User talk:SPECIFICO/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Arbitration enforcement notification

There is a discussion regarding your conduct at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SPECIFICO. Ergo Sum 04:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed with a warning to you that talk pages are for discussing article content, not contributors, and that continuing to make personal comments about other editors on article talk pages may result in sanctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi SPECIFICO, I just want to reiterate that I take no pleasure in bringing another editor to AE, and that I hope this can be a constructive experience for both of us, as well as other editors involved. As far as I am concerned, you and I now stand with a tabula rasa, and I hope that we can work together for mutual benefit in the future. Ergo Sum 14:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Why the revert?

Hi SPECIFICO. Just wondering why you reverted my addition to the Racial views of Donald Trump article as you didn't give any sort of reason. I added it as I thought it was necessary to provide an element of balance. Bloomberg should be a reliable enough source so not sure why you would have objected to the information I had added. Regards Birtig (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi it was mostly a copy edit of pre-existing awkward language. In addition, however, I thought that some of the language from the previous version did do a better job of conveying the sentiment of the Asian American community as to their offense at Trump's remarks. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) And that's a "Copyedit (minor)"? In my opinion that is not an edit summary that should ever be seen on a reversion. It greatly misrepresents the edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Stalker, the comment already said "undo edit by Birtig" - so the "copyedit minor" was in addition to that, because I changed a few words from the awkward previous version. Hard to see how that wouldn't properly summarize the edit. SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

But "undo edit by Birtig" is not a rationale for reversion. That's the point. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply though, for clarity, my edit had not removed any of the language that conveyed the sentiment of the Asian American community - it merely added an update that Trump had stated that he would not use the phase again and also tweeted his support for Asian Americans. I thought this addition was necessary - you thought otherwise. Regards Birtig (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Deep State in the United States RfC

You've objected to the form of an RfC as being not-neutral but you may be unaware that the form was suggested by an administrator as an objective alternative to one that I had posted earlier. As I said previously, I remain willing to compromise and look forward to your offering of an objective RfC candidate to move the process forward. If no alternatives are given in a reasonable amount of time, the administrator suggested RfC will be resubmitted. TMLutas (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello thanks for the note. Could you give me a link to the discussion in which this format was suggested? Thanks. I will have a look SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Rfc I created

Can you please alert me as to what specifically you have a problem with in the RfC. Is merely noting the position other editors have clearly made known problematic? The intention was to assist new editors in where we were currently at in the process.

Additionally, the alternative wording I provided was exactly verbatim what was proposed on the discussion page. Amorals (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I understand you may not have done this before, so my intention was just to pause it until it can be properly formatted. The RfC should be introduced with a completely neutral statement and then the language of the alternatives. You should not list what you think are the views other editors may express in the RfC. The RfC itself is the only record that will determine the outcome. You can see an example of a well-formed RfC here. There is guidance at WP:RfC. SPECIFICO talk 23:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks, I will take a look at this as an example and make the proper changes Amorals (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

RV Edits

May I ask why you rv my 2019-20 Conronavirus edits as NPOV edit when everything I done was factual with updated info? Bsubprime7 (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It changed the emphasis in a way that I thought was not consistent with the accounts in the cited sources. Changes of a few words or sentence structure can have the effect of obscuring rather than clearly conveying the narratives in our cited sources. But I see that another editor has restored 'your' version and Bob's your uncle. SPECIFICO talk 11:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Facepalm

Sometimes I can't even with some of these people, you know what I mean? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a real problem. I mean, normal people have lives off the internet and don't relish the prospect of filing evidence and making a case for some sort of orderly process. There are so many thougthful, editors with valid arguments, it's a shame to get stuck on distractions. Carry on! SPECIFICO talk 22:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

re: Please do not cherrypick Trump Administration spin from the primary White House record of the briefings.

A transcript isn't spin. It is just the record of what people said. Sailing californium (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

You need to cite secondary sources to show how they evaluated the significance of the part that's described in article text. My comment was not about the accuracy of the transcript. It was about cherrypicking and not providing secondary source context for it. Cherypicking is a very effective form of spin. I am not suggesting that was your intent, just that we need secondary RS. Please review WP:NPOV and err on the side of caution. SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

1RR?

