICO knows what it means; knows that it hurts. I'm not saying they are transphobic, but I am saying they will use transphobic language as a weapon. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO also participated in this 2014 discussion at the WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force where other editors discussed using WP:Xe, s/he, and Template:Gender-neutral as gender neutral pronouns for editors.[11] Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

This particular user, Specifico, has a long long history of bullying people on Wikipedia. One can just go back and look at his OWN past talk pages. He reverts, threatens, and even stalks users online. That he would have inappropriately harassed a trans person and is transphobia is par for the course. His misuse of pronouns is not accidental; it was mean to impersonate the person in question. In my own case, he has literally followed me around online and reverted routine contributions and ones opposed by nobody else, even though he has never edited those pages before or had shown any previous interest in them. He has personally discouraged more than two dozen people from editing on Wikipedia, fixating and zeroing in on people to harass them for reasons that are unclear. I hope other people read this so we can take actions to ban him. The only reason it has not happened previously is that people feel bullied or just have given up. And in his editing, he posts a ton of unsubstantiated material, that does not meet Wikpedia standards, to make people with left of center politics look good, while deleting even mundane information about anyone not on the left, even if the information is accurate, fair, neutral, and well sourced etc. For example, he has put a ton of poorly sourced unsubstantiated material on Rudy Giulian's page. When I added a couple of setences to the same Giuliani wiki, simply saying that a particular page catipalted Giuliani to national attention, he reverted it, without explanation-- apparently because it showed Giuliani is a slightly favorable light. Wikipedia is not supposed to manipulated for one's political agenda, and in doing so, engage in the bullying of other contributors or editors. Anyone can just read his talk pages, one after the other, complaint after complaint about this one person. And that is with him often DELETING unfavorable comments so nobody reads them! Wikipedia should be a safe place for everyone! The incident with transphobia and calling a trans person an "IT" was not a one-time incident. Someone should jump in and intervene.Cathradgenations (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC) Cathradgenations (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Needless to say, unsubstantiated allegations, AKA WP:ASPERSIONS are not OK on Wikipedia. Also, I believe you've been asked over and over not to mark your edits "m" for "minor" unless they fit our definition of Minor Edit. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

These are not aspersions. I have my own personal experiences. You called a trans woman an "it". That is simply fact. You have been following me around online reverting virtually everything I post no matter how mundane, or insignificant. Please leave me alone.Cathradgenations (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't make personal remarks or assumptions about other editors. It's presumptuous and disrespectful. In most cases we know only our fellow user's edits, as seen on WP. SPECIFICO talk 22:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Please explain why you deleted and then reverted my edit pointing out the Podell was Giuliani's first major case that catapaulted him to national prominence? That would seem relevant for a 12,000 word plus Wiki bio of him. I also quote the Washington Post saying that the Congressman changed his plea from not guilty to guilty after Giuliani sharply criticized him, displaying his court room skills. I have no brief for Giuliani nor would vote for him, but these two facts are both relevant to his bio and are neutral. Thank you for whatever explanation you might provide.Cathradgenations (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

That's something you could and should have asked on the article talk page before you reinserted your content with the WP:ASPERSIONS in your edit summary. I'm not going to discuss it on this page, and I may not respond to you on the talk page either. SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You have absolutely no right to revert my contribution unless you provide some explanation. I will raise the issue on the Giuliani talk page, but until then, I ask that you not unilaterally take it upon yourself to revert the material again. You should be the one to take it up on the Giuliani page in response to what I say. You don't have a right to automatically revert anything you feel like, The onus is on you.

As to your conduct towards me more generally, I plan to do everything in my power to formally complain about your actions and seek disciplinary action. I have done screen shorts of more than two dozen people who have complained about you, and your issues specifically with transgendered individuals and that community has not been an isolated incident. Please stop following me around online or Wikipedia. Please do not edit pages because I do, and only those pages which you have a personal interest in.Cathradgenations (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed one-way interaction ban preventing SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log) from interacting with Carolmooredc.[2] [3] It is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban, and enforcement of the ban should be discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. SPECIFICO is cautioned that if they continue to disrupt and breach restrictions, they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions. Cathradgenations (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it, either living or deceased. This topic-ban does not extend to articles concerning Austrian economics but not related to the Ludwig von Mises Institute; however, should SPECIFICO edit problematically in the broader area, the topic-ban may be broadened if necessary through the discretionary sanctions. SPECIFICO may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case. Cathradgenations (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You have already been banned TWICE, once for a year, for your conduct towards other Wikipedia contributors. If you molest or bother me again or follow me around online, I am going to learn everything humanly possible about Wikipedia's guidelines and standards and seek to have you banned permanently. If you wish to revert anything of mine, please go to the talk page before you unilaterally do so-- you should not being doing that as a beginning point when so many people feel harassed by you and with two bans already enforced against you by Wikipedia's editors.Cathradgenations (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Note: I have warned Cathradgenations against further harassment of SPECIFICO, such as the above, and told them not to post here again. SPECIFICO, for the sake of symmetry, you had probably better not post on their page either. Bishonen | tålk 23:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC).

