User talk:SPECIFICO

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

WP:ANI Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

GA reassessment for Murray Rothbard article

Murray Rothbard, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:TPNO violation by User:SPECIFICO

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Austrian economics". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 22 December 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

gun control rfc

As you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic, I am notifying you of a new RFC on this topic. Talk:Gun_control#Authoritarianism_and_gun_control_RFCGaijin42 (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your use of German and Russian in Gun Control

Your use of the German and Russian language in the gun control article in reference to the Jewish and Russian Holocausts could be misconstrued as insensitive or a hate speech, especially since this is the English language Wikipedia. Please consider changing them to English so that we can keep Wikipedia devoid of such insensitivities. I'm still considering whether to report you for hate speeches and harassment. -Justanonymous (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Sentences were not posted. Single words which are typically understood by literate people. Insensitivity, harassment, hate speech? Nope. – S. Rich (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, I also disagree - while I certainly disagree with specifico's argument, I took his bilingual !vote as a bit of humor. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, In good faith, I will take it as a bit of humor then. Cheers all. Sorry Specifico, just covering all the bases-Justanonymous (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Dziękuję SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

apology

I have come to understand that I may be using a wider definition of holocaust than others generally do. If you interpreted my comment as implying that you were denying the final solution or any of the more widely recognized portions of the holocaust or nazi actions, that was not my intention, and I apologize for speaking in a way that could imply that. In truth my original comment (months ago) was aimed more at steeltrap who was attempting to redefine gun control to mean "only gun control implemented by democratic governments and applied in a non-discriminatory manner", and you may have gotten hit by wide aim. For that I apologize as well. We are not likely to agree on much politically I think, but I do hope to be able to work better with you in perhaps a friendly (or at least cold war) rivalry. I think that during my brief ban there have been some very positive suggestions on the GC talk page that might satisfy (or at least minimize dissatisfaction) on both sides of the argument, and I hope that we can collaborate on improving the article in a way that includes all POVs neutrally and appropriately. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well in that case, I deserve a apology too. I'll be waiting for one on my talk page, Mister! Steeletrap (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, I hope you finally get why I'm right. Gun control is about opposing (to some extent) gun rights in and of themselves; Nazism was about depriving Jews of all rights (and responsibilities) of citizenships. Insinuating that the Nazis were 'anti-gun' or 'pro-gun control' because they wanted to apply gun control (and all other) laws differently to one group of people is as misleading and muddle-headed as saying that Orthodox Jews are 'anti-carnivore' or 'pro-vegetarian' because they preach against eating pork. Steeletrap (talk) 07:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Ho, ho, doh! (WP:Competence)

Seasons greetings, SPECIFICO. I encourage you to continue the discussion on WP:Competence regarding intelligence. The dull-eyed 'elephant(s) in the room' can no longer be ignored, especially as they haphazardly stampede throughout WP. Steeletrap (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately it is Catch-22 because competence is required to recognize incompetence. Aside from the issues of personality pathology which are evident on the Austrian and recent AfD discussions, the inability of editors to form reasoned judgments and statements about abstract ideas may simply be insurmountable. There's a strange sense of entitlement, as if "everyman" who stumbles on these articles is equipped to edit them as effectively as the next. It is Hoppe's "democracy the god that failed" in action. Life is not a democracy. Some editors are better equipped than others to deal with particular articles or kinds of content. The real problem however is the aggressive behavior with which some editors deny the problem. No essay will change that. It's up to the community to deal with disruptive behavior and personal attacks which prevent improvement of WP articles. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, my 'dull eyed elephants' remark was a metaphor that did not refer to any particular editors. But nonetheless, the AfD articles, particularly Sharon Presley, provide good examples of the consequences of aggressive yet ignorant editing. It also appears that some editors assume that long posts with lots of citations, page numbers, and italics marks (often copy and pasted without attribution from C.Vs) constitute strong evidence. They don't bother using whatever analytical skills they may have to determine the relevance of that paragraph to notability. Editing requires logical and analytical skills, but from reading the AfDs, you wouldn't know it involved anything other than knowing how to Google and use the "copy and paste" feature of the keyboard. Steeletrap (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why the "Keep" editors have added nothing to the article. I've read all the sources. She's as plain as a popsickle. She's just an all American ordinary person whose name happens to have been remembered by some of the wild and crazy guys from the sixties. Go to any bar in Berkeley and you'll find half a dozen relics of that era, now happily living ordinary lives in their million-dollar bungalows overlooking the Bay. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Covenant Community - This is really what's needed. WP needs to exclude those who lack the competence or disdain the commitment to edit constructively. If an egalitarian wave of political correctness and kindness to animals overwhelms the editing process here, WP is doomed. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