I’m not sure if you are aware, but the Joe Biden assault allegation page is under a 1RR restriction. You reverted twice today that I can see, here and here. Am I understanding the restriction correctly that the second revert could be a violation? I don’t have any interest in seeing editors sanctioned, but just wanted to be sure you were aware. Thanks. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: These edits were on different days, so I can't see this being a problem. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey, I'm not sure that is correct. In my timezone both reverts were done on the 22nd. The restriction specifies "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article." The reverts were ~12 hours apart. I'm pinging MrX who I consider an expert on AP2 restrictions. Can you help clarify? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie, the second one was a BLP issue. But at any rate, it was quickly undone by somebody else, so your concern is moot. I'm sure MrX has better uses of his time. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a violation of 1RR because the reverts were less than 13 hours apart. There is an exemption for obvious vandalism and BLP violations (emphasis on obvious) but if you're going to claim the exemption you need to do it in the edit summary. See WP:BANEX. ~Awilley (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

In terms of the article content, by the time I noticed it, which was before Ernie's visit, it had already been reverted. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this. I was digging up another tree stump and chatting with my lawn guy. - MrX 🖋 20:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I hope you had a permit!

And a mask. SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I'm all set.

- MrX 🖋 23:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Two cents

Hi SPECIFICO, I hope you're doing well despite the global circumstances! I wanted to try and offer some advice given your ongoing conflict with Kolya. I think it's obvious that the path we're on isn't a good one. I don't like solving problems with unilateral sanctions, and I believe it's better for the project in the long run if people figure out how to work together instead of placing sanctions for what are normal human reactions to stress. So I'm offering this advice in that spirit and hope you take it in stride. I think you and the project would benefit if you laid off of Kolya or even the Joe Biden topic area for a few days. These are stressful times, and that page is a stressful editing environment; I think taking some time to edit other areas of the encyclopedia would be good for the project (we get more eyes on lesser watched pages) and you (don't have to deal with people you don't like). I'd seen you're interested in economics, and I had found Trillion-dollar coin which is not only really interesting, but also has renewed readership interest in the last few months. I think your expertise could really improve the article, and it would give you some time to build up the encyclopedia without having to worry about interpersonal conflicts. I'd even be willing to help you if that sweetens the deal! Give the idea some thought and get back to me. In an ideal world, we can make the editing environment better without sanctions, but community patience is wearing thin (as is mine, to be honest), and sanctions are the likely next step if the editing environment at Joe Biden doesn't improve. I hope that we don't have to get to that point. Stay well and thanks for your contributions! — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, for raising the TPG issue. I had moved the comment(s) to the proper place, but Mark appears to have undone it so that his comment (written much later) is above it again. I’m not going to go to the effort to redo it or ask him to do so. Or make an issue out of it. I’ve learned that when Mark wants something a certain way, he’s intractable. He’ll typically only hold back if an admin says something. Regardless, thank you for looking out. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Ha. One day they'll come out with a retractable model. He's a nice guy, just perseverent. SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's a barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Just wanted to thank you for the incredible work you do throughout Wikipedia. Having encountered you on many articles, I am particularly impressed with your tireless efforts in challenging the addition of problematic, policy-violating content. Looking forward to learning from you and collaborating in the future! RedHotPear (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I will keep it with my many other barnstars that I am too modest to display here. I see you doing good work in many subject areas. You seem to have a very good command of the available sources and NPOV content writing. SPECIFICO talk 01:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me what just happened?

Dear SPECIFCO, Sorry to bother you, but I have a serious question. I don't know what just happened with the talk discussion topic "Requested move 29 April 2020" regarding Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation. That section is now a green box. I am totally confused. Can you please explain it me? Thank you. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Hello BRM. I am pleased to say that I have no idea how page moves work, and I was away from my desk for a while. The green means that somebody closed the discussion. It will bbe moved eventually, but there will be lots of kicking and screaming first. SPECIFICO talk 20:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

There was a discussion at [1] resulting in move protection. I assume they mean to continue the discussion in the previous section. O3000 (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh thanks. Such grim pursuit of something so elusive. Reminds me of

BLESZYNSKI

lepidopterists.

But this happens on lots of articles. Eventually a central narrative stands out and the other stuff simmers down. I think it's in better shape now than before the NY Times and WaPo reports. We're over a month into it, and there's remarkably little to go on relative to all the WP excitement. SPECIFICO talk 21:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Betsy. I can't imagine more of a baptism of fire than this one. Just ignore the reminders that you are a WP:SPA - that tag is sometimes useful but IMO it is insulting to use it in your case. We all have to start somewhere. You sure are doing a lot better than I did in my first edits - though all things considered I did not do too bad either. You have a remarkable intellect and I hope you stick around. Gandydancer (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Gandydancer Thank you for that nice welcome! But, don't be too impressed, I still can't figure out how to upload pictures and I got stuck in the virtual sandbox, in fact, I might still be in it, but I'm too scared to check! Yikes! BetsyRMadison (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)betsymadison

Can you clarify?

