User talk:SPECIFICO

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)

Archive pages

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

Is The Spectator a solid source? I didn't think it was. Do you have any advice about the archive pages? I am not very good with computers or code, and I'm too old to get good at it now. I basically copied your format for the talk page header but mine only stays on the 1 archive page. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Using me for information about computer coding is like using Fox News for information about Trump's collusion with Russia. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

You have them already set up, so presumably you could have just told me what you did. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, WP:HD exists precisely for this purpose. Why one would feel the need to go to a user talk page for something like this baffles me. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Wording

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

It's not a good idea to say "expressed opposition to" instead of "opposed. If you have a better tweak, I'm glad to look at it and perhaps substitute. Feel free to propose on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Normally I'd take this to the talk page of the article in question (as you suggested), but since this isn't really a content dispute (rather a minor phrasing disagreement between two users), I don't want to clutter up the article's talk page for no reason. I'll just leave my proposal here: He opposed the Gulf War in 1991, but supported NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, as well as U.S. and NATO intervention in the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s.

It's shorter than my initial phrasing but it gets to the meat of things. Please let me know what you think when you get the chance. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

He opposed the Gulf War in 1991 but supported the expansion of the NATO alliance into Eastern Europe and its intervention in the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s.

That is what I suggest. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. It's even better than my last proposal. Clear and succinct.

If it isn't too much trouble, I'd kindly ask you to add it to the lead (given the attention the article will be getting in the coming days, and the discretionary sanctions ArbCom has imposed on it, I really wouldn't want to be perceived as edit warring). Thanks! Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Leon Black Epstein

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

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

BLP

In a recent comment of yours, which reads:

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

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

@Wikieditor19920: SPECIFICO's comments appear to be a faithful distillation of what sources have reported. What sources are you relying on that characterize the date as a "sexual assault"? Keep in mind, Ansari is a living person too, and we actually know his full identity. - MrX 🖋 21:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes take it to ANI immediately. SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:MrX CNN referred to it as a sexual assault allegation: "Master of None" star Aziz Ansari has responded to an allegation of sexual assault by a woman he went out on a date with in the fall. It has also been referred to as a sexual misconduct allegation by the New York Times. Whatever semantic variation you want to use, both are supported in reliable sources.

SPECIFICO did not reference any specific piece or attribute the views in the above comment: those were pure expressions of opinion by an editor. I see that there are commentators who have defended Aziz as documented in this interview and this opinion piece by the former NYT editor Bari Weiss. These are not reliable sources for what happened: these are reliable for the opinions of those authors only. And SPECIFICO is rehashing them, without attribution, and in his own words. Nowhere in any source do I see a suggestion that the woman "bungled" the encounter which she described as sexual assault. BLP applies to the accuser just as it does Ansari, whether or not she is named, because we are referring to a specific person. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO You are quick to accuse me of a BLP violation over a content disagreement, yet you put out extremely inappropriate and unattributed conjecture about a sexual assault accuser without any indication of remorse. This is disappointing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself. Yes, the upshot is that she mischaracterizes the incident as assault. That is what the sources say. SPECIFICO talk 22:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

That is the opinion of two commentators who had no first-hand knowledge of the incident. Neither are reliable sources for anything about the incident. You are confusing WP:RS with WP:RSO and violating WP:BLP in the process. Last time I'll ask: please strike the comments. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Please don't forget to notify me when you file ANI. SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I filed a notice at WP:BLPN seeking input on this issue. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not ANI. There was already a thread at BLPN. Better not to duplicate. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

OK. I think BLPN is probably the appropriate venue, but this is an entirely separate issue. If an overseer of BLPN thinks the two can be merged I wouldn't have a problem with it. Merged. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually it is not. You are making (silly) behavioral accusations against me. Those would be resolved at ANI or Arbcom Enforcement. BLPN is for content and sourcing issues, such as the ones you do not appear to understand. I think this thread has more or less run its course. SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You are suggesting a sexual assault accuser basically made it up. What you are doing is a textbook example of a BLP violation, and that isn't cured by the fact that you vaguely referenced a couple of opinion columnists. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Leon Black edits

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

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

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

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)