As usual, you're both completely wrong. WP is already a covenant community of the sort HHH would embrace. That's precisely why its focused on excluding unwanted views (and those who bear them). MilesMoney (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Bugger off my talk page MilesMoney. You are banned from my talk page until 26 December 04:00 hours UTC. Thus I say. SPECIFICO talk 22:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It's true that WP is a covenant community, but the covenant currently is 'egalitarian' and 'politically correct' insofar as it does not exclude incompetents. Herr Hoppe would not stand for this. Steeletrap (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly right. In fact, the section of 4H's WP article on covenant communities should be read by every Wikipedian and applied to the our own activities here. SPECIFICO talk 23:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for the "thank you". The rampant bias on this site veiled by misguided use of "policy" is astounding. Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree. That editor in particular has long aroused misgivings among other editors who feel that he is quick to cite acronyms and wikilinks to various policies but refuses to explain under what theory the cited policies support his personal opinions. SPECIFICO talk 19:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Heh, keep reading, now its laughable... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, unbelievable... Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Talk:List_of_Asian_pornographic_actors --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Like I said on my talk page, neither Rich nor Wolf are good communicators or cooperative editors. It would be great if either or both could explain their objection and maybe even point to relevant policy, but it may be too much to expect, given prior performance. MilesMoney (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

arbcom

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Gun Control and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Hi. Why list my name there? I've not edited the article for 6 months and I've made about 6 talk page edits over the past 6 months since I stopped editing. Please remove my name from the list. Calling me "core" is simply incorrect. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I was attempting to make sure I included the correct opposition. I will attempt to remove your name, but I don't know what the policy is on that. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you all get this under control so you can turn your energies to other pursuits. SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It is quite a misrepresentation to say "about 6 talk page edits in the past 6 months" when five talk page edits can be observed in the month of December. Five in December shows an active editor, active in the last month. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey there Mr. Bink. Do you think those talk page edits will be controversial? You think that Arbcom will want to scrutinize those 6 edits. I returned there 6 months after leaving the article because Mr. Gaijin kindly invited me to an RfC that had been posted. Binksternet, your message is guite a misrepresentation, in my opinion. Happy New Year to you and Mrs. Bink and the Binklets. :) SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you think I should unstrike their addition to the case, or just let the clerks/coms deal with if he should be involved or not? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Let the clerks deal with it but if you see no removal of the striking then email them with a query. Being named in Arbcom proceedings is not really optional, as Mediation is. Of course, the named person may choose not to say anything. There is a tendency among a small group of people, of which Specifico is a member, to try to force a shut down of drama board threads. - Sitush (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there Sitush, and welcome back to my talk page. I'm not knowledgeable about Arbcom, but I suspect you may be more worldly than I in such affairs. I took a quick look at the contributor counts for the article and talk histories for Gun Control. In general, would those editors whose participation has been more frequent or more recent than mine also be listed at an Arbcom or, if that's not the case, what criteria are generally applied to select the participants in such proceedings? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You definitely do not belong in that ArbCom case. As for deciding "participants" - sometimes even Tarot cards won't help in predicting ArbCom <g>. Collect (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I'm so sorry that Sitush and the Bink might be disappointed. I really have nothing to contribute to the process, else I would have stayed there just to offer my views. Thanks, Collect. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Austrian economics, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Reply

Hi Specifico, I got the notification on my phone for this edit, but wasn't able to give a proper response until now, which I believe the comment deserves. I suppose "badgering" might have been a bit harsh, and not quite the right word, for which I apologize. As for Ad-hominem, that would be an interesting discussion. On Graham's hiearchy I would have placed it somewhere between "attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument" (ad-hominem) and "states the opposing case with little or no evidence" (contradiction). I realize that probably wasn't the intention, and probably made the mistake myself of "responding to tone" because of the terseness of your post and my reaction to the pot calling the kettle "involved" and all that. And judging by the comments following mine, I'm apparently not the only one who made that mistake, if a mistake it was. I understand the bit about "due process" and I have the same sentiments myself, which is why I chose to comment in the first place. In my opinion, and this is just personal preference, "due process" would involve people coming to the noticeboard, stating their involvement - if any, and dispassionately stating their case, much the way Medeis did (though with a tad more evidence). It's totally fine, IMO, for "involved" editors to comment, as long as they state their involvement, which I believe Medeis did. Actually, I think a !vote from you would have been quite helpful if it had said something along the lines of "I consider myself involved, and have been on Miles's side of disputes many times...I believe he's improving because blah blah blah [diff] [diff] [diff] and he apologized for xyz here [diff] and hasn't done pdq in 2 months blah blah blah. I also believe that User:A, User:B, User:C, who have commented here, are involved and that the closing admin should weigh that in their decision." That, in my opinion, is more helpful, and more due process, than the threaded back-and-forth that seemed to be going on (not that you were the only guilty party, there, but you did seem most active when I read the section). Anyway, I've probably said too much...sorry for the tldr ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Please be aware of possible Wikihounding

Per Wikipedia:Harass#Wikihounding which doesn’t have template and recommends dispute resolution before WP:ANI, I am bringing this warning about my concerns here. In the last month you have left the following six inaccurate and/or questionable warnings on my talk page, each of which I have debunked and/or labeled harassment. The are all regarding libertarian or Austrian economics articles.

• User_talk:Carolmooredc/Archive_VIII#Canvassing, Dec 19, 2013
• User_talk:Carolmooredc/Archive_VIII#Warning_--_Presley_AfD, Dec 28 which includes
  • a separate Dec 30, 2013 warning regarding another article
• User_talk:Carolmooredc/Archive_VIII#EW_on_Rothbard EW on Rothbard, Dec 29, 2013
• User_talk:Carolmooredc/Archive_IX#Please_use_WP:BRD, Jan 10, 2014
• User_talk:Carolmooredc/Archive_IX#Warning_RE:_Murphy_talk, Jan 14, 2014

Remember that on June 23 I warned you about Wikihounding and after three more incidents in the following days was forced to take you to WP:ANI here in a section named “Disruptive talk page notices by User:SPECIFICO”. I think the community is now more aware of this behavior than it was previously. Please stop. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)