Hi SPECIFICO. Regarding the discussion at Talk:Joe Biden#Section header do you support the section heading "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault" or the previous version "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact"? - MrX 🖋 16:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"Advise"

Hi. There's been plenty wrong with your behaviour recently around Joe Biden articles, yet you don't see me sending you messages lecturing you on trivial stuff. BeŻet (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't trivial to misquote a fellow editor with what would have been an absurd misstatement of the revert restriction. Think about it. If each editor could do as many reverts as they saw fit each 24 hours and then a new cycle of as many as they wish begins, etc. -- that wouldn't be much of a restriction, would it? So it's unlikely that anybody would say such a thing. That's why I asked you to show a link to where he said it, becuase it sounded like maybe there was a misunderstanding or some other easily resolved glitch. Anyway, thanks for your visit. Come back any time! SPECIFICO talk 23:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Revert question

Yesterday I edited/corrected the "police" info in the Tara Reade article at timestamp 19:10. In my edit, I took out the erroneous NPR report and put in the factual NYT report. Sometime later, my edited version was deleted & the NPR passage was put back in. So, is that a "revert" assigned to me? If yes, then will I have to wait until 19:11 today to correct that section & put the NYT report back in? Personally, I think the whole police report thing is a big nothing and should be deleted entirely, but, since some wpeditors want to keep in, it needs to have the accurate NYT report & not NPR. I don't want to break any WP "revert" guidelines and that's why I'm asking you before I made any edits. Thanks BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. So it appears that your edit was reversed here. You might contact that editor and discuss whether that was intended to reject your view about the proper sourcing. If not, she may just be willing to self-revert. If she was disagreeing with your edit, then yes both of the page restrictions would apply. I agree with you the police report was an example of why we have WP:NOTNEWS. Lots of chatter, but turns out not to matter. And even if in some universe it would be considered significant, the conflicting sources mean we would use only the facts that are widely verified, not everything that's been asserted by the most expansive account. I think you are right to be very cautious about the reverts. There is no agreement among Admins as to the meaning of the restrictions and it's best to stay far away from them. Keep up the good work! SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks SPECIFICO. I'll take your advise & contact the other editor. To me, the whole police report thing is a stunt that backfired ... a big eye-roll. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think it belongs in neither article at this point. Unfortunately, it seems to be coming up again at the Biden article. In the arc of the man's career and the scope of his activities and accomplishments (like them or not) I can't imagine how this could be considered notewothy. If there's a Tara Reade biography article, maybe it would go in that one in the context of further information about how she is handling the publicity she's been receiving. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

Specifico, you restored text[2] you had boldly added[3] after I reverted it.[4] Please self-revert and discuss on the talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Secondary source provided. SPECIFICO talk 13:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not ask you to provide a source; I asked you to revert text which you added against consensus. Pinging Admin @Wugapodes:. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I did remove the text, per your request, here. Nobody else had objected to it, but you were correct that it would be better with a secondary source, so I replaced it with different secondary sourced text. SPECIFICO talk 13:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting me or I'll have to take this to a noticeboard.  My opposition to this edit made no mention of sourcing.  Days ago discussions about using a secondary source for The Times in general is obviously unrelated to this text you are edit-warring in.  Please self-revert and do not add alternate versions.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I had not recalled my edit that you pointed out, because it was uncontroversial. But when I saw your note and realized that my edit this morning included that text within the larger edit I made this morning, I self-reverted per your request. I don't know what else I can say. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

You can acknowledge that I am asking you to stop adding text about The Times investigation, which you added here.[5] Please self-revert and do not add similar information back. You are edit-warring. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that's valid text. The Times investigation is not UNDUE - it's the most widely cited new information in RS coverage of the matter. I thought your concern was that I didn't have a source that characterized the Times investigation as "extensive" so I found a secondary source that give its own description of the Times investigation. I hadn't realized that bit was in the midst of the several edits of yours that I reverted this morning. Nobody else reverted or commented on my initial addition of that Times bit. It was not a controversial edit. It just gave context to the following longstanding text that stated what the Times found. I hope that clarifies what I was trying to do. I was not aware that I had re-added my own text among the edits I reverted - my mistake! - so I immediately self-reverted per your request when you came here.   SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion that it is a good and uncontroversial edit does not entitle you to restore the edit without discussion.  If you do not revert this I can only conclude you are CIVILPOVPUSHING and this will have to go to a notice board. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"CIVILPOVPUSHING", what ever is this? Is it this: Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing? This sounds very serious... Gandydancer (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you going to remove the text or not?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand why you think I should remove it. I made a mistake, you pointed it out, I corrected myself. If you're asking me to remove a subsequent edit of similar material, I see no reason to do so. It's uncontroversial among editors, apparently. It's in many secondary sources about the Times investigation, and it's directly related and due weight context for the mention of the Times' statements. As you've seen, I'm glad to correct any error I may have made. But in the absence of such, please don't demand I revert an innocuous edit. SPECIFICO talk 20:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not point out a mistake, stop mistepresenting me.  I reverted your edit because it was controversial to me.  I do not agree with giving more space in the text related to that quote.  Reinserting similar text is a 1RR violation.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: 24-hr BRD cycle: If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit). Note the active arbitration remedy.[6] Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO that’s an obvious violation of the restriction. I don’t know how else to characterize it. There’s nothing in the warning that says you need to add better sourcing then you can reinsert. We’ve had long discussions on what constitutes reverts but this falls squarely into the definition. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Ernie it was not the same thing reinserted. SPECIFICO talk 21:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense -- especially where there is an explicit page sanction referencing BRD -- for the first editor not to use the talk page to ensure that the problem is solved by whatever new version. ... In terms of the American Politics articles, the result is that most of us are guided by the strictest interpretation to avoid any possible violation ... I'm not aware of any such violations. If you ever see any, please do come show them to me so I can undo them ... Generally, 1RR violations are inadvertent and the offending editor immediatly self-removes the violation when reminded on their user talk page ... I don't recall having seen an editor plead for immunity on the grounds that his judgment overrules the most liberal interpretation of 1RR. Those arguments never prevail.

