User talk:SPECIFICO

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).

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)

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)

Shutting down any discussion of the "Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Corruption: The Impact on U.S. Government Policy and Related Concerns" report

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)

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)

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)