Guiliani

I think it takes fair amount of audacity to first remove a statement clearing Guiliani of any wrongdoing with a summary that says "There is no reason to imagine Giuliani was involved in any crime related to these individuals", and then to restore the material about his appointees claiming the relevance to Guliaini is clear. Please don't do that again . Trying to reconnect (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The edits were explained in my summaries. Your claim of SYNTH was incorrect, but at any rate you should not immediately redo your edit when it is reverted. I suggest you restore the text and present any concerns on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 22:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, the edits were explained- in a glaringly contradictory way, which makes it very hard to assume good faith about them. Trying to reconnect (talk)
Article. Talk. Page. SPECIFICO talk 00:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Please self-revert at Julian Assange

The article Julian Assange is under discretionary sanctions (under WP:ARBAPDS), as I'm sure you know. Jack Upland removed longstanding material: [12]. I challenged this edit through reversion: [13]. You reinstated the challenged edit without first gaining consensus (or even participating in the discussion on the talk page): [14]. This goes against the restriction listed at the top of the talk page: Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit. Please self-revert. If you want to remove the material in question, please take part in the talk-page discussion and seek consensus. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk pages are where important topics can be discussed. It is not a "conspiracy theory" that the US Senate investigated and issued a report on this matter. Editors are editing the article without any real discussion. The article is already famous for not being written from a WP:NPOV. It's easy to see why. If you don't want a discussion, I'll just WP:BOLD Tvaughan1 (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement request

There is an Arbitration Enforcement request concerning you: [15]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Tartan357

Sorry, lost track of this. It looks resolved now though, right? Doug Weller talk 16:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I believe so, but in case further clarity is needed, I acknowledge that one of my edits broke the BRD arbitration remedy and will be more careful to avoid doing so again. I only had the 1RR remedy in mind and failed to correctly understand and follow the BRD one.  — Tartan357  (Talk) 06:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Tartan357: ok, you're on record now about it and that seems sufficient. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Trump comment

Hi, please try to avoid making comments like this one, which amount to an attempt to control the parameters of discussion. My comments were directly responsive to your bolded comment, which was "the matter at hand" at that point. I will "share my concerns" when they occur to me and when I feel they are relevant. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

You are coming off increasingly as erratic and unfocused. The thread was at consensus on the shorter version when several of us tried to tweak the wording. Not the meaning, the wording. Nobody disputes your right to raise any concerns at any time. In this age, if you wished us to step back and reconsider from the top, that would be clearer if stated explicitly. I'm sure any confusion was unintentional, so no need to feel upset. Thanks 😊 SPECIFICO talk 00:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
At that article, at least, you are the only established editor who repeatedly presumes to instruct other established editors on proper discussion protocol that has zero connection to PAGs. I've been your target long enough, enough times, and after repeated complaints, that I am in fact increasingly upset about it. If you think my comments are off-point and a certain sub-thread is unconstructive, do what other editors do: just stop responding. I don't think I need your schooling on proper discussion participation, but I think you need mine. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I think you're projecting. No worries. SPECIFICO talk 01:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Leon Black

There is a discussion started on your deletion of the connection of Leon Black and J. Epstein on LB's talk page.Ekem (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

There is an Arbitration Enforcement proceding concerning you at WP:AE. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

There is an Arbitration Enforcement proceeding concerning you at WP:AE#SPECIFICO 2 Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This was well closed IMO. SPECIFICO, you have earned a certain amount of tolerance, as all of us belligerent old hands have, but there's a very strong current right now against those of us who are robust in our critique of what we see as nonsense, and the basis of that current is actually very sensible. Wikipedia needs to welcome newcomers, and be very conservative in who we dismiss as griefers. I suggest you try to stick to parliamentary language, and - most importantly - when things are becoming heated, ask for help. You know about RfCs, ANI and the rest. "I have an issue with this editor because I think they are trying to give undue weight to X" is absolutely fine. "This editor is a POV-pushing idiot" not so much, right? Email one of your friends to let of steam, that is fine. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

sock of Zalgo Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Well done at maintaining the quality at Aziz Ansari despite active harrasement from a disruptive editor. Heatxiddy (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC) sock of Zalgo. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zalgo.
Well blow me down! Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
OH NO!! Sock barnstar! SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Complaint at AE