Guess who wrote that. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe I've already stated it was a mistake, and as is the practice on these articles KB pointed it out on my talk page and I immediately self-reverted when it was pointed out to me. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

KB, bless their heart, didn't include all the relevant diffs above, but they're right: you're doing literally the same thing that KB got partial-blocked for a week over, and that you argued justified a TBAN on Bradv's talk page (where you wrote all that stuff I quoted). In Special:Diff/955772478 you added content, KB removed it as UNDUE at Special:Diff/955895855, and then you re-inserted it less than 24 hrs later at Special:Diff/955910074. BTW I agree with KB that it's UNDUE. But that's not the point. The point is you've violated BRD and 1RR and should self-revert, rather than arguing things like please don't demand I revert an innocuous edit, because I don't recall having seen an editor plead for immunity on the grounds that his judgment overrules the most liberal interpretation of 1RR. Those arguments never prevail. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, I did self-revert. SPECIFICO talk 21:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

No, you did not self-revert, Special:Diff/955910074 is still the latest revision on Joe Biden. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it goes like this: bold:Special:Diff/955772478, revert:Special:Diff/955895855, restore:Special:Diff/955900473, self revert:Special:Diff/955909770, restore:Special:Diff/955910074. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie emailed me asking to take a look at this. I do think that this is a violation of the BRD restriction, as you restored a contested edit within 24 hours. You need to get consensus for this change on the talk page AND wait 24 hours before restoring it. – bradv🍁 23:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Bradv, so, why won't you partially block? The page is under discretionary sanctions and that seems to be exactly what KB did and got blocked for, plus SPECIFICO is a big proponent of the rules as you can see up above. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Well I guess we are done here. Just funny seeing no action when you said a few days ago "these restrictions need to be applied uniformly, or they simply won't work" and Muboshgu said "I agree that I don't want to see discretionary sanctions enforced selectively. I think that, to maintain regular order at Joe Biden pages, we need to see them enforced across the board under all circumstances." Given those comments the block of Kolya seems much more unfair. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, yeah we need WP:UNINVOLVED admins. How many days until November 3? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

bradv, What SPECIFICO did was revert a "series of edits". that totally ignored an ongoing talk page discussion which the editor who made the change was aware of. Even worse, the editor disregarded the consensus of a number of experienced editors and administrators in this "BLPN". discussion that there was no BLP violation with the text that was in the article. If you feel that a block is necessary, please read the BLPN before deciding if or how long a block is appropriate. I realize the discussion is long but it will give you a good idea of what is going on. Regards, CBS527^Talk 08:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

My bold edits have nothing to do with this. Have you seen the diffs? This talk page section itself has repeatedly informed Specifico that his edit was reverted (separately at the start of my edits), and he has refused to self-revert. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

And there are many ongoing talk page discussions. My bold edit was an attempt at a modest compromise; I did not at all "disregard" the views of others just because I did not agree with everything. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I think what is interesting is that SPECIFICO hasn't edited since bradv asked for an explanation. Maybe by the time SPECIFICO edits again, anything will be stale, so then of course no block will be given out. Of course, I don't think an egregious example such as what we have here, plus SPECIFICO's own quote on this page demands that we wait for an explanation, plus "these restrictions need to be applied uniformly, or they simply won't work" so I really don't understand why there is no block in this case. The optics just don't make sense to me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, all he has to do is wait for someone else to "reset" the Reade text.[7] I don't understand why there is no block either, but it is consistent with everything else I have seen in Wikipedia. I assume Specifico must have social capital here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It cannot be argued that the difference here is that he has not "declined to self-revert"[8] It is irrelevant that Specifico has not commented specifically to Bradv, his comments to me show dishonesty and bad faith, and his suspicious break from editing shows he has declined to self-revert. Remember, I was blocked only an hour after Bradv asked me to revert.[9] Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, so go to AE. I'd show how SPECIFICO is online all the time and this is perhaps a ploy to not get blocked. I'd bring his quote above and bradv's plea to have editor's be treated equally. Then if/when they refuse to do something, there will be a log of action/inaction which some editor keeps track of AE/AN actions which makes for interesting analysis. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Editors are free to go on break or take pauses, and it’s not even been a day since their last edit. I wouldn’t focus on that, but I agree AE is the only logical place for this discussion, at this point. Although I bet somehow we’d earn a boomerang for that. The clear message is some editors are clear to ignore the sanction, but for some reason I can’t figure out what that reason is. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

House POV obviously. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey as long as the right people keep cashing my checks I seem to do alright most of the time. PackMecEng (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure somehow I'd get boomeranged for not "drinking the Kool-Aid"[10] at the Joe Biden BLPN discussion. It feels like people with power resist challenges by the riffraff for no other reason than fear of being challenged. I don't understand what's happening? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd say you understand it, KB, you just don't like it. Neither do I. But it's explained by the volunteer nature of the project. Admins have the power but not the obligation to enforce policies. No one can force or demand that an admin sanction anybody. So what's going to motivate an admin to place a sanction? Well, first, requests and demands for sanctions will probably have the opposite effect; an admin will be less likely to fulfill such requests/demands because no admin wants to be seen as fulfilling requests/demands for sanctions. Second, an admin is more likely to volunteer their time and impose a sanction if they disagree with the edit at issue. If they think the edit improves the encyclopedia even though it violates some rule, they are going to be far less motivated to volunteer their free time to impede what they view as an improvement to the encyclopedia. Because this sort of project is going to attract volunteers who "lean left" (the same way academia leans left and for the same reasons), "left leaning" edits are more likely to be seen as improvements by volunteers and thus less likely to be sanctioned. This is how "house POV" is born: volunteers are more likely to ignore violations they agree with, and do something about violations they disagree with, and a free encyclopedia is going to attract left-leaning volunteers, so the encyclopedia will lean left. And thus, a 1RR violation that says the NYT investigation was "in-depth" is more likely to be ignored than a 1RR violation that says the allegations are "corroborated". It's harder to swim upstream, and that's not going to ever change. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It's never going to be easier to swim upstream, but we don't know that we can't change the stream's direction. I don't know what the solution is, but sanctioning individual editors won't make a difference. Maybe administrators need more accountability. I don't know if they can have their administrative functions topic-banned, but it seems like a good idea. Ideally Wikipedia would be structured in such a way as to encourage intrinsic motivation towards good behavior, rather than fear of external punishment. It all seems so silly that this story would even motivate people politically at this point. It's in the news; it's just wrong to misrepresent it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Admins only like advice for who to block if it comes from other admins?[11] Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Bradv, any action on this? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned from editing material related to sexual misconduct allegations against Joe Biden for 1 week (until 20 May 2020).

You have been sanctioned for violation of the 1RR and enforced BRD sanctions at Joe Biden with this insertion, this reinsertion (after revert), and this reinsertion (after self reverting the previous violation).

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/American politics 2#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. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I haven't followed this particular discussion. But, a general comment. We are part of a world where a significant part of the population has a problem with logic, reasoning, science, facts in general, and chooses to rely on whatever sources comfort them. Some of these also do not understand that their feelings, based on childhood teachings of superiority and enfranchisement, are challenged; and they don’t understand why they aren’t happy. This new world also has so many avenues for those that would prey on such. Nothing new in this predilection. It is based upon evolution; which cannot catch up with the changing times and the overload of input – seriously faulty input. Therein lies the problem – the ability for manipulative actors, whether true believers (those unable to separate the wheat from the chaff) or simply amoral folk. It’s difficult; but you have to realize that reality is real. So, do your best to withdraw when the goofiness reaches a level where it’s just plain maddening to deal with the lack of objectivity. At some point in any discussion, if you can’t convince, step back for a time. Others will take your place. Now, if I could only follow this advice myself. O3000 (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Mmmmm entrenched battleground behaviour. Cjhard (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Clearly quite the opposite. O3000 (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Devin Nunes

I have been away for months, but I just wanted to post a quick follow-up to these archived discussions:

• User talk:El C/generic sub-page15#Devin Nunes
• User talk:SPECIFICO/Archive 16#RE: Devin Nunes

@El C: I tend to mostly agree with everything you wrote in those discussions. To clarify some things though, just for the record, you said "I can see where issues of reliability might arise if their own source is Breitbart", but "their own source" was Fox News; the web article published by Fox News cited Nunes's blanket denial to Fox News: "So none of this is true..." This appears to be moot now, but I believe that "Nunes denies the allegation" could be considered a reasonable paraphrase of that statement. Even if that were not the case, an editor disagreeing with that could have used an exact quote, an obvious case of PRESERVE for I have never seen a case where a reliably sourced brief denial is considered undue. I had no idea Specifico's objection was somehow related to Breitbart. Moreover, the denial was only a part of Specifico's revert.

You also said "there wasn't a technical violation, which is why the editor reached out, I presume". That is correct, but the whole story is that I wanted to hear your opinion on how 3RR should be interpreted as (a) one administrator (in unrelated case) took it as a mitigating factor that the second revert was just inside the 24-hour slot and (b) I have been told by the admin corpse – few years ago – that "whether involving the same or different material" literally means that reverts have to be for "the same material". My memory may fail me, but when I contacted you, I also vaguely remembered that you, maybe in 2017, defended the view that reverts do not necessarily have to be for the same material. Cheers, Politrukki (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Specifico,

1. Please stop (mis)gendering me.
2. I find your explanation contradictory. On one hand you are saying that you were not edit-warring and on the other hand you are saying I should have warned you of not edit-warring. Considering the timeline, I do not even understand how it would make sense to ask you to self-revert; the timestamps of your reverts were "22:30, 23 November 2019" and "23:07, 24 November 2019". I posted my question to El C's talk page more than 24 hours after the latter revert. And by the way, one of the reasons I specifically consulted El C was because I knew they would let you explain or correct your actions.
3. Please stop casting aspersions, e.g. "consider the messenger, who appears somewhat prone to adverserial and ill-founded accusation rather than simple dialogue with other editors". If you have any specific examples, perhaps I can address them.
4. You wrote, on 22 November, that "Consensus required" is widely followed by experienced editors on all articles, regardless of any DS page restriction.[12] Is there a reason why you do not hold yourself to same standards as others?

Cheers, Politrukki (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Since I was pinged: I view this matter as Stale. I don't think it makes sense to continue a dispute from months ago where it was left off. If one takes a break for months, one can be seen to forfeit their position in a given dispute. I suggest you move on from this, Politrukki. El_C 17:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hoping all is well with you

Hi SPECIFICO - I enjoy reading your thoughtful comments on here & have missed seeing them. I hope all is well with you. ~Sincerely BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. Nice to see you back immediately reverting an edit of mine without joining the ongoing discussion on the talk page, seemingly against the point of WP:ONUS which you bring up so frequently. Do these policies only apply when they support things you think should be included? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

For the record

I meant everything that I said about you being a fantastic editor far more magnanimous to me than I deserve, but I had to get a few things off my chest regarding another editor's contributions here, and I hope that you do not see that and think that I cannot be trusted. While I genuinely believe that my analysis is correct, for my own well-being I think I will stop watching that page. The next time that I dip my toes into the AP2 waters, if I do so (and I am not precluded from doing so although I do not want things to end in disaster again), I think it's quite possible that you and I will be on the same side. You don't have to believe me—I probably wouldn't if I were you—but maybe you'll be pleasantly surprised. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you'll find Valjean ready to collaborate and consider whatever you have to say. As for your aversion to the American Politics area, that should just give you confidence that you are older and wiser and that you are moderating your engagement while still offering suggestions you feel are important. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding, SPECIFICO. Yes, Valjean has been more accommodating than I expected—and you're practically a Wikipedia saint!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"Restore listed consensus"

In which SPECIFICO meets a sockmaster

Hello, have you even read the consensus, before making that comment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump (#30). I didnt touch any of that info, just added something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urgal (talk • contribs) 09:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello to you too. Changing the text of the sentence and the meaning of the sentence violates the consensus provided in the talk page list. Violating it by making an addition to the sentence is not an exemption. Unfortunately, there has been such extensive discussion of this that there are many archived talk page discussions that I ask you to review. However, it is just the extent and history of that talk page archive that led to the consensus being protected on that talk page list. You are welcome to start yet another talk page discussion, but in the past, there have been few successful proposals to establish a new consensus to revise items on the list. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Pulido

I'm not sure if you are able to read Pulido et al. which you edited here [13]. I'm able to read it and this is what I found [14]. starship.paint (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. I thought the article text was some kind of strange combination of misrepresenting the source, incomplete summary of the source's conclusions, and mistranslation of academic jargon and terms of art. Reading your article text, it makes sense to me and clarifies the reasonable and empirically valid conclusions of the source. You are indefatigable with your editing. Much appreciated. SPECIFICO talk 12:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for 'noted with a smile'

Hi. I hadn't checked that site before so thanks. Not sure you will have come across this page [15] which I assume you will find interesting. Regards Birtig (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Great close-up of Ivanka on the upper right. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 12:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary?

Hi there

I do not agree that my edit was misleading. I cut wording that was not needed for the full point to be made - remember that the quote was also there. Regards Birtig (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You entirely changed the emphasis and meaning of the article text and your edit summary sounded like a neutral copyedit. This is made more concerning in that it furthers the non-consensus narratives you've repeatedly stated on the article talk page. Please use the talk page before making such edits in the future, or better than that -- find new content you feel is noteworthy and deserving of inclusion. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)To be fair I found Specifico's edit summary to be misleading. What does Restoring lonstonvstanding text even mean?! PackMecEng (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a software glitch in my Windows XT system. Apologies. SPECIFICO talk 18:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Windows XT? Been a while since I have seen that around. How has it been for you? PackMecEng (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I hear folks like the newer versions, but pre-9/11 software is safe from the NSA and corporate spyware and hackers can't touch it. Problem is the DIN pin on my keyboard gets bent every now and then if i lean back in my chair. I think we all need to find new articles to edit. This Trump stuff is getting boring, right? SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Plenty boring for sure, but when one considers that some men and women went through hell and back in an attempt to make this planet a better place the irritation of the Trump articles does not seem like such a burden. Just the other day I gave up on trying again and again to settle on a long-lasting photo choice over at the Greta article. It seems that to the young'ns the January AfC is ancient history and there is every reason to post a newer (less than a year old) photo. But in the long run, who cares what photo we use for Greta? I doubt that she even cares. But that's not true with our Trump series of articles. You and a few others are the main Wikipedia history fact checkers and I am just again and again so grateful to be even a small part of the crew that work to record the history that we are going through. There are a lot of good editors here but you are one of the best. IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You are very kind. Your efforts and your thoughtful discussions of these difficult topics are most appreciated. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

TBANs

In regard to this edit, I don't know about AP2, but there's a definite AN/ANI problem, and it's likely I would support an action regarding editing there. I honestly thought a proposal in that area was the intention of Tony's thread last month, which instead just played out as an unfocused and unnecessary bitchfest and made me uncomfortable/reluctant to weigh in. That doesn't do the community any favors, and I wasn't interested in pursuing some sort of aimless griping about an editor; however, a more focused conversation about this argumentation style and these "analyses" which forces people to confront their veracity (or lack thereof) seems increasingly inevitable to me. For what it's worth, the "CNN can't be used to critique Fox" suggestion seems to be getting the reaction it merits. Grandpallama (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama, I find it challenging to believe that the admin community is unaware that — particularly related to AP2 topics — opening an ANI invites editors to pile-on with myriad unrelated matters to avenge long-held grievances typically rooted in partisanship, simply to rid Wikipedia of someone they just don’t like. Despite Levivich’s “comprehensive analysis” being comprehensively dismantled, some who exclusively cited his work to support a ban never acknowledged the subsequent dismantling, and may forever continue to believe it was decisive, and none of that would have happened if the discussion wasn’t allowed to descend into a feeding frenzy. If pinged, I would echo any effort to encourage admins to be more attentive to this phenomenon and to act swiftly to nip it in the bud to keep the discussion from going off the rails into irrelevancy and smears. soibangla (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The distribution of brilliance among Admins is roughly the same as among editors in general. ANI is highly visible, so there is usually enough input from the most insightful Admins to cut through the customary nonsense. In the end that's what happened in your case, despite the various detours along the way. SPECIFICO talk 18:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

David Corn

The information sourced is hardly insignificant or inadequately sourced.

This was not a small matter. There were two lengthy articles about Corn's alleged conduct in "Politico". "Politico" is a more than credible source. Corn's employer, Mother Jones publicly said that there were two officiial investigations of the matter. Corn himself admitted that he he had acted inappropriately, and vowed to change his behavior. The allegatons were further discussed in more than a half dozeen journalistic outlets. Please do not unilaterally revert this informmation from the article further until there is further discussion by the community. If you seek to delete it, a discussion should ensue in the broader community and if you continue to ignore the input of others, I will seek out an administrator for an appeal. If you are associated with the subject of the article, you should fully disclose this. It is noteworthy that you deleted any negative information whatsoever about Corn from the article, despite the fact that the original material appeared in publications such as Politico, Politifact, and the New York Observer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathradgenations (talk • contribs)

If you keep reinserting BLP violations that have been challenged, you are likely to be blocked from editing. Use the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 18:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The information that you removed was from Politico. That is considered an authoritative source by Wikipedia. The paragraphs you deleted were directly from the Politico article, including Corn himself admitting that his conduct was inappropriate and which included his apology. It is hard to understand how this is a smaear.

You are abusing your power by threatening to block another contributor to Wiikipedia, for which you yourself can be banned for editing.

Your threats to block are a violation of Wikipedia standards. Please familiarize yourself with them:

As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block; instead, consult other administrators for advice. After placing a potentially controversial block, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboard for peer review.

Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future. See Wikipedia:Do not bite the newcomers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathradgenations (talk • contribs)

I gave you a link to read about our WP:BLP policy. Did you look at it? You can go to the WP:TEAHOUSE to get help understanding and editing within Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please take your concerns there and a volunteer will help you. SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I indeed read the policy, thank you. Once again, Politico is a respected and authoritative source. The CEO and publisher of Mother Jones spoke for the record for the story, and said that Corn's actions were inappropriate. Corn did as well. His comments were included in my edit for reasons of fairness and completeness.

Reading though your edits, you appear to be editing ideologically, from a left point of view, which is fine. I am not someone with politics. The particular person whose conduct you attempted to whitewash did what he did. Politico reported it.

When someone acts inappropriately to women in the women in the workplace-- so much so that their boss admonishes them publicly, they admit bad conduct and promise to do better, and Politico reports it worthy of being included in his article and fully meets Wikipedia's standards.

What you have done here is ugly and bullying: Because he has the same politics as you you want to whitewash his biography to include his ugly misconduct towards the women who have worked for him; simply because you are a fan of his or he is on the same ideological side, you do not have the right to censor another editor because you wrongfully believe in their politics. Your politics mean nothing apparently, as long as it is women being harassed. I should point out that, after reading Wikipedia's standards, you can't simply revert anyone you want for whatever reason and then threaten to block them from editing further. That is the same type of bullying and misogyny you are trying to cover up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathradgenations (talk • contribs)

You're not even signing your talk page posts after being told about that numerous times. It takes some time and effort to contribute here. I took a quick look at some of your other contributions. If it's any consolation to you, I'd say you've also added inappropriate UNUDE BLP content to the Ben Domenech article and others as well as Corn's. I'd again suggest you visit the WP:TEAHOUSE to learn the ropes. I'm not a good resource for you because I'm done responding to you. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Signing talk page posts is a relatively small thing, which I am sure I will learn. From reading comments to you by numerous others in the Wikipedia community, you apparently have a reputation for strong arming and bullying other people. See above comment from another user, during which someone politely asks of you: "Please stop (mis)gendering me," and you answer them by ignoring their civil request. Please do not misgender people: it is cruel if done on purpose and ignorant if done by accident, and morally wrong when it is pointed out to you and you continue to do so. That being your attitude, it is perhaps no surprise that you revert or delete information about sexual harassment (from a credible source such as Politico) simply because the accused have the same political ideology you do. Sexual harassment by anyoen is wrong, as well as misgendering anyone.

All of your posts and work appears to be done for political and ideological reason, not for pursuit of contributing to the community or the debate. I am sure you have you feel you like you have very little power in your regular life, so this is a good outlet for you, where you can misgender people, protect sexual harassers, do so remaining anonymously, and feel powerful in some small way in your life. I've looked at a variety of talk pages. Apparently at any given time,you are at wer, arguing with, or harassing too many people to count. It is bizarre that someone would spend so many hundreds of hours denigrating others, but it is damn scary to us normal people. Congrats for harassing normal people off Wikipedia. Have a good time with the next victim, but I'm not playing anymore. As for the David Corn page, you can revert all you like, but the third highest ranking Google result is and will continue to be the article alleging sexual harassment. Perhaps you can intimidate Google to let you make decisions for them too.

Archive Donald Trump talk

Why did you archive the section on Republican bias on the Donald Trump talk page? The post wasn't up that long, and it seemed rather premature. Prcc27 (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It was SOAPBOX and it was answered, I believe. Do you think it was constructive? SPECIFICO talk 22:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

No, but I was gonna chime in too, before it was archived. And archiving it so soon means that the user might not have had enough time to see the response. Prcc27 (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why anyone would chime in on a NOTFORUM post. Only exception I can think of is to explain to the editor why it was inappropriate, and that is better done on the editor's talk page. Am I missing something? This kind of post is often replied to, generating a long distraction that does not support article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 16:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Re:"Christian Democrat"

Dear User:SPECIFICO, thank you for your messages on my talk page. Regardless of whether or not the term is frequently used in the United States, reliable sources and academics do, such as this one. Nevertheless, I'm not going to engage in an edit war with you over this. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It is UNDUE for this article. That is not a strong source for a term that is not generally used in American Politics. I'm glad you accept this. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)