The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I understand you feel justified, that doesn't make you right. I'd merely ask that you stop allowing your preference for a narrative to override the proper editing of a reference work.
OckRazta:lk21:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Surely Donald j trump, 'was' a politician not is a politician..?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.144.16 (talk • contribs)
Area 51 Gallery...Templates of the aggrieved and indeffed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
SPECIFICO and Magnolia677 engaged in coordinated editwar
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
SPECIFICO and Magnolia677 engaged in coordinated editwar (2)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppa gangnam psy (talk • contribs)
You should stop what you're doing on the article Hunter Biden laptop controversy. You frequently revert others' bold edits without materially addressing their content. You also "invite" discussions on talk pages, but never offer discussion yourself before reverting. This behavior has already been noted and overruled TWICE after lengthy discussions involving a multitude of editors: first with the RFC over the use of the word "allegedly", in which you would revert any change that removed that word; second, after the lengthy discussion over Social media companies' and their CEO's response. In both cases, your personal opinions on content have been overruled by consensus. I invite you to participate more in discussion on that page before continuing to revert other editor's thoughtful contributions. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I second this request. This type has behavior has gotten you sanctioned several times now. Stop reflexively reverting sourced content you don’t like, especially when they are clear improvements.. The most recent warning to you at AE leads me to think the next sanction will be more severe than the usual 2 week hand slaps you get. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This aspersion with no supporting diff is likely to work to your disadvantage in the future. You should know better than to do that. Think very carefully about the specific allegations you make and whether they can be verified under scrutiny. SPECIFICOtalk15:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Careful. Just because diffs aren't searched out and provided doesn't mean they don't exist. This is simply a talk page message, not an ArbCom submission. You should know full well the discussions/threads referenced, but if you're seriously at a loss for which of your behaviors warranted a message like this, you can request that information directly. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a page watcher (who disagrees with Specific as often as I agree), the edit by PhotogenicScientist looks very like a WP:BLP violation that absolutely should be reverted on sight. I don't have an NYT subscription to verify the actual phrase used but if it was then it should have been attributed to the NYT and not given in wikivoice. I find that Specifico can sometimes be too terse with explanations for what they do but that's it. The reversion was justified. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I very much disagree with you about it being a BLP matter. I agree with the reversion, and SPECIFICO's complaint about it being marked as minor is reasonable. He didn't say anything about BLP and I don't think it makes the slightest difference to Hunter Biden's reputation one way or the other whether the number is 1, 10 100, 1000, or 10000. And when putting in BLP as a reason for reversion one should always give a clear reason why it violates BLP as otherise it can be used to game the system by forcing stuff out until an RFC or other method is used to override the BLP injunction to remove immediately. NadVolum (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
!!! A surprise visitor !!! Since JMF didn't do the edit, he was unfortunately not in a position to state the BLP issue with which you disagree. So the circle is complete. Your view about BLP and "forcing stuff" is incorrect, but there are more widely participated discussion pages on which you can get community feedback as to that theory. SPECIFICOtalk11:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what can be done if an editor says they have removed stuff for BLP reasons without specifying what the reasdon is? How can other editors know whether putting something back in again would violate BLP or not? NadVolum (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, do no harm. As I said, you'll do better to seek guidance at the village pump or tea room, where you'll get the attention you deserve. SPECIFICOtalk12:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should pick your battles. Minor edits are those that do not materially affect the content of the article. Your edit was anything but. You seriously damaged the meaning of that sentence. (In the classical example, to change "not" to "now" is just a one,-letter change but is certainly not minor. Effect matters deeply.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Minor edits are those that do not materially affect the content of the article. This is patently wrong, per the info page I quoted.
And you should probably read the edit I linked. It was not a big change. The Washington Post review concluded that up to 22,000 could be verified. My edit reflected exactly that. I only removed the unnecessary lower count from the one half of the analysis. Anyone curious could read about the 1828 emails on their own; but their inclusion in the article seemed redundant, and their removal did not SEEM like a major change to me. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been just as bad if the upper bound had been removed, i.e. "1828 emails were verified..." Content discussion really should go on the article talk page, where you'll get broader participation than at this backwater. SPECIFICOtalk19:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
true but let's put the egregious misreading of WP:minor to bed first. As you say, it would be equally wrong to quote only the lower bound and illustrates why PhSc is so wrong
PhSc, which part of Checking the minor edit box signifies that the current and previous versions differ only superficially (typographical corrections, etc.), in a way that no editor would be expected to regard as disputable. Or
Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if the edit concerns a single word, and it is improper to mark such an edit as minor. did you not understand? It is the first rubric on the page! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - I misconstrued the part about "Content additions of extremely minimal size" to include changes of minimal size as well. However, on further reading, the info page says that removing content or editing content are edits that cannot be marked as minor. Not sure that's an "egregious" misreading, though, fwiw. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: I would like to add that you falsely claimed my addition of content from The Intercept had been discussed before on the talk page and that The Intercept is a FRINGE source. No such discussion has taken place and The Intercept is a reliable source according to WP:RSP. I also agree with Mr Ernie that you impulsively revert content you disagree with far too much. Lastly, saying "Aspersions" as an excuse to dismiss criticism of your edits because they aren't being directly provided to you in this moment when you know what you're doing is gaslighting. X-Editor (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, there were two forensic examinations, the range was something like 1800-22000 emails. This was all discussed in some detail the first time you made that edit. It's important to use very clear language that does not insinuate UNDUE detail or frame content in a way that might lead our readers to false impressions or conclusions. Best thing is just to recognize the feedback on the article talk page the first time you made that edit. It was rejected. Thanks for your visit. I moved this down here to a December section for clarity. SPECIFICOtalk14:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your "old consensus" edit was rejected 5 to 1. This is clearly another example of your WP:STONEWALLING to preserve status quo you personally like, against consensus. That's all I wanted to say. Take heed or don't, up to you. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The scare quotes are kind of offputting. I advise against that if you wish to build solid relationships. We don't count votes on article content. The reasons that your preferred text was rejected were explained by me, by an Admin who edits the article, and by others. Perhaps you are misremembering. At any rate, it's not serving the needs of our readers to use misleading text, and in a BLP is is strictly against policy. SPECIFICOtalk18:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
& de plus... alleged DS violation
As you're no doubt already aware, the article Hunter Biden laptop controversy is under a 1RR restriction, which you violated by reverting content twice (here and here) back-to-back. I would urge you to self-revert at least one of these edits to comply with site policy. If you do not, this offense is liable to be reported at WP:AE. Thanks. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that helpful link to the policy you were citing... on further reading, it seems you are technically correct that "a series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." Though I'm sure you can forgive my confusion, since it was you who informed me that this is how reverts were counted just months ago when you leveled a similar warning to me which included consecutive edits. Cheers. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem upset by this. My advice is to relax and focus on reading as many RS sources as you can and work on fresh article content. That warning, if I recall correctly, was when a different page restriction was in effect. Cheers to you too, and happy editing. SPECIFICOtalk22:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just technically correct. It would be difficult to improve ordinary articles if editors were only allowed three edits per day. It only becomes a problem when they are disputed. TFD (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chex, This is kind of pointless. The RS text was removed on a false claim of SYNTH where the deleted text directly reflected the narrative of the cited RS. Yes, it may well be that the edit was reverted on good faith grounds, if the editor perhaps did not take the time to read the cited source. I don't know. Nobody accused them of not acting in good faith, so that's a strawman. Did you check the edit summaries and read the cited source? Do you really think I don't know not to edit war? Etc. Etc. You're welcome to contribute to that article, while Ramaswamy is having a moment of fame. The article page is getting lots of views. SPECIFICOtalk20:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Did you check the edit summaries and read the cited source?" - yes, I did, and I believe the objector had a reasonable reason to revert in this case. BRD is blind to who is actually right or who will "win" when it's all said and done. It's essentially whether the objector had a rational basis for the revert, and they did. Not saying I agree with them (I would like to hear different arguments on both sides before I make my mind up definitely). "Do you really think I don't know not to edit war?" - I know you are familiar with the policy, but that doesn't change the fact that you did on this occasion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk23:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - it's not exactly following the spirit of WP:BRD if, when you get reverted by someone with a good-faith edit summary, you simply revert their reversion to include your preferred content. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my reply to Chex above. Or were you saying you agreed with my response? At any rate, it's not a matter of "preferred content" - did you read my edit summary and the cited source articles and still really believe that the text is SYNTH? If so, you should carefully review the policy and you should be careful, when an experienced editor leaves a clear reason for reverting your edit, to ensure you understand why and with what basis the revert was made. SPECIFICOtalk21:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Funny - that's the exact advice WP:BRD gives to those whose bold edits are reverted. "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version... Instead, take it to the talk page" and "Carefully consider whether "policy", "consensus", or "procedure" are valid reasons for the revert."PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After you funny, what remains with you is your false invocation of SYNTH, your apparent unwillingness or inability to take account of what the cited sources and policy say, and your sarcasm and habitual complaints on this page, all of which have been dismissed upon review. Thanks for sharing. SPECIFICOtalk22:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not on your talk page to discuss policy or content of an article - we could do that over at Vivek's article if you'd like. Here, all I'd like to ask of you is can you honestly say you followed the principles of WP:BRD in our interaction? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
-30-
Happy holidays!
Happy New Year!
Happy Holidays and Happy New Year, SPECIFICO!
The other day, I was having a conversation with someone about holiday cards and social media. It occurred to me that, in the years since I left Facebook, the site I use most to communicate with people I like isn't actually a social media site at all. If you're receiving this, it's pretty likely I've talked with you more recently than I have my distant relatives and college friends on FB, at very least, and we may have even collaborated on something useful. So here's a holiday "card", Wikipedia friend. :) Hope the next couple weeks bring some fun and/or rest. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, "per talk" within my edit summaries, does not imply any talk page consensus. This broadly means that further context for the edit can be found in the talk page. I have seen you infer this in some edit summaries and I wish to clarify this. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not helpful to jump the gun and preemptively replace longstanding text under discussion. Also, such an edit should not be marked "minor". SPECIFICOtalk03:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are separate issues. My edit respected the clear views of the discussion. As the changes were relatively minor, I marked them as such. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The template, which was the mildest of the many that apply to your recent patterns of disruptive editing, clearly explains that it doesn't matter how many reverts you have made. In the context and substance of that edit, you were indeed in WP:BATTLEGROUND mode. As long as you're here, I must say I am just amazed that an editor of your experience would try to claim that a page about a living person such as Hunter Biden laptop controversy might be exempt from our core BLP policy. I have serious doubts as to your ability to contribute constructively to that and other politics-related pages. Please try to do better. SPECIFICOtalk16:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: I'm puzzled by your continued participation at Contentious Topics talk pages after your pledge at Arbitration Enforcement to take a breather. Your comments are rarely substantive. In the case of your most recent comment, you are suggesting that a relatively inexperienced editor disregard the status quo after their new text was reverted for discussion. Yes, they were not the one who breached BRD by quickly reinstating the proposed change, but your comment may have the effect of undermining that process. I find this quite disappointing. Please consider. SPECIFICOtalk22:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt your competence, when with your hundreds of thousands of edits, you claim that a tag-team edit war is not an edit war. And the central point, which you have ignored with your deflection to "not an edit war" is that you claimed consensus is needed to add content to an article page. That is false. Please review our policy and please self-revert. SPECIFICOtalk16:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another deflection. I am advising you to self-revert. There is already a discussion at the edit-warring noticeboard, and you have recently been under scrutiny that you appeared to want to avoid. You can ignore me and my talk page if you wish. SPECIFICOtalk16:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page participation
@GoodDay: Comments such as this are inane and have tended to be passive-aggreessive inflammatory as well. Here's another recent unsupported and unconstructive comment. If you are able to reduce the volume of your talk page comments and to comment only on the substance of a discussion, providing reasoned positions, it would be in everyone's interest for you to begin doing so. You seemed to be prepared to throttle your talk page particpation a month ago, but if anything it has even increased in the Politics area. I note that you did not address that point at your recent AE appeal, but it's all on the record from the last go-round, so you can assume that editors recall it and have not seen any update from you on this issue. SPECIFICOtalk16:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MSNBC
You may be aware that Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative venture. You chose to revert my good faith edits to the above article, because *one* of the citations I included was to a site that is not considered to be an RS. You simultaneously in effect deleted a sentence which was not supported by that source, but by another, and that in itself is very bad form. Further, in view of the *fact* that the edits I was making were of information which is supported by innumerable sources, something which you could find out in less than 10 seconds, it would have been decent of you to merely point out on my talk page that one of the sources I included was not an RS and invite me to replace it with another. That would have been the decent thing to do. Instead, you chose to just revert, an action which gave me a sense of outrage. You topped this off by suggesting that I find better sources "if I believe this significant". Sorry, 2022 ratings are not significant? Are you serious? Don’t do what you did again. I repeat, Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative venture. Boscaswelltalk21:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the "key demographic" bit is sourced only to the Forbes Contributor article, which is not a Reliable Source for Wikipedia. You should not have reinserted it, and I'll politely ask you now to undo your reinstatement and remove it. SPECIFICOtalk23:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve just checked, and the "key demographic" 148,000 is supported by the statista citation. No mention there of Forbes. All good, I think. Boscaswelltalk01:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Genesis 1:26-27
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Hello Callanecc. That is longstanding article content going back as long as I can remember. I left a note on the article talk page replying to the editor who boldly removed it. Good to see you keeping an eye on that page. I hope you will continue to do so. SPECIFICOtalk12:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc: The editor who removed that image file has now reinserted the file,14:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC) repeated the initial removal without consensus on the talk page. In looking more closely at the page restriction, I now see that it was you who added the "consensus required" restriction there last month. There's been some discussion on the article talk page, which you may wish to review. There are two issues, I believe. One is that it's well-established practice for editors to reinstate longstanding content that's been removed, while not precluding subsequent talk page discussion about eventual removal. That relates to consensus established per WP:EDITCON. I believe the editor who removed the image misunderstands that policy. The second issue is the page restriction, which that editor has now breached by repeating the removal edit prior to demonstrating consensus to remove. I don't expect to engage further on the talk page about this, but I would appreciate it if you would have a look. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk23:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Callanecc if I'm misunderstanding the intent behind the "affirmative consensus" aspect of the editing restriction, yes by all means please let me know as well. @SPECIFICO, I didn't "reinsert" any file. VQuakr (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus required provision states that "an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page." It requires that before an edit is reinstated that there is a affirmative consensus on the talk page (that is, WP:EDITCON doesn't count). VQuakr's edit to re-remove the image was within the limits of the process to enforce the consensus required provision which you breached. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc: it seems to me like VQuakr made an edit that was challenged by reversion, and that VQuakr shouldn't have restored that edit without affirmative consensus. If there exists some documentation related to the consensus required restriction that limits its application to addition of content, and not removal/replacement, I'd appreciate being pointed toward it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could look at it that way I suppose and it wasn't ideal to re-remove the content. Howver, as SPECIFICO had already breached it by readding the image VQuakr's edit would have been covered by the the provision about reverting edits that breach page restrictions at WP:AC/CT ("Edits that breach an editor or page restriction may be reverted.") Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, SPECIFICO, I got editor names and edit timings round the wrong way. Valjean, you are right, VQuakr made an edit that removed article content, SPECIFICO reverted thereby triggering consensus required. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr:RE:@SPECIFICO, I didn't "reinsert" any file - not sure what this is about. I did not say you reinserted anything.15:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC) Regarding the page restriction: VQuakr, now that it has been discussed here, I'd appreciate it if you'd self-revert your second removal so we can consider the matter closed. Also, please try not to personalize talk page discussions. As you can see on that talk page thread, it has a cascading and unconstructive effect. SPECIFICOtalk14:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO, thanks for the ping as I'd quit following this conversation prior to Callanecc's clarification above. I don't believe any portion of this has been personal?? VQuakr (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr:I see that you've undone your violation of the page restriction. This all could have been resolved more easily and more pleasantly. Yes, your article talk page comments have been personal and inappropriate. I see that you've launched an RfC there. It is way premature for an RfC. Please read WP:RFCBEFORE. Your attitude has been quite WP:BATTLEGROUND from the start of this. It's uproductive, unpleasant for all, and a huge waste of time. Please consider removing the RfC until the issue has been more clearly delineated on the talk page. There may be third alternatives that are better than the current image.@Callenecc: just fyi if you wish. SPECIFICOtalk23:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondered: What topic were you banned from editing on? You're an anti-war conservative. What do you think about the conflict in Ukraine? Lastly, I didn't know there was a "Hanoi" phở so that's an education for me. However I came across a plant-based phở broth ("Delight Phở" teabag by Milley's.) that I really like. They also make other flavored broths, including Thai lemongrass, which I find O.K. and spicy tortilla which seems bland to me. I add other ingredients to the broth including shredded carrots, chopped bell pepper, onion, and roasted seaweed, etc. I'm a vegetarian, but you could add chicken, beef, fish sauce, etc. It's something you could take to work with you. Activist (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks very much for the tip on the vegan pho in a box. I never imagined such a thing and I'm eager to find some now. I was never entirely on board with idea of boiling some animal's bones just for a good warming bowl of soup. There are more plant-based foods available than animal based, and they're much more varied. Of course in the early stages of the vegan era, we see manufacturers trying to make "fake meat" products, but Western markets also offer an increasing variety of true vegetarian and vegan cuisine, starting with an extensive array of foods that were already available to be imported from India and the far East.
When I was more or less new around here I tried to remove a lot of gibberish, self-promotion and other primary sourced material from some articles and it ended up in a big mess with 3-4 editors leaving the site, some voluntarily, and me getting sanctioned. SPECIFICOtalk02:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss content on the article talk page. I do not consider any of those a valid source for claims of controversy regarding the NY Times. SPECIFICOtalk19:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. So as I'm sure you've noticed {{alert/first}} has a mandatory "Introduction to contentious topics" header that's inserted as part of the substitution. And when you're issuing multiple simultaneous first alerts, results in multiple level 2 headers being created like in this edit. What I've taken to do, and what I've seen a few other folk do, when issuing multiple alerts to someone new to CTOP is to use {{alert/first}} for the first alert, and then use {{alert}} for subsequent alert in the same message. In practice this looks like:
The ADMINACCT issues have taken over that thread, but to go back to the actual image, do you have the URL you got it from? If so, I'm happy to undelete it and let it defer to a discussion process (WP:FFD) if someone thinks it needs to be discussedd for deletion. Courcelles (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:NY Post Cover 10 14 2020.PNG. Restored with source. It’ll need a proper NFCC template and go back in an article to not be speedied again in a few days. I don’t know if it will survive FFD if it gets sent there, but that’s a discussion to be had away from AN drama! Courcelles (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:NY Post Cover 10 14 2020.PNG
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:NY Post Cover 10 14 2020.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The issue I took there was how another user recently reworded that exact sentence about the Democratic rivalry to use words that fall under MOS:REALTIME. The sentence I used, copied and modified from the Democratic Party article, uses no words to watch. Please double-check both user's contributions. Jalen Folf(talk)23:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two parties are separate and distinct. The wording you inserted changed the meaning and it also was false, according to current RS. SPECIFICOtalk01:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per WP:Preserve, “Wikipedia is a work in progress and perfection is not required. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the ‘finished’ article, they should be retained if they meet the three core content policies: Neutral point of view(which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research.” If you object to something about an edit, please make sure not to revert the parts you don’t object to. And please explain at article talk why you object to the stuff you revert, including all parts of it. You have not followed these Wikipedia requirements with regard to this recent edit, for example. You see something in a series of edits that you don’t approve, so you do a blanket revert of the whole series of edits without any reason or explanation for most of your revert. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw nothing in that brief series of edits that was an improvement. Please don't jump to wikilawyering mode over a few bad edits. You should be able by now to anticipate that folks are likely to revert such changes. SPECIFICOtalk22:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve already partly reverted your edit. I cannot begin to understand your other objections from “nothing was an improvement”. Obviously, it was an improvement to have a lead that was not too long and did not have a too-long tag on it. I have edited Wikipedia for a long time, but I have never seen an editor expand a lead and in the very same edit install a too-long tag. If all objections to the perfection of your edits is wikilawyering then I plead guilty, but otherwise not guilty. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Arthur Schlesinger
When I posted about what Arthur Schlesinger wrote in his 2017 introduction to his 1947 book, you replied, "Schlesinger 1947 is not the most recent available source." Can you explain why you would claim that the text was from 1947, when clearly I said he wrote it in 2017? TFD (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. But the introduction he wrote was from October 1997, not 1947. Why did you claim he wrote it in 1947? TFD (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The limits of Schlesinger's clairvoyance would seem to have been reached well before Trumpism exposed the underbelly of contemporary Republican instincts decades later. SPECIFICOtalk03:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies needed. As you might have guessed from my edit note, I cleaned up the presentation but was a bit dubious about the content. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaning up Reid Hoffman page
Hi @SPECIFICO - Since you've recently been doing some work on the Reid Hoffman page I just wanted to give you a head's up that I'm going to really dive into the page, clean it up, remove anything too promotional, etc. Obviously let me know if you have any thoughts/concerns! BMFife (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In Which Christopher Robin Leads An Expotition to the North Pole. . . The animals stick the North Pole into the ground, and Christopher Robin writes out a notice to remind others that it is the North Pole and that it was discovered by Pooh. And then they all go home, Pooh feeling very proud of what he has achieved on this momentous day.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi! So, as you've conceded, you've falsely attacked me once on the Trump talk page, and I'd actually say you've falsely attacked me at least three times. I realize you most recently raised a BLUDGEON concern—I do think you and I have both been too active there, and I intend to reply far less frequently going forward, although the last responses I made were to questions posed directly to me. Either way, regardless of how noble you think your intentions are, I'd also appreciate if you stopped responding to me or posting on my talk page for at least a week, and I'll extend you the same courtesy. Thanks!--Jerome Frank Disciple15:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you've falsely attacked me once on the Trump talk page - Mistakenly is not the same as "falsely". I agree it's a good decision for you to step away from that page. There appears to be little support for your views there, so the more you repeat them - without addressing the concerns of editors who have taken the time to point out their flaws - the more frustrated you might become. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICOtalk19:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After you very recently stated your intention to stand back from the Donald Trump, page, you have significantly increased your presence there - most of it IMO repetitive, unresponsive, and unconstructive. This really doesn't help you advance whatever good work you have to offer. SPECIFICOtalk23:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I guess we're ignoring the first request for an interaction break (but of course, that was true from day 1, when, soon after responding here, you "Thanked" me for an edit). A new section started, and I participated there. Meanwhile, I noticed that you've kept up your extremely high engagement, and I assure you have similar thoughts as your engagement as you have to mine. Either way, I hope we're able to put aside out disagreements as to the trial and work the other parts of the article while those issues are resolved :) --Jerome Frank Disciple23:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way—since you did revert (hence the ping), I'd, of course, be more than happy to have you participate in the most recent discussion section—even if your take is that the current version is the best and most superior version! (I fully acknowledge that sometimes "awkward" constructions are a personal thing, and if I read something as being a bit awkward and everyone else disagrees—I'm wrong!)--Jerome Frank Disciple23:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(In case it wasn't obvious, this is a olive branch! I genuinely think that we would probably agree on 99% of issues, and the fact that we're having a contentious discussion about the 1% shouldn't get in the way of that.)--Jerome Frank Disciple23:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jerome, you seem incapable of understanding straightforward feedback, and it appears to me that you think that your "requests" obligate other editors to accept your misunderstanding of content, policy, and behavioral guidelines. As I've already said, it would have been a good move to stick with your decision to step away from that article and apply your efforts elsewhere for the time being. SPECIFICOtalk13:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, if you don't want to take the olive branch, by all means don't, but you should try to stay WP:CIVIL (and, even if you don't, that's not going to cause me to abandon the article). Best of luck.--Jerome Frank Disciple13:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I have to add: Mistakenly is not the same as "falsely" was one of the funniest things I've ever read. In a sense, you're correct? But I guess not how you think you are. You can be mistakenly false or deliberately false, because, yes, deliberateness has nothing to do with truth value.--Jerome Frank Disciple13:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you long ago exhausted whatever constructive contributions you may have had to offer on that article. Per WP:CIR, several experienced editors have taken the time to offer advice and support. There's nothing left to say. SPECIFICOtalk13:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Long ago"? I came onto this article five days ago and I made a ton of noncontroversial grammar corrections ... yesterday. And I made another uncontroversial MOS edit ... today. Perhaps if your hostility over our one disagreement is blinding you to this degree, it's you who should step away from the article. I don't expect you will, but I hope you can learn to work with me. Again, good luck.--Jerome Frank Disciple13:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
John Barron
Bringing this here because taking it to the DT talk page is an exercise in futility at the moment. This: the source says "official", not "officer". speaking in the third person: Trump does that all the time, but that's when he's not pretending to be someone else. In this sentence, it doesn't make any sense because he was pretending to be someone named John Barron. That's kind of hard to do using first person singular, no? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk)13:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you're right. Can you correct that part without losing whatever part of my edit makes sense to you? Or tell me what you think would fix it so that you don't run out of the recently-scarce 3RR's. SPECIFICOtalk13:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about this?
Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported that Trump called him in 1984, pretending to be a fictional Trump Organization official named "John Barron". Trump, speaking as "Barron", falsely asserted that he owned more than 90 percent of his father's business to get a higher ranking for himself on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans
Well one question is why you closed an ongoing active discussion, such that at least one editor, @Space4Time3Continuum2x: didn't have time to post their view and that there may still have been outstanding misrepresentations and a welter of unsorted allegations in the thread. The timing was unusual and surprising. Just asking that question. Of course that's not to say that you are not authorized to impose sanctions unilaterally as Admin in CT, regardless of the ANI thread, but that doesn't appear to have been what you intended. SPECIFICOtalk15:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion had been running for about a week with the specific proposal for sanctions open for a few days. The ratios weren't shifting one way or another, and in my experience people generally prefer to have the threads closed rather than have them sit open when a clear consensus has developed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that assumes that a clear consensus did and would continue to exist. In this case, there were !votes based on misunderstandings that were later identified and unevidenced assertions that had not yet been parsed. I think its a stretch to expedite the close with recent active discussion. Thanks for your reply. I may have other questions. This is a somewhat unusual sanction, because it's the sort that's usually at AE, where the standard of evidence and post-sanction review process are more clear. SPECIFICOtalk15:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And as a clarification, one of the reasons I specifically called out reviewing the entire discussion was because I did include what editors who didn't respond in the survey itself into account, e.g. Floq's statement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: My vote wouldn’t have changed anything but I’m sorry I wasn’t able to point out these comments the OP made on their first day editing the Donald Trump talk page: [1], [2], [3]. I ignore such stuff — sticks and stones — but this beginning influenced the tone for the discussions. The same editor then dragging another editor before a board for AGF violations — as the question, so the answer. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk)15:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't intend to get into a discussion here before I fully understand your rationale for the close. But how did you account for the editors who were inflamed by the "and this gem..." snippet of ~10 characters that misrepresented a fully explained talk page post of mine? Or the editors who favored sanctions on content-related grounds. And after the attempt to paint me as a fringe POV pusher was revealed to be based on a false premise, what about the condemnations of me based on the misunderstanding that were never recanted. And once that was resolved, why did the accusers remain silent? Incidentally, when you closed it, I was chatting with TFD on his talk page about why he called me a POV pusher at Hillary Clinton when I've barely touched that article. Anyway, there are a few other things I don't understand that will clarify this for me and the community to learn from, but I think it's clearer to go in short steps. Thanks for your replies. SPECIFICOtalk19:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start with Or the editors who favored sanctions on content-related grounds. I directly addressed that in my closing statement, so to repeat, I gave less weight to arguments that seemed based on editor bias or content disagreements.
The rest of your questions basically come down to you disagreeing with how the editors interpreted the evidence. It is not a closer's job to assess or weigh the evidence, rather to assess how those involved in the discussion assessed and weighed the evidence. That support for the topic ban continued after your rebuttals demonstrate that those involved were not convinced. Additionally, the accusers are under no obligation to respond to your rebuttals, and others not returning to reaffirm or change their positions does not invalidate their responses. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it comes down to interpreting evidence. When there are misrepresentations, material omissions, or aspersions without evidence those are policy violations and do not get weight in a closing review. But I will think a bit about what you've said. The second complainant stated that he had (unintentionally) misrepresented my actions without vacating the accusations that were based on what they came to know was not true. That's quite problematic.
There's also the very concerning question as to whether we want to introduce Contentious Topics complaints into the very erratic and unstructured arena of ANI. The intention of Arbcom was to delegate AE to a more rigorous and disciplined hearing. One benefit of this is that AE itself does not exacerbate whatever issues are brought there. Parties generally get a full hearing based on valid and documented evidence, focused on topic, and limited to the stated complaint. If it had been their judgement that ANI was equipped to evaluate and dispose of such complaints, Arbcom would have placed the AE and last year could have placed CT under ANI's mantle. But they didn't. Anyway I am going to think a bit about what you've said and I may have further questions or concerns. My current feeling is that it would be fair to vacate that close -- I don't think there was a clear consensus commensurate with a TBAN -- and to advise the complainants that they can pursue the issue with an AE filing. I think it's important everyone have faith in the process. In this case, it was so confused and compounded that it works against that. The reason that we have relatively few AE cases regarding Trump and AP is because the active editors learned the AE process and largely enforced things among ourselves. This ANI sends the opposite message, which is really too bad. I'll think a bit about what you've said and I may be back tomorrow. Thanks for volunteering in the DS areas. It's somewhat a thankless role. SPECIFICOtalk23:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second complainant stated that he had (unintentionally) misrepresented my actions without vacating the accusations that were based on what they came to know was not true. That's quite problematic. Without commenting further or inflaming this, if I am "the second complainant" then I dispute this, I do not agree that I misrepresented SPECIFICO's words, quotes, or actions. I don't want to further debate this or continue to inflame this dispute, so I will not comment further. Thanks. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)15:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issues with CTOP-related issues coming up at ANI is long and storied. There's an AN discussion to unban someone who was brought up at ANI right now, and around that same time as the first thread on that multiple other editors ended up tbanned from CTOP areas by the community. We can't force people to go to one venue or another, and the community always has the ability to make decisions on their own. I think you'd find that if you made a proposal to require any CTOP discussions to be moved from ANI to AE you'd see an enormous pushback. You'll also find that in my closing statement in a similar case here I specifically reminded people that AE is an option, and here I workshopped a bit about ways to make the trips to ANI for CTOP related editing less of a free-for-all.
As it stands ANI is a perfectly acceptable route to seek sanctions or other relief in a CTOP area, and I think it is unlikely that will change any time soon. Closes aren't vacated because they weren't taken to a different, equally legitimate, venue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't intend to say that it should be vacated merely because it was at ANI. My view is that you would do well to vacate it because this particular ANI thread was full of PAGs violations that were needlessly and mistakenly overlooked. Many many times editors get a mid-thread DS sanction before the ultimate complaint of the thread is decided. The use of sanction and warnings lists to poison the well or kneecap a colleague under scrutiny has long been used by complainants who have little or no substantive evidence about their stated complaint. Editors have been sanctioned and/or told to remove such lists from this website in the past. I'm sure you scrutinized that list and looked up the cases and the diffs, so you know that most of those items had little in common with this complaint, and that many of the diffs were not as described. The now-banned user who posted one of those "databases" on various American Politics editor came up with the interesting result that the editors he most disliked, including me, were exonerated most of the time at the complaint boards. So, I've spent a lot of time on these things as you can see I think even from my current and recent talk pages, where I am always courteous to my accusers. Anyway, citing off-topic diffs from years back, posting a fog of snarky disparaging language to inflame rather than focus the discussion, etc. are sanctionable in themselves. And you had and still have the authority to sanction or warn such behavior. Please don't feel defensive about this. Yes, we know that complaints can be taken to ANI, but that does not prevent you from closing as no consensus -- which I think is actually what most Admins would have found -- and inviting the complainants to go to AE or at least to file better formed and PAG-compliant cases. You could still do that. I've remarked more than once in the past that we need more Admins who are doing what you have been doing the past several months - proactively watching difficult pages and intervening when needed without noticeboard complaints. From what I can see you are the only one who could do anything to make this a more constructive outcome of the ANI. Appeal to AN would require an overwhelming consensus to overturn your close, which is now status quo. Arbcom seems a stretch. I think you are the only one who could make some improvement. FYI the one lesson I did learn from this ANI is that once an editor fails to self-revert it's pointless to go back to their talk page and the next step, harsh as it might seem, needs to be requesting Admin assistance. SPECIFICOtalk22:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look, it never has to get this complicated. Steer clear of the behavior line, and you don't end up at ANI/AE in the first place. You can't reasonably claim to have done that. You're reminding me in some ways of Winkelvi. ―Mandruss☎13:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss, good advice overall. But, not a cure all. I’ve been dragged to ANI/AE five times and am far less active at CTOP articles than Specifico. None of them stuck and two resulted in booms; but I still had to weather the process.
From the start of that thread I wished it had been posted at AE. AE has several advantages:
No walls of text.
Nonstandard threading. It would seem that standard threading is an aide to conversation. But, at AE you are really talking more to the admins than each other. Keeping each editor’s comments together reduces repetition and makes an editor’s contradictions obvious.(IMO, the OP in this case often contradicts themselves on TPs.)
Feedback during discussion by admins. I think this shortens the process and keeps it focused, as you know what the audience is thinking before the curtain closes. (At least in Shakespeare’s time, the audience provided mid-performance feedback in the form of dried figs and oyster shells chucked at the actors.)
No need for a closer to create a spreadsheet trying to evaluate the value of each !vote, of which there may be numerous. Replaced by a public discussion among admins which can evolve as their feedback tunes the overall discussion.
An editor with a total of four edits is not likely to try to engage at AE. Far fewer editors in general will show up as many find the structure intimidating. So, you end up with more folk who have bothered to understand the policies and the nuances of collaborative editing. It may seem that a collaborative project oughtn't be ruled by a supreme court. But, with highly contentious subjects, these discussions appear to work better far from the madding crowd. And what isn’t contentious these days? (Utah Gov Spencer Cox received an angry letter demanding he change his “indecent” last name or be recalled.)
At both AE and ANI, when an active CTOP editor is the focus, uninvolved political enemies show up. But they don’t mess up the discussion as much at AE. Their edits are in one area making it easier to notice they just don’t like the editor under the gun. And bludgeoning is rare.
The advantage of ANI is boomerang’s are more common. (Albeit, probably not common enough.) Also, we get to sorta pretend to be a democracy, even though we state we aren’t. (You know, like the U.S. claiming to be a democracy.) Having said all that, Specifico, I think you’ll need to find a way to deal better with drive-by editors, POV pushers, disrupters, and those who want to throw out the work of numerous editors over years and restart according to their views. I noticed on one of the editor’s TPs, who admitted she was proselytizing and had many comments from admins and others trying to explain that wasn’t the purpose of WP, you did attempt to explain the problem. But, although your language was polite, you could have been more patient yet. Providing a policy link isn’t enough with some folk. You need to waste everyone’s time describing why the policy exists to these. You need to make it impossible for anyone to “win” at a retaliatory filing (as this was IMO). I also think fighting this won’t help you. Although, I would ask for a time reduction after a week or two. Frankly, seems to me even having to listen to some of the thread should be time served. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of them stuck I sit corrected. Steer clear of the behavior line, and you don't end up with a sanction at ANI/AE in the first place. No doubt, there are rare exceptions to that rule. And a community-imposed wikibreak can be viewed by the recipient as a gift, aside from the black mark on their record.
This user is aware that, in the end, it's only Wikipedia.
Well here's a good suggestion, Mandruss and it will keep you busy👩🏻: How about creating a template that can be used to canonize our practice among experienced editors of notifying a colleague who violates a page restriction and asking for a self-revert. It could also say that if they don't self revert it will be taken to for enforcement. This would perhaps have softened the message for the OP in this ANI whom I upset by returning to his talk page when he did not self revert, and it could include explanatory information. You can buddy up with a template geek and make a signal contribution! SPECIFICOtalk22:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that against DTR? Not following. Seems like a good way to depersonalize such posts. Of course, one can always just go immediately to an Admin or noticeboard, but that's not better for anyone. SPECIFICOtalk22:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking me why a template for the sole purpose of one experienced editor templating another experienced editor would be against DTR? Really? You're still IDHT as to my earlier comments, which are more substantive than this little diversion. ―Mandruss☎22:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still had to weather the process - I reckon that's part of the price of performing controversial edits in controversial topic areas, until Wikipedia comes up with a way to prevent it. A wise man (I) once said, "Ya can't fix people." ―Mandruss☎22:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On quotes: I propose that this from Rochefoucauld be posted at the top of ANI and AE: If we had no faults of our own, we should not take so much pleasure in noticing those in others.O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Almost forgot about my wiki-punishment, as I've been out busy fencing a new pasture for the goats -- neighbors kept complaining they were a bad influence on their previously well-behaved dogs, and things were getting tense. Will have a look, as your essays are usually well-reasoned and constructive. SPECIFICOtalk23:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Revert
Maybe I haven't had enough coffee this morning, but this looks like a mundane fix of an unclosed quote that you reverted? Am I missing something? VQuakr (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thanks for catching that. What I saw appeared to be the insertion of an asterisk before the group of references for that content. I now see the close-quote and I have no idea why the diff I saw did not highlight that when I clicked undo. Anyway, I self-reverted. SPECIFICOtalk16:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to check in with you about the updates to the Guzel Ganieva lawsuit brought against Leon Black. The latest developments in the case are ‘just the facts’ and provide relevant and up-to-date information and are well sourced. Are you able to post the updates to the article about the case being dismissed? Thank you, Marksherr16 (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:SPECIFICO: As you suggested in your last note, I am sending a friendly reminder regarding my request to update the sexual misconduct section of the Leon Black article. I see you’ve been ‘Wiki-busy’, but I think a review of these articles will take about 10 minutes. They will improve the section by providing an important update to the Ganieva lawsuit. I look forward to your reply. Best, 24.177.54.188 (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am currently being punished because an Admin has determined that I damaged and am likely to damage the encyclopedia. But as soon as I am rehabilitated, I will try to take a look. I removed some content that I thought was news reporting unlikely to be considered significant with the passage of time. SPECIFICOtalk14:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That topic on that one talk page needed to be close. In the future, can I close a topic if it turns into theories that are unsupported for Wikipedia? Cwater1 (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks. In that discussion, the initial request had been exhaustively addressed, and the thread had become repetitive. Further, I was not involved in the discussion. There's documentation at WP:TPG in the section on closing discussions. To respond to what you asked -- yes, under limited circumstances you could close a similar discussion. But around half the time there may be complaints about it, and the close may even be reverted. The reason to do so is to prevent needless rehashing of the discussion. Many editors seem unable to keep silent, even when there is no longer any doubt as to consensus on whatever issue. I'd suggest that you watch and gain experience navigating talk pages and contentious topic discussions until you are confident that you can handle closing discussions. When there are many participants and page watchers, the matter will eventually be resolved. It's generally better just to ignore. I hope this helps. SPECIFICOtalk15:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see now. Thanks! I have been editing since September 2020. I have learned a lot in the last several years about Wikipedia and that it mentions everything. Cwater1 (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right. Involved editors should not close RfCs. I considered requesting a snow close because it looks like it will go that way, but we're not there yet. TFD (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're a bit late to the party on this one, Politrukki. But for the avoidance of doubt to future researchers of my criminal history, I did not have any view on that bygone July content issue and had only made a brief clarifying comment in the thread. So I was not "involved" in the sense you imply. Further, the RfC itself prolonged a nasty abuse of an individual's privacy and the SNOW close was obvious and later affirmed by others. SPECIFICOtalk13:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're the one who is late. You have been asked at least four times (three times on this page) to address your close and – to my knowledge – this is the first time you respond in any way. Your understanding of INVOLVED is lacking: the policy clearly states that a non-administrator who has been "involved in the discussion itself or related disputes related disputes" is considered involved editor.Your comment in the discussion was not made "purely in an administrative role". That comment looks like nonsense. Please explain what you meant. Moreover, you repeatedly participated in related disputes before the close: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].Before the RFC, you closed a discussion with a misleading summary "[t]his has been fully addressed."[11] Your later comments (see diffs above) indicate that you should have not closed the discussion, and should have rather entered the discussion as a participant, if at all. Your close failed to appropriately summarise the discussion, and created more heat than light.RFCs typically run for at least 30 days and this RFC was not due to being closed until 11 August. Unless the result is unanimous or nearly unanimous, RFCs are not the best candidates for SNOW close. Politrukki (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did Specifico reply in July? Non-administrators closing discussions are subject to INVOLVED and, I would argue, by extension other relevant policies administrators are subject to, specifically ADMINACCT: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions ... Administrators should justify their actions when requested." Do you agree a response time of few weeks (even if we ignore the one week Specifico was blocked) is not "prompt"?There was a major development to the story in 28 July (I think): Joe Biden admitted having six, not seven, grandchildren and mentioned the name. This was massively covered in reliable sources for one news cycle. No, there's no evidence that mentioning the name was either irresponsible or "child abuse". Politrukki (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
July 2023
To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violation of enforced BRD here shortly after a one month topic ban on the page Hunter Biden, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Thanks for the diffs. The diffs are two and a half days apart, so I conclude that you have blocked me, in effect, for not reposting the clear statement in my initial revert on the article talk page before again removing BLP and NPOV violations. My initial edit summary stated: UNDUE BLP detail, ce. This is an encyclopedia article on the man's life, not a current issue of a newsstand tabloid
As you may have seen on your patrol of the politics space, I had spent the previous several days commenting on, and in some cases removing, UNDUE BLP framing and political narratives that have repeatedly been inserted on pages relating to the Bidens. The UNDUE BLP content about Hunter Biden was initially inserted by one of the editors whose Biden/BLP contributions have been rejected and/or condemned by numerous editors and Admins over that period. The portion of my 7/17 revert that I repeated in my 7/19 revert had recently been added to the article. It is poorly sourced for WEIGHT and is part of a NOTNEWS disparaging framing and narrative on which I and others have repeatedly commented at length. Part of it is not Verified by the cited sources. The editor who reinstated that non-compliant content gave a meaningless edit summary that was unresponsive to my stated reason for excluding such text. Their summary was partial revert. The trim was excessive. -- well obviously they think that -- but it offers no reasoning or principle for reinstating validly disputed BLP content. But the important fact is that they reinserted UNDUE BLP content. And you blocked me for again removing it without (in effect) repeating the reason given in my first edit summary on the article talk page.
Please undo your block. I don't think it reflects the intention or spirit of the page restriction and conflicts with our mandate to safeguard BLP narratives and sourcing. SPECIFICOtalk14:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're claiming an edit warring exemption for your revert, you must make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. Enforced BRD and the edit warring exemption both require communication. You've been around Wikipedia and contentious topics long enough to know these rules. You plainly reverted a partial revert without discussion on the talk page in direct violation of the enforced BRD sanctions on the article. I know you're familiar with these sanctions as you've brought them up as your preferred anti-edit warring sanction at AE, and you've recently reported at least one editor for violating it.
Your recent community imposed topic ban expired less than a month ago, and you've already made a bright line violation in the topic area. I was considering imposing a 6 month topic ban for such a flagrant violation considering your history of warnings and recent topic ban. If further violations occur or the behavior that led to your topic ban continues that will be the likely next step. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SFR, Just saw your reply, thanks. It's late here so I will reply tomorrow, but just a quick but critical note -- I did not make the 3RRNO claim as you cite. You did not sanction me for any revert limit violation, which is the subject of that link, nor did I claim any of those exempt conditions apply. What I did say above is that I clearly articulated that I was removing content that violated BLP, stated in my initial edit summary and referenced in my second one. So the relevant link, if you wish a link, is WP:BLPREMOVE. Further, the bit about The Biden family have been publicly criticised regarding their relationship with this daughter. is flat out a misrepresentation of the narratives of the cited sources, and a serious BLP and NPOV violation within the larger NPOV issues of the content about this family matter. I could have repeated that edit summary on the talk page, but it would have added nothing to the communication of the reason for the revert. Once such content has been removed for identified policy violation, the ONUS is on editors who may wish to reinsert it, not to tag-team reinsert without addressing the stated concern. SPECIFICOtalk02:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the material removed as being so egregious that it falls under a BLP exception. In my eyes, WP:BLPREMOVE doesn't apply in cases like this, so the block appears valid. You might have done the edit in good faith, but it is still a violation of the terms of the ban, as BLPREMOVE is really not designed for material that is merely contentious. Dennis Brown - 2¢02:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dennis Brown. I was actually thinking of the clear consensus at the review of your block of Levivich when examining the revert. One of the issues that came up in that discussion was that there was no discussion opened at BLPN, further demonstrating that discussion is necessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SFR, my objection to your block was not based on an edit-war exemption. I cited BLPREMOVE only because you had cited the clearly inapplicable 3RRNO policy, which I presume you understand applies to breaching a revert restriction that was not a factor in this incident. My point was/is that this was an immaterial violation of the requirement to go to the talk page prior to repeating a portion of my edit from 2.5 days previous. And that it was immaterial because: As is my habit, I clearly stated the reason for my initial and second removals in my edit summaries and those were de facto sufficient reasons the text should not have been reinstated without its proponent satisfying ONUS. Minimal or insignificant violations such as this are routinely handled among active longtime editors with a user talk pointer followed by a self-revert. So: had you, or whoever noticed my failure to post on talk, followed that courtesy I could have gone back and cut and pasted my edit summary to the talk page, and then proceeded for the third time to remove the article text. There was no 1RR issue or 24-hour issue. That would have resulted in exactly the same state of the article. Such reminders to experienced AP editors about what's almost always an inadvertent and insignificant breach, are routine when the breach is insignificant and easily remediable.
As to what happened in this case: Before reverting the reinsertion of the disputed text, I thought I might previously have removed that text and checked the edit log, but I did not go back 3 days where I would have found the first revert. That's not an uncommon source of error on pages with the 24-BRD restriction. I haven't denied failing to post on talk. I am saying it was unintentional and immaterial.
@Dennis Brown: Thanks for volunteering your attention here. I presume when you said "violate terms of the ban" above that you meant to write "of the 24-BRD page restriction". As I said above, I'm not asking for an edit-war BLP exemption. I am very concerned that SFR cited a revert-war policy and is continuing to discuss that irrelevant issue here when I am trying to get clarity and resolution on what I feel was an inappropriate block accompanied by some really bad narrative on this page. SPECIFICOtalk11:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"As I said above, I'm not asking for an edit-war BLP exemption." Yet you wrote above, and I quote, that you did not repost "the clear statement in my initial revert on the article talk page before again removing BLP and NPOV violations." Your first response to the block was to claim your edit was in service of BLP policy. Now you've said the opposite, that you were not invoking BLP policy.
The only exemptions to edit warring restrictions, e.g. consensus required and enforced BRD, are the exemptions listed in WP:3RRNO, which is why that policy applies. As your argument was partially based on WP:BLPRESTORE (but it offers no reasoning or principle for reinstating validly disputed BLP content. But the important fact is that they reinserted UNDUE BLP content) then 3RRNO is the policy you're invoking to bypass the sanction placed on the article. Your failure to post on the talk page is material because enforced BRD requires at least 24 hours after a talk page discussion is opened before restoring reverted content. As stated on the talk page and the edit notice, You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message(emphasis added). If you had gone back and cut and pasted [your] edit summary to the talk page, and then proceeded for the third time to remove the article text it would have also been a violation and resulted in a block without the requisite 24 hour hold for discussion.
SFR. 24-BRD is not a revert-warring restriction. The policy you cited is about 1RR and 3RR. Full stop. I have not disputed that I did not go to the talk page per 24-BRD. Please review my comments above so that we can try for convergence rather than broadening to irrelevant topics. You wrote that I did not wait 24 hours after starting a discussion before reinstating your edit. SFR: That is not what 24-BRD states. And I have been around that restriction and followed the discussion of it when Awilley created it and when Arbcom endorsed it. Your misstatement is disqualifying. I really think that -- in light of that apparent misunderstanding of the restriction you invoked, and your citing of the irrelevant 3RRNO policy -- you should vacate the block you imposed step back from this. Please do not take this as a personal criticism or feel defensive about it, but under the circumstances, that would be best. Moreover -- your reinsertion of the defective BLP content, including most importantly the bit about criticism of the Bidens w/o conveying the sources' statements that it is from their opponents, is a significant BLP violation. I'm sure you would agree that your role as Admin does not entitle you to skip reading the sources of content you publish in the encyclopedia after a BLP concern has been recorded. SPECIFICOtalk12:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look at Talk:Hunter Biden and look at the notice, you'll find that it says You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message, which matches the language on the notice displayed when you edit Hunter Biden. WP:CTOP#cite_note-4 also explains this, saying On pages where "enforced BRD" is in effect, an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it until the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message.
Am I misinterpreting that this requires an editor wishing to reinstate their edit to post a talk page message discussing the edit and wait 24 hours from the time of the talk page message? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. That is not the longstanding version of 24-BRD, and it's a pretty significant modification that perhaps was added after the Arbcom review last year? It's actually a good enhancement of the restriction, and I'm surprised there wasn't some attempt to ensure that the community is aware of it, because it's a substantial modification. I suspect that most longtime AP editors are unaware of it, as I was. Regardles, your introduction of the 3RRNO was still a (presumably unintentional) red herring that misled Dennis Brown. Even more significant, the BLP violation you and Checkers reinserted after I appropriately removed it, as required, has now been removed by Checkers. Kudos to him. Disappointed in you. This matter now having been fully resolved, you still have the chance to vacate the block before it becomes moot. There is nothing at issue, it was not and is not preventive, I have never denied skipping the talk page, I now see that I was unaware of a possibly significant modification in the page restriction that may have informed your evaluation of the situation. Thanks for pointing that out. SPECIFICOtalk13:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Val. Welcome to my happy talk page. Thanks for that. Looks like the text was altered during phase 4, Implementation: The drafting arbitrators will implement the Committee's decision in conjunction with the Committee's clerks and interested volunteers designated by the Committee. -- That came after the community discussion was closed, changes had been decided, and most or all of us non-Arbs stopped following the editing of new information page text, editing of templates, etc. I do hope somebody is going to set me free from this pointless block. Otherwise, sure as shootin' it will be cited years from now as evidence of my depravity.😿 SPECIFICOtalk14:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Valereee. Of course, any Admin can undo the block. I just stopped by to note that, after this unannounced change in the 24-BRD restriction implemented in text after the community discussion was closed, there have been numerous violations on many articles -- per the new wording and terms -- that have gone unnoticed due to most editors' unawareness of the change. So in addition to everything above, I should also be freed on 14th amendment grounds. SPECIFICOtalk15:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, because this is an AEBLOCK, only SFR can unilaterally undo this block. Any other administrator must get either the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, due to SPECIFICO clearly being aware of when enforced BRD was codified during the CTOP review and reporting another user for violating that same sanction I find it exceedingly unlikely that they were not aware of the sanction. That, their edits still being a violation of the original 24-BRD sanction (If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit.) which they clearly aware of, their history of warnings and sanctions, being less than a month off a community imposed American politics topic ban, and the clear misunderstanding of sanctions that they have invoked leads me to believe that this block is necessary. SPECIFICO is, of course, welcome to make an appeal at WP:AE, WP:ARCA, or WP:AN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SFR, you keep posting red herrings and straw women. That's why I asked you to review everything I've said. I have said that the violation was inadvertent and immaterial and that the BLP violation should not have been reinstated. I have not denied that I did not go to talk before the second removal of the BLP violation due to unsourced derogatory content. And I further informed you that I only looked back a day or so to check whether I'd previously reverted any of that text and that I failed to look back the 3 days I would have needed to see my previous removal. So why keep pounding something I do not contest? Much more significant is your reinstatement of an obvious BLP violation and text that fails both VERIFICATION and POV. And the fact is that Checkers, who may be watching and reading here -- and if so, seeing you decline to acknowledge your own substantive breach of policy -- has gone and reverted your violation of BLP and removed the offending text you reinserted. So, I've seen nobody state that text should have stayed in the article even in the event discussion had commenced on talk 24 hours earlier. It needed to be removed as soon as it was re-added. This is pretty basic stuff for CT BLP content. SPECIFICOtalk17:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The original 24-BRD wording is documented here in the first Q+A of the page when the former wording was in place. I didn't make this up. Free SPECIFICO!! SPECIFICOtalk15:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even under the wording of the original 24-BRD this sequence of edits is still a violation I'm afraid. In both the original and current wordings of the sanction, the passage of time is only half of the requirement. You also must post a talk page comment, which you didn't do in this circumstance. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Sideswip9eth:. Yes, I did not deny that. It's the sort of immaterial and inadvertent violation that experienced editors routinely self-revert upon a friendly user-talk reminder from editors or Admins. I explained why I quickly removed it, and why I missed the fact that I had previously removed the same content, and the difference between WP:WP:3RRNO, which I did not cite, and the applicable WP:BLPRESTORE which supported my removal and which SFR violated. SPECIFICOtalk19:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're citing BLPRESTORE as the reason for removal of the content that is otherwise subject to 24-BRD, then by extension you are implicitly making a 3RRNO#7 argument. Those two policy points go hand in hand in this circumstance, particularly because 24-BRD is a sanction intended to prevent edit wars, fast or slow.
Your argument that It's the sort of immaterial and inadvertent violation that experienced editors routinely self-revert upon a friendly user-talk is complicated in this instance. While it is true on the surface that experienced editors will generally self-revert upon a friendly talk page message, about a month ago you reported Jerome Frank Disciple to SFR for violating the same sanction on another article. In that instance, you did not give JFD the same courtesy note prior to reporting him for the same immaterial and inadvertent violation that experienced editors routinely self-revert upon a friendly user-talk.
Keeping what you've just said in mind, if a similar situation to the one involving JFD were to arise today, would you handle it any differently? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, no, 3RRNO is about an exemption from revert warring but this 24BRD restriction is about requiring discussion, not about the number of reverts. They are different policies. The standard for BLPRESTORE is good faith, which Admin Dennis Brown appears to have confirmed. At any rate, the discussion in the thread above veered off on several tangents. Second point: In the JFD event: I went to JFD's talk page on a previous occasion he had violated 24-BRD. JFD responded with hostility while failing to self-revert the violation. He subsequently made it clear elsewhere that he is not interested in interacting with me. So I was not going to go and make him feel harassed a second time. Instead, I notified SFR -- without asking for any sanction or reminder-- to handle the matter as SFR alone saw fit. Thanks for your reply. SPECIFICOtalk20:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leon Black Article 2
You’ve been asked this before on your talk page, as I can see, but please stop removing well-sourced paragraphs about the rape allegations against Leon Black under the guise of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. The coverage of the accusations are widely covered by reliable sources, and those coverages being about a high-profile rape lawsuit, his third for that matter, is hard to claim that they "aren't news".
Respectfully, please withhold from making any more of these edits.
BLP is not a "guise". You can use the article talk page or WP:BLPN to seek support for your view, and you can cite stronger sourcing. In this case, it is still NOTNEWS and should not be in the article. SPECIFICOtalk23:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removing comment on Weiss special counsel investigation talk page
Done
Hello fellow Wikipedia editor.
I would like to inquire about the deletion you made of my comment on the talk page referenced in the header.
As you know, editing or removing another's comments in talk is generally not best practice. After reviewing the removal, I can't tell if perhaps, however, I inadvertently posted my minor edit suggestion under another topic as a sub-heading? If that was your reasoning, though your comment associated with the action was somewhat rude, I will redo my not-nonsense comment under its own heading.
If you decided to remove my comment just because you didn't think it had merit, then I will let your edit stand and follow my own advice about expectations on Wikipedia. As an aside, you have a serial comma badge on your talk page; surely you understand the importance of, the proper use of, this particular punctuation.
If you would be kind enough to provide clarity so I know which path to take forward, I would much appreciate it.
Although I am aware of the guidelines, I am really interested solely in quality forward-facing content which was the outcome. I will leave this discussion to the two of you. FranMichael (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Politrukki, as you will see if you examine the chain of posts and discussion here, I fulfilled OP's request after initially removing it. So your comment here was gratuitous, misleading, and without constructive purpose. SPECIFICOtalk13:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reaffirming my request. With regards to the discussion at Yodabyte's user talk page, they removed the discussion, but you may explain your position somewhere on this page. Politrukki (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Note the guidance at WP:COLLAPSENO – Your idea of what is off topic may differ from what others think is off topic, so be sure to err on the side of caution. I would think it would be readily apparent that “erring on the side of caution” means not edit warring your hatting of other’s comments. As in your case it was evidently not apparent to you, I hope you can take this as a learning experience. Cambial — foliar❧21:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because you reverted the NOTFORUM hat, even with longtime user @NadVolum: having agreed that there was no constructive purpose to more of the same, I did you the courtesy of quoting the talk page header that explains why the SOAPBOX messaging needed to be hatted. Note the difference between closing a disucssion, e.g. with the atop template, vs. "hatting" or collapsing the portion of the thread that is inappropriate. I hatted, not closed, the thread. So nothing prevented any user from additional constructive comments on editorial matters. Hatting off-topic posts and personal political or other opinions is common practice. SPECIFICOtalk00:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is currently in an RFC, removing the tag an the sourced material is not conducive to building a consensus based encyclopedia. Id as you to undo and let it sit until the discussion is over. DarrellWinkler (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have been edit-warring, you have been adding unverified text and OR into several articles related to this subject matter. The first uninvolved Admin who looks at your recent edit history is likely to sanction you. Many editors have warned you about such behavior. I hope you'll stop and use the article talk pages until you achieve consensus for your proposals. SPECIFICOtalk21:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that in the discussion of whether the tag should be kept, SPECIFICO has a habit of making excessive reverts.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SPECIFICO, you are one of the most active editors on several pages, including The New York Times, where 95% of your edits are reverts, many of which are almost instantly after the edit. In fact, in last 4 years of editing the New York Times, you have made the most reversions. I would like to voice my objection that I highly doubt whether you have read everything you revert, especially given that many appear to be good-faith edits.
You engage in what I perceive as failing to engage in quality, substantive discussion on talk pages. [14]. Not all of your discussions are bad, but the speed and quantity of your discussions mean that when the quality falls, it has a big impact on the page.
You have made excessive claims of "edit warring" on many, many users, almost instantly after their edits are made. You fail even to specify with what edits or why you believe "edit wars" occur. DenverCoder9 (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone gets reverted on this site all the time, it's' nothing personal. Please see WP:BRD. Use the article talk page to seek consensus rather than quickly reinstating your preferred content after it's been challenged. SPECIFICOtalk21:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny you mention that, I have just been writing up documentation about your case of WP:BRD misuse. In fact, the majority of objections to your editing habits are (1) frequent reverts and (2) filibustering; until today, I didn't realize that they often come hand-in-hand as WP:BRD misuseDenverCoder9 (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The place to discuss the article is at the article talk page. On all pages, please take care to be accurate in your assertions of fact. I am not even in the top 50 most frequent editors at New York Times or its talk page. Please see WP:ASPERSIONS SPECIFICOtalk22:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok dokie, you made an accusation and solemnly invoked a WP:UPPERCASE (my goodness!), so I'll put in the work to document my claim.
Thinker: Just to be clear, since you took the time to correct the "top 10" thing: I misspoke above. I was referring to the Xtool "authorship" metric, which shows me at #55, far down the list. Anyway the edit count thing irrelevant. It came up in various remarks that user made about me personally here and elsewhere instead of advocating for their propsed article content. The content bit is an issue on which they have been unable to generate consensus recently or AFAIK on the previous occasions they've advocated for similar changes in the past. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICOtalk23:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Valjean: I consider it bad practice to copy another user's signature, and I always use {{Unsigned}} or {{Unsigned IP}} instead. The user can come along later and replace that with their signature, if they feel embarrassed about minor brain farts. That said, I don't know of a guideline to that effect. ―Mandruss☎15:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a policy reason to change the RfC I've laid out? I've seen others laid out like this and never seen an object to it. Seems like a clean way of organizing the comments and also encourages comments like yours to go into the section called "discussion." Nemov (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A direct response to an !vote can go directly beneath the !vote. Extended discussion generally goes in the separate section, as you say. Is that what concerned you? SPECIFICOtalk16:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is already included in the article and there's no real objection to its inclusion so I don't want to confuse people who are unfamiliar. The question is about calling him a "climate denier." Commenteres can review the previous discussion. Nemov (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realized it was in the article, which I stopped reading a while back. I think the mainstream description of him will become much more clear over the next 3-6 months and it will be much easier to gain consensus that's reasonably free of editors' diverse interpretations. I am not a fan of labels in BLP articles. They are too much of an inkblot for each reader's interpretation. No doubt there's a better way of stating it than "denier". I wonder whether there's a more flexible way of stating the central issue of the RfC without using that word? SPECIFICOtalk16:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're right about it being clearer over the next few months right. When I have time that entire policies section needs to be reworked into subsections. Nemov (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see you reinstated an edit challenged by revison here. That is a violation of the Arbitration remedies on the page Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page. Please self revert. PackMecEng (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The reason I reverted was that it went against "affirmative consensus" per the RfC close. The individual who made the change is aware of that close and jumped the gun on his close appeal by changing the description. If you don't mind, I'd appreciate you pursuiing this on the article talk page so that we can go with whatever is determined. OK with you? SPECIFICOtalk19:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This aggressive behaviour is very much unlike you, Pack. I'll self revert and copy your threats to the talk page, where we can see what others think about the substance without threatening. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICOtalk19:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To enforce an arbitration decision, and for battleground editing, casting aspersions, disruptive editing, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 2 weeks. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
And this is because I challenged your having repeated a false allegation against me an reciting a litany of what you beleive are my negative characteristics? Maybe you could explain in one or two sentences what precipitates this block that will doubtless appear to the community to have been a precipitous action taken out of pique? SPECIFICOtalk20:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the ANI thread you cast aspersions multiple times. using it as a spear here and on my talk page for your annoyance at my meagre efforts toward NPOV content and talk page discussion... And of course your personal animus toward me, on and off-wiki is a matter of record. Very disappointing. Your "anyone who doesn't agree with me must be attacked" style editing there is also textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND, which you were continuing after I brought up you had been warned for it in the past. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ASPERSIONS refers to statements that imply undocumented facts. In this thread, the facts were referenced or directly under discussion. Odd that you would pick that out of my chatter with nableezy, whose statements were quite hostile, and quite harsh. Those would have been much more of a concern to most observers and H J Mitchell had already covered them and I had already accepted what he said. Your accusing me of a general attitude that "anyone who doesn't agree with me must be attacked" is ASPERSION typical of your animus toward me. I am not responsible for your animus. As an INVOLVED Admin, you should not have blocked an editor immediately after I pointed out your having repeated a false accusation that OP made about my having twice removed that RfC. And it's all the more disappointing that, last I saw, did not do anything to recant your broadcasting of that lie at ANI. That's what inflames ANI and makes it so dysfunctional. But for an Admin to fall into the same trap of accepting unevidenced claims, even when I asked and OP declined, to provide such evidence -- that's below our expectation of Admins.
More fundamentally, it should have been clear to you that under the circumstances, when you decided that I needed to be blocked, you should have requested an UNINVOLVED Admin to review the thread.
Before you reply, you might want to review my participation at that Gaza War article and other pages. Your statement that I routinely attack editors in the course of talk page disagreements suggests to me that you are not familiar enough with my work on this to make such a statement. SPECIFICOtalk21:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trying further to understand what could have prompted your reaction: this appears to be the exchange with nableezy that they first reference. Did you review that article talk page thread? Do you think I treated those with whom I disagree with attacks there? Do you think nableezy accurately conveyed the sense of my words there, or do you think that the context an manner in which he mentions them provided the basis for a more general statement about me that might mislead you and others? If I had said "basis" instead of "spear" would that have been AOK, but "spear" gets a block? SPECIFICOtalk21:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respond to a couple points you've brought up.
I don't hold any particular animus towards you.
I did not say that you removed the RFC twice, nor did I imply it. I did not repeat[ed] a false accusation. I said that I was of a similar mind to another admin. Being of a similar mind is not being of the same mind. Your response is another example of your battleground behavior.
Being subject to attacks from an editor responding to administrator actions or comments does not make an admin involved.
You are continuing your attacks and aspersions even now. accusing me of a general attitude that "anyone who doesn't agree with me must be attacked"... your broadcasting of that lie at ANI... Your statement that I routinely attack editors in the course of talk page disagreements
There's a whole not of WP:NOTTHEM, both here and in the ANI thread.
SFR, In the context of governance and enforcement, "animus" refers to adverse predisposition. It's quite evident, not just to me that you do have such a animus toward me. In WP terms it means that as an INVOLVED Admin, even if you were convinced that HJ was not adequately handling the situation, you should have allowed or solicited other Admins to handle your unevidenced assertion that I had posted some unspecified personal attack etc. You seem to think it's SKYBLUE that SPECIIFICO is uncivil, makes personal attacks, etc. -- that's the mark of an INVOLVED Admin who should not be making such a block. You also might take some time, if you're so inclined, to scrutinize the conduct of other involved editors in that ANI thread.
I am busy today, I will respond to the substance later. I don't know whether I will appeal it, but this is not an appeal. There's no rush. It would do you credit to vacate the block or reduce it to time served, but that's up to you. SPECIFICOtalk16:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvolved user to weigh in. I think Specifico is somewhat unfairly maligned at times, but, I also do not think it is useful to cry INVOLVED unless you can show that with detailed diffs. I've found SFR to be fair and also willing to listen to reason and negotiate and explain. That's my 2c. Andre🚐22:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Andre. This thread is not a formal appeal. I engaged here to try to sort this out directly with SFR. Among other things, wrt INVOLVED -- SFR's has cited his own (dubious) past sanctions of me as the basis for subsequent sanctions. I have previously voiced my concern about that and about SFR's having closed an ANI that included undocumented and untrue allegations and had been poisioned by unreasoned references to the length of my block log. I voiced some of my objections to that close at the time. Shortly thereafter SFR again sanctioned me, citing their own prior close as a factor in that second sanction. There's other things that I don't want to mention here because it would be unfair to do so without provding more detail and evidence than is appropriate for this informal discussion. SFR has listed their denials above, without responding to the substance of my concerns. It would be pointless to get into a one-sided recitation of my objections if SFR would rather not engage directly and informally. In the current situation, I had already acknowledged the mild rebuke from HJ, who made a constructive comment. We had moved on when SFR appeared and took various actions that I feel were inappropriate, some of which I've mentioned above. Above, SFR has listed their denials but has chosen not to discuss or explain the basis for his view, so unless they choose to engage, there's no reason to get into more at this venue. Actually, whether SFT is "fair" is a global that is not at issue here. An Admin can be acting in good faith but still be involved, biased, and defensive, and make serious errors adverse to other users and processes. I feel that this matter does need to be resolved, but there's no rush and being blocked again for a few days is not my concern. But I am repeatedly being maligned for the number of lines in my block log, in lieu of evidence and reasoned discussion. There's a mythic SPECIFICO character that gets attacked in these ANI threads. In this recent one, I was called a RGW social justice warrior, I believe -- quite something for apolitical neocon grandma like me. SPECIFICOtalk23:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think people respond to your tone, Specifico. I think despite how you see yourself you come across a certain kind of way sometimes. On Wikipedia, sometimes a bit of slow, sugary, thought can make a bitter pill go down smoother. Andre🚐23:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, but SFR did not block me 3 times for "tone." --- Is that the kind of terse response that I should be blocked for? 🤹🏻♀️. As you know, I'm one of the few CT editors who doesn't ban complainants from my user talk page. I do find, sometimes, that they don't like my civil repsonses, and sometimes it's best not to respond. But then when one doesn't respond, as in the recent matter, sometimes the visitor gets more upset. But at any rate, wrt tone, if you care to review the recent ANI -- look at the words of the other involved editors from the Gaza War page. SFR did not block either one for their tone or their false, undocumented accusation of a 1RR violation of removing a talk page post. As I've said it's still what part of this little nothing incident got me blocked, because the words SFR put in the block template do not appear to comport with the facts. SPECIFICOtalk00:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ANI — that's the one where everyone-with-a-grudge-against-Specifico shows up and says you should be confined to the deepest WP dungeon until hell freezes over, right? An admin stepping in on the first day seems like a good outcome to me, compared to the last time I remember. I agree with Andrevan. Anyway, I missed you on the DT Talk page, and now I know why. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga)13:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, well it's kind of a problem when one Admin repeatedly steps in front of other respected Admins' comments at ANI to make precipitous blocks. And doing that, apparently, without checking for diffs and apparently not differentiating between uninvolved comments on the evidence vs, undocumented pile-on. As I recall, you were blindsided by the quick close in the first one before you had a chance to comment. Then they cite their own dubious blocks for the subsequent blocks. I've thanked SFR in the past for volunteering their time to fignt vandalism, etc. But wrt to them being willing to "listen to reason" -- they have repeatedly chosen not to address my concern except with a list of denials, so who knows? SPECIFICOtalk16:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly note from the internet
Specifico, even though we have been at loggerheads a few times, I recognize you have tens of thousands of edits under your belt. Why don't you try to change your approach in talk pages. I think it would be a negative thing if Wikipedia loses you for a future indefinite block. Sincerely, Thinker78(talk)04:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thinker, I don't recall any disagreements with you beyond what's routine. Thanks for your comment. I am going to reply to SFR, so I may move your comment to another location on this page. As I just noticed directly above, SFR continues to misapply PAGs by calling "NOTTHEM" when it does not apply to this situation.When users see someone with the Admin badge make that kind of unsupported accusation, ,they tend to believe it and it functions as another ad hominem aspersion. Anyway, I am not in a rush to respond to SFR. It's even possible that they will undo their block before I have to take the time to prolong any discussion here. I need to tend to my animals today in the waning good weather. SPECIFICOtalk12:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At Glenn Greenwald, you've reinstated an insinuation of antisemitism sourced to a blog, arguing that the author is a "notable expert". WP:EXPERTSPS requires expertise "in the relevant field" (law, not antisemite detection), and says: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert" (boldface not mine). WP:BLPSPS requires expertise (again, wrong field), and being "subject to the newspaper's full editorial control", which isn't true here (hosted by WaPo, but "We will retain full editorial control over what we write", source). That overrides WP:NEWSBLOG, but it too urges "caution". None of thees policies plausibly allow this.
You also reinstated a WP:COATRACK paragraph about an accusation of antisemitism directed at Rashida Tlaib, who Greenwald defended. The first source doesn't even mention Greenwald. The second source is an interview of Greenwald by Democracy Now! (which is WP:MREL). That's tenuously sourced and not plausibly due. Your revert rationale was based on Greenwald's documented interaction with Omar; yet the material making this claim ("In an exchange with Greenwald in February 2019"), is in fact not supported by the citation.
I believe that content is longstanding in the article page. I don't consider the WaPo publication a blog as WP defines it (published without editorial oversight). Anyway, I suggest posting on the talk page and soliciting comment at BLPN as well, if you wish. This page needs improvement in many respects, but I'm sure that this bit can be sorted out. There are lots of references that detail the Omar statement as predicate for Greenwald's and other observers' reaction(s). As you saw, I did sustain your removal of the poorly sourced part of the article content. SPECIFICOtalk15:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One further thought: I do not see that this "BLP-sensitive" content (everything on the page is BLP sensitive) rises to the level of a violation of our BLP priniciple. It is description, attributed, of a noteworthy public controversy. However, there is nothing to prevent you from undoing my edit and citing in your edit summary that you believe it's a BLP violation so that you can make clear you do not consider it edit-warring. At any rate, talk page and BLPN discussion should be able to determine what we do with that content. SPECIFICOtalk16:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, if it were clearly a violation. But this is attributed description of a public controversy, which is why nobody has previously removed it as if it were a violation. SPECIFICOtalk16:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No; again, you should follow WP:BLPRESTORE and self-revert. I'll bring this to WP:AE or ANI if I need to, because this is a pattern, and it's enough.
You can't seriously argue the blog isn't "published without editorial oversight", when the blog's author says in bold font that "We will retain full editorial control over what we write". That bold is from the source. I checked "longstanding"; that's even worse. It was disputed, and you gave the runaround to a less experienced editor, citing policy wrongly yet authoritatively. It shows that your misuse of policies is a long-standing issue.
You're continuing to do the same thing you just got blocked for. It strains credulity to think that you believe a blog is RS for antisemitism accusations, and also believe that Human Rights Watch statements on humanitarian law are "UNDUE and speculative", or that a source that says There is already “clear evidence” that war crimes may have been committed in the latest explosion of violence is about "past Israeli action" prior to the war (you said this repeatedly). Separately, just 2 weeks ago you asserted BLPRESTORE on tame, non-BLP material inside a BLP; yet now you're saying it’s unclear whether I had BLP concerns with antisemitism accusations?? These "geometrically-variable" policy interpretations that depend on the content's POV are clear-as-day battleground behavior, and you're continuing to do it, 2 weeks after being blocked for it.
Your recommendation to edit-war with you (while declining to self-revert) is ridiculous, especially since this is Palestine-Israel content where WP:1RR applies. You can't expect me to rely on the weak BLP exception to 1RR. DFlhb (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that SPECIFICO has a pattern of BLP violations? What is the pattern to which you refer? Diffs and description of the pattern please, per policy. I specifically said above that if you cite your belief that you are reinstating your removal citing your belief that there's a BLP violation that it would not be considered edit warring. I am not calling your objection CRYBLP. I'm disappointed to see an undocumented threat here about a "pattern". I presume you have AGF disagreement. The BLPN and article talk page are where such disagreement can be thrashed out. SPECIFICOtalk19:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already linked to diffs that show your policy interpretations differ significantly depending on the POV of the content, which is battleground editing, which you were just blocked for. DFlhb (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DFlhb: I hate to prolong this, but when you wish to modify a comment of yours after another editor has replied to it, the words should be struck through with a timestamp to allow others to see the subsequent reply in context and to demonstrate when and what constituted the revision. Please amend your removal per WP:TPG. I hope you'll start a talk page thread now and we can proceed per BRD.👩🏻🦳 SPECIFICOtalk19:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The edit and revert were both after your reply, there's nothing to amend.
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Louis Stettner, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I was surprised to see you remove this source. 99% of edits to this page are not preceded by talk page proposals to gain some consensus. I've been reading Klein's work for over a decade. Unlike the mass of newspaper sources and their journalists, he knows intimately the ins and outs of the politics of Hamas and Israel and and is peer-published on that. What he states about the Hamas accommodation in 2021 is well documented, if invisible on wiki pages for that period.
The point follows the standard paragraph which says many Western states consider Hamas ,a terrorist organization, while 'rogue' or non Western states don't consider it thus. The general impression given is that Hamas is nothing but an unbending terrorist organization. It is, properly, a political organization which has quite frequently resorted to terrorism, something not untypical of some Western states, and Israel. The difference is, Hamas is a non.or para-state actor.
The page per NPOV required in the background some bare notation that it also has engaged in political compromises both with the PA and, indirectly Israel, and this particular reaching out for a political arrangement via the PA is known to have been vetoed by the US and Israel. That is a fact and crucial, particularly since planning for the incursions and massacres seems to have begun in the immediate aftermath of the 2021 crisis. That is serious information, as opposed to generic statements that just state Hamas is a terrorist group and nothing else.
Finally, I cannot see any evidence that my edit was contested or reverted before you. No one challenged it on the talk page. You didn't open up a discussion on deleting the information either. In my experience, that is unusual coming from you. Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most readers of this article lack any context beyond what's within the page. Klein is fine, but I felt that the framing of Klein's view and the presentation of it out of context as if it were part of an undisputed historical timeline justifying Hamas' tactics, would mislead many readers. As you know, the ONUS to get talk page consensus is on the editor advocating for the content. I tried to provide my rationale for the revert in my edit summary, although I can understand that it was terse and unelaborated. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICOtalk14:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And also, so I dont bother you with an unnecessary template, