User talk:SPECIFICO

Re

I would not like to be involved in this, but I think that guy made 1RR violation on purpose to get you blocked when someone reports this violation because your own editing on this page shows a pattern of edit warring and gaming the rules [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Of course there is a significant difference between someone who does follow the rules (like you) and someone who does not (like JFG). However, I am not sure that admins will really appreciate that difference. I think they should, but they really did not in a number of cases I know about. My very best wishes (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, like I always say, "rules are made to be followed." -- Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

First edit by JFG [2] was revert of this edit, and this edit. However, JFG denies it [3]. It means JFG will continue doing the same. If you care about it, you might wish to ask a clarification if it was a revert from one of admins who was recently active on WP:AE, but better not the one who recently commented on the same issue because you want to have a second opinion here. You might use their talk page if you wish. My very best wishes (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that guy made 1RR violation on purpose to get you blocked when someone reports this violation This bizarre conspiracy theory definitely helps your case. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

All in, a very constructive outcome. The dozens of unheeded warnings and denials will finally come to an end. Thanks for moving things forward. MVBW. SPECIFICO talk 01:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to DRN re UNDUE Ali Watkins article on Russian interference

You are invited to discuss UNDUE issues re your revert of my edit at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Humanengr (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Russians!

@Geogene: @Objective3000: We don't know how many Russian trolls are active on WP at any given time, but we do know that we're not compelled to rehash straw-man assertions that have recently been rejected after a complete talk page review. This applies to various threads on many articles. I regret that i responded to JFG recently on Russian Interference talk, but I only did so because I believed that he was sincerely dropping away from that article and saying an awkward goodbye. My mistake. Please consider whether it's a good use of editors' time to renegotiate false and misrepresented POV agendas on the talk page there. Since there's no consensus for these fringe views, the article text ultimately cannot be changed. WP:DENY, WP:CIR and all that. SPECIFICO talk 12:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Objective3000 (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Any reason why you bring up "Russian trolls", "false and misrepresented POV agendas", and User:JFG (and probably others, by implication) in the same paragraph? Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Guccisamsclub: Thanks for the notice. @SPECIFICO: You are unfortunately piggy-banking one more undue aspersion|… Do you never get bored? — JFG ^talk 23:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The only mention of another editor, JFG, is that I took you at your word when you explained that your inappropriate rant at article talk was your farewell to this article that you said has not gone as you would have wished. I commented that, since you apparently changed course and did not leave the article, my gracious good-bye was apparently undue. So basically, I have no idea what you and Mr. Gucci are talking about. No other personal reference was intended. Ciao. SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine. I still note that by citing WP:DENY and WP:CIR when talking about me, you seem to consider me an incompetent troll who doesn't deserve your enlightened replies. It's still fine, I can live without your attention, I'll just miss your occasionally funny cultural witticisms. — JFG ^talk 23:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

You know what the American politicians say about "protesteth"ing. I'd thought you were following Mr. Gucci's example and moving on to some greener pastures, where you appear to do good work. SPECIFICO talk 23:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I agreed with your point that we should let the drama unfold as the ultimate end was obvious. But, I was uncomfortable with your attachment of JFG to some sort of conspiracy. I don’t agree with some of JFG’s edits, some of which look like WP:OWNERSHIP, but would suggest that you owe him an apology. Objective3000 (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know or care anything about JFG. My point is simply that -- precisely because we know nothing about other editors -- we need to stick to sound principles of interaction. After all, I resemble Hillary Clinton in many ways, but that is strictly irrelevant to my editing here, which sinks or swims on its own. My point was that when editors are behaving badly (as sometimes happens) we should not be swayed by undue personal courtesy. Civility, but not deference beyond what policy and site guidelines prescribe. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Fuck guidelines, civility is civility (realizing the contradiction in that statement.:)) Objective3000 (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

My point exactly!! Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

5RR on Louise Mensch

18:06, 3 April 2017 17:24, 3 April 2017 11:32, 3 April 2017 22:48, 2 April 2017‎ 19:05, 2 April 2017

Please undo your last edit. Thanks. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC) ‎

BLP violations must be removed immediately. Please work on article improvement, work within policy, and consider the guidance you've been presented at BLPN. SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Guidance that I have been presented? You asked for guidance and you got it, though that did not prevent you from continuing your edit war. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Klkl3000

Would you mind doing me a favor and dropping a note about the American politics DS? I'd do it, but I don't want to come across as aggressive.--v/r - TP 00:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, and BLP as well. All cherrypicked primary stuff. Doesn't belong in the article. SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your cooperativeness. Thank you.--v/r - TP 00:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Why did you?

Why did you put that notice on my talk page? You provided no context for your actions so I am confused. I'm unlikely to follow any links someone places randomly on my talk page even if they claim importance. I have no interest in deciphering your intent. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It is a notice that is put on the pages of all editors in topic of American Politics. A related notice is found on the top of article talk pages and on the edit screens for those articles. It's not my intent it's WP policy and, as the Notice says, any Admin can provide further information. SPECIFICO talk 14:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Shiftchange: The notice is not a warning or a signal that you've conducted yourself improperly. It is more of a "heads up" that you're wading into rocky territory and a reminder to go slow instead of kicking it into 4x4.--v/r - TP 15:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand that it wasn't a warning. What I didn't understand was that its our policy to place it on editors talk page who edit articles about American politics. SPECIFICO has now clarified that. - Shiftchange (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

"Bavarian Daily" etc

Question: "...not bavarian daily...", "Maybe the SW deutsche daily again??" -- this seems to call out a user on their nationality and / or comes across as dismissive of foreign language sources. Is there some background behind this that I'm not aware of? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Nothing to do with users' homelands. There was an extended incident on this article a while back in which some marginal and fringey stuff was cited to cherrypicked references to Suddeutsche Zeitung, just a reference to a sad little incident, now happily in the past. SPECIFICO talk 11:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. However, if this is in reference to past disagreements, then it just looks like taunts and bullying. Please refrain. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

No it's a discussion of sourcing, and it would help you to understand more fully if you wish to review the archives. What I expressed represents the consensus arrived at after much much discussion. Meanwhile please undo one of your reverts that violated 1RR. I leave it to you which one, but we all do need to stick with the DS restrictions for everyone's sake. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

"POV fringe edits"

Re: "one of the POV fringe edits" at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, please avoid casting aspersions on Talk pages. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Aspersions is a behavioral issue that relates to denigration of other editors. FRINGE and POV are content issues and are neither personal nor aspersions. Thanks for the visit. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"POV fringe edits" can be construed as being done by "POV fringe editors". It did come across as an aspersion. The better way to formulate the same concern could have been "these edits were not in compliance with Wikipedia's POV policy" or something similar. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No, actually you should not misconstrue what I said. Because you appropriately came here to express your concern, I gave you the explanation so that you could avoid misreading such words in the future. Your language sounds a bit convoluted and tortured, but I'm sure somebody could also object to your formulation as an accusation without documentation or whatever... SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

russian interference

SPECIFICO, How are you? good to talk to you. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Thus, I'm not sure what you mean about me edit warring and reinserting "that Clapper bit". The paragraph refers to statements Director Clapper made in October 2016 that Russia interfered with the elections,it is RS, check. Then to statements he made in January 2017 about Russian fake news, it is RS, check. Now he also CLEARLY said in March 2017 that there was NO evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump or Trump's campaign. It is RS. CHECK. Answer me a simple question. Why are the first two "Clapper bits" noteworthy and the third NOT?Aceruss (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Breach of two RR

I agree that was the wrong forum, but it also a breach and should be reported.Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that Arbcom intended to empower Admins to keep things on track by handing out blocks as needed. There are a handful of disruptive editors who are dragging the community down by discouraging folks who don't have time to waste answering every repetition of settled questions and fringe POV. A mention on the talk page would do that. I perhaps could have linked to AN or pinged Admin assistance. The AE process has devolved to the point where it's getting as bad as ANI. For a full blown complaint, AE is indeed the place for a non-Admin to launch a case, and I believe that AE is the only venue where a topic ban or site ban can be imposed. But that doesn't mean that an Admin cannot or should not issue a block for a bright-line violation. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk 13:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Russian aspersions and hounddog defense

Ladies and gents, an appeal has been opened here [4]. SPECIFICO talk 14:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are restricted to only using WP:AE or an uninvolved administrator's talk page to request discretionary sanctions be levied against another editor.

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. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Appealing my sanction

Hi - just wanted to give you a heads up that I'm appealing my sanction I received for casting aspersions against Volunteer Marek. I was unnecessarily combative against you in that dispute, and hope you can forgive me for that. I want you to know that I do appreciate your dedication to the project, and glancing up at your talk page, commend you for being able to keep your cool as you edit in some difficult areas. The appeal is on Sandstein's talk page if you want to read it. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I recall a lot of bad behaviour from you, but none at all recently, so I will have a look. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICO talk 22:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes I took a wikibreak to re-evaluate how I was approaching the project. Wasn't happy with how things had been working out and somewhat came to the conclusion that I was to blame. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Well that is refreshingly forthright and I wish you well if you become more active here. SPECIFICO talk 01:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanction Violation

In this comment at the edit-warring noticeboard you request a "preventive TBAN" against Thucydides411 to include the Russian election interference articles. A preventative topic ban in those articles could only be applied under American politics post-1932 discretionary sanctions.

You are subject to an Arbitration Enforcement which restricts you to:

• only using WP:AE or an uninvolved administrator's talk page to request discretionary sanctions be levied against another editor.

Your noticeboard comment and possibly this subsequent comment violate that restriction. Please take the steps necessary to correct it. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I've closed the topic. Please leave it alone and just move on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see an extremely specific restriction so specifically violated then disregarded by the administrator who applied it, without so much as a caution to the violating editor. I will respect your request and not pursue it but the message it sends is that I was mistaken to approach the editor directly and in good faith before bringing it to AE. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

James, I specifically referenced Community Sanctions, not Discretionary Sanctions per Arbcom Enforcement. That distinction was clear from my words there. Thanks for sharing your concern, but I believe that you are mistaken. SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

AE notice

Please take note of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SPECIFICO. Kind regards, — JFG ^talk 23:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)