Hi SPECIFICO, I've lodged a complaint against you at WP:AE, here [16]. Hope you will respond or clear things up. -Darouet (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, as you've probably noticed, I've closed the above complaint with a 2-week topic ban from Julian Assange. In the future I highly recommend just self-reverting when you find yourself in violation of a rule. Not only can it save you headache, but it lowers the tension at the article and talk page, making a more conducive atmosphere for editors to work together and find consensus/compromise. ~Awilley (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I have argued on your user talk page that because you and Specifico have had several content disputes, you should reverse your action. Politrukki (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

An editor recently questioned a statement of mine - I forget which editor and even on which page - about my statement that editors and Admins cannot agree on a definition of "revert".

I recall numerous threads in which the issue has been discussed. I quickly found 3 of them. I believe many others occurred on the talk pages of various Admins and Arbs.

At any rate, if you are watching this page, here is some background that led to the statement I made and your inquiry:

It would seem that with all the brainpower assembled here, we would do well to craft a simple but robust definition of one of our core policies that even has its own Noticeboard.

Anyone who happens to see this -- feel free to link more examples below

SPECIFICO talk 21:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

VIPS August 2020 memo

Could you elaborate "need better source"? What is "better"? Mistertoki (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

A mainstream national newspaper or broadcast source such as NPR or BBC would be good. Have a look at WP:RS. SPECIFICO talk 01:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

But the WP:RS itself states "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." I just outlined the opinions of the very subject matter of this wiki. Consortium News itself has already been previously cited (see reference 2), and it contained the letter in its entirety. If mainstream RS won't print it, and it's an opinion piece, what's the issue? Mistertoki (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mistertoki: You should not have re-done your edit without agreement on the article talk page. Please undo it and present your rationale there, where interested editors will see it. You can copy this thread if you like. SPECIFICO talk 15:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

3RR

1RR has been temporarilty suspended at Trump, but 3RR remains in effect as at any other article. You have just broken 3RR and need to self-revert. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I completely lost sight of that. Fortunately, my latest edit has already been undone, else I would rush to do so.
Getting back to what we discussed yesterday, this really is why we need to have editors discuss changes on talk before editing the article. Most veteran editors know when an edit may be controversial and routinely use talk where they have reasonable expectation of some objection. That editor, as I said on the article talk page, has not been good about sorting his ideas in that way. SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Provided an editor goes directly to talk upon challenge-by-reversion, there is no need to "talk first". That's the whole point of BRD, since what would need prior discussion is entirely a matter of opinion and perspective. Trying to make other principles coexist with BRD is precisely what causes problems.
I've had this near the top of my UTP since 2016, and nothing has happened since then to alter this opinion one bit.

WP:BRD works well when you use it in good faith, no matter how many times in 24 hours you do so. Like anything else, it can be used as a weapon in bad faith. That problem is not with BRD but with those users. Promote BRD to guideline and deal with the bad faith users who abuse it.

At the end of the day, we are severely limited by a system where nobody and everybody is in charge, and we would be better off to understand and accept that. I largely have. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I think we see more or less eye-to-eye on this. The difference is I have largely given up, while you are sacrificing your health and sanity to a mission that should not have fallen to you. Basically, one objection is a coin-toss, and 2 or more needs resolution. From the candidate statements at Arbcom elections, I think there is some willingness to find a better way forward with difficult articles. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
That's amazing, since I was about to say I have largely given up and you are sacrificing your health and sanity. It seems we're in a resignation/apathy competition. But I wasn't the one involved in a disruptive (even if very brief) battle of re-reverts, inadvertently exceeding 3RR. In my view that's a product of my superior resignation/apathy. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
This editor was doing exactly what I asked him not to do -- making substantive changes in meaning that would need reverts and discussion. But I don't re-revert. The problem is that those removals of his would, according to many Admins, not be considered "reverts" per my section above. SPECIFICO talk 00:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
This editor was doing exactly what I asked him not to do - Well I'm afraid you're not in charge – as I said, nobody and everybody is – and they were not required to do as you asked. You don't have consensus support for your views of how things should operate; if you did, that would be a great use of a consensus list entry. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
It was a well-reasoned and documented request and if you disagreed, you should have spoken up. Nobody disagreed. He makes disruptive edits and wastes editor resources on discussions like this one here. This article has been bleeding editors for months, and you may soon end up being talk page mayor of a ghost town there. SPECIFICO talk 00:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Of course everybody's leaving, since they were only there for political reasons and there is no longer any President Trump to prop up or bring down. Whether it was to push their POV or prevent "the other side" from pushing their POV, those are two sides of the same coin and neither is good Wikipedia editing. Before that, going back to 2016, some editors left because they didn't like the extra rules standing between them and their preferred content. Some editors prefer an environment where they are more likely to get their way through aggressiveness and intimidation, fully exploiting the lax enforcement of behavior policy, and Donald Trump has not been such an environment. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Disappointing to see this attitude. I've not forced anyone to engage in any discussions, here or anywhere. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
As I said on the Trump talk page, you have often edited against recent explicit consensus, wasting all the time and attention it takes to undo the damage. You often IDHT, making things worse, like the past day or so. SPECIFICO talk 23:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
That's an assertion you made a few days ago, but I responded to you there that it's not true. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
As I just said, IDHT is not a response. Reread what I said, or don't. Your choice. SPECIFICO talk 23:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Slow as Christmas!!

🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻 Atsme 💬 📧 04:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock request from Kolya Butternut regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —valereee (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Kolya Butternut (talk · contribs) and SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this AN discussion.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, this sanction replaces the one-way interaction ban which is currently in place. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Hey, regarding this edit, if you self-revert, I will reinstate the part about Rudy Giuliani. I don't mind that at all. As for the edit summary, it was >90% about citations so I didn't want to confuse anybody on that. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi thanks for that. Can't you just redo the cite trims?
It would be a lot quicker and easier to restore the few words. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
OK. SPECIFICO talk 03:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Done. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
😘 SPECIFICO talk 03:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

WaPo paywall

Tech question: Do you have a paid subscription to WaPo, or do you know of a different easy way to access their content? I have a way to get to it, but it involves a Firefox "private window" and a WaPo sign-in for every access – an extremely cumbersome thing to do very often. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I am disappointed you would not realize by now that I have just shy of a dozen paid subscriptions to the top RS on politics. Also disappointed you would make such a fuss without even reading the cited source. You will find the subscription fee well worth the cost. Cheers, it is cocktail hour in the US. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Request to strike

Hi. I've asked you at ARCA to strike your evidence-free accusation of WP:OWN behavior. Surely you're aware that's both policy vio and ethically wrong? I know you'll do the right thing, but it's been on the page for seven hours already, and I'd appreciate it stricken without too much more delay. Thanks! ―Mandruss ☎ 01:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with this. There are a lot of such issues on DS articles. I've never seen Mandruss engaging in such. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, but even justified serious accusations require serious evidence per the policy. So I think your comment misses and obscures the essential point. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I said it was NOT justified. O3000, Ret. (talk)
I understand, and that's why I said thanks. But the accusation has to be stricken regardless of whether it was justified because it lacks evidence (let alone the "serious" evidence required by the policy). To discuss the merit is to suggest that it's ok to lodge justified serious accusations without serious evidence. I feel the principle of the thing is important to the project, and especially important in the context of that AE/ARCA situation. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it should be stricken. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Related: He said on his talk page that he's willing to learn from the experience of this AE complaint, and I think a page block of a month or so might help give him the breathing room to return refreshed and ready to collaborate. I did say that, and I did learn from the experience of the AE complaint. I learned that my second revert violated the rules, and that's all I meant in that UTP comment. I don't need a month (or so) away from Trump to absorb that learning, but thanks. Otherwise, all I learned was how it feels to be one of the targets of a lot of cynical nastiness at AE/ARCA. I expect to stay away from all articles for awhile, anyway, while I ponder whether I want to continue editing Wikipedia. Once I cut the cord, it will remain cut. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

q

Hey, Specifico. It looks like an article Kolya Butternut asked to be draftified and started working on, you also started working on immediately after. I'm wondering how you ended up there and what your reasoning was. —valereee (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Posted on Sandstein's talk page, which is on my watch list. I am active on Trump-related pages, so I had a look and did a few edits there on things that I thought needed work. But it is a post AfD draft as I understand it, and it doesn't appear to be improving from what I can tell. What's up? SPECIFICO talk 15:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, I don't want to accuse you of acting in bad faith, so forgive me, but what it kind of looked like to me was you going into a draft in a way that I'm having a hard time characterizing as anything but a series of edits that prevented KB from being able to effectively participate there. I'm sure that was unintentional, but it's kind of a concern. I'm not sure how they can try to improve it after your series of edits three weeks ago. They're at a massive disadvantage when editing with someone with whom they have a 1-way iban. —valereee (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Valereee. I don't think that's a sensible way to characterize those edits. Taking a quick look at my edits on that page: They weren't particularly significant or contentious relative to the problems at the draft. They were the sort of paring and cleanup one normally does -- and I often do -- at early-stage or neglected articles. We know the draft was in bad shape because it just got deleted. My edits there did not prevent or discourage KB from finding valid material that might bring that deleted draft up to KEEP standards. I suppose KB could not reinstate text I deleted, but even if I had been mistaken in those edits, they were not the reason the article didn't pass muster. I don't see anything contentious in the few edits of my participation there. Most of what KB appears to have done was cut and pasting text from other Trump articles, but without any context, sources, or narratives that would form the basis of a standalone article on its chosen topic.
I'm not very familiar with the policies and practices relating to block appeals. It's not clear to me why my name would come up in the recent threads relating to the one week block. Close to a dozen Admins and others have tried to tell KB to move on, and I really hope that will happen. I edit largely within American Politics these days and in some noticeboard, talk page and policy areas that relate to consensus, DS protocols, and other aspects of the editing process that have been matters of concern for many of the AP editors. To the extent that KB has worked in those areas, we have overlapped over the past year or so. When that's happened recently I have avoided interacting with KB or doing anything else that might appear unfair to KB. The stuff on that Trump draft was really inconsequential, and as I said previously the draft is not likely to see the light of day in anything near its current condition. It's king of a dead end, so I don't think it's going to see much activity from anyone. Once I realized that, I stopped working on it. SPECIFICO talk 21:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
All your edits appear to be removals of content, which KB cannot, per the limitations of their iban, question or revert. I am very uncomfortable with this just as a general situation. I think it would be best if when articles of clear interest to KB that you've shown no previous interest in come across your radar screen, you just leave them to others to deal with. Like I said, it's a massive disadvantage to KB, and that is really troubling to me.
On a tangential note, if you have decided to no longer work on the Trump article, are you willing to agree that KB can work there freely, and that anything they do that would undo something you've done is fine? The reason I ask is that it's very difficult for someone with a 1-way to be absolutely sure they're on the right side of the line, and a nod from you would be helpful. —valereee (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, I do not agree with you that anything I did limits KBs ability to edit and improve that article. For example, in the case of the cut-and-paste material I trimmed, this is ordinary course editing. KB adds content, it is reverted. Either KB generates consensus in favor of the disputed textg among a group of editors on talk, or KB mounts an RfC to resolve the question. In neither case is there an IBAN concern. I removed a small part of what KB added to the article. If that article is ever to see mainspace, it will be from additions of well-sourced content directly relevant to the article topic and organized in such a way as to describe and explain the topic. Nothing I have done or would do can stop KB from improving that article.
I appreciate your good faith efforts to address KBs concern, but at this point I don't think it's a good idea for editors to act as proxies for KB by airing or discussing a litany of grievances on various pages. SPECIFICO talk 23:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I reject your characterization of my interest here as proxying. —valereee (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, I tried to say that in a way that made it clear I was not questioning your good intentions. Please don't take that as an personal accusation or complaint. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Hard to take "I don't think it's a good idea for editors to act as proxies for KB by airing or discussing a litany of grievances on various pages" as anything else. Totally willing to listen to explanations, though. —valereee (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
First, if I intended to direct a personal criticism toward you, I would have said "you", not "editors". Second, I "proxies" was purely descriptive, not expressing any aspect of enablement, collusion, or other inappropriate purpose. I tend to speak rather bluntly, so believe me, if I had anything negative to say 'about you' I would not have been so indirect about it. :) SPECIFICO talk 02:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
So what you meant in a conversation with me by "I don't think it's a good idea for editors to act as proxies for KB by airing or discussing a litany of grievances on various pages" was...? —valereee (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
This edit... not exactly uncontroversial. You removed attribution from text that should – to avoid stepping into minefields of plagiarism – be quoted and attributed in-text or properly (not closely) paraphrased. I didn't notice it immediately, but looks like someone mangled the quote in Donald Trump bio before Kolya Butternut copied it to the draft article.
I know that your interaction ban now goes both ways. I don't want to stir the pot and I would like to refrain from commenting this further or making further edits to that specific draft article. Just please be more careful in the future. Thanks. Politrukki (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPECIFICO/Archive_18&oldid=1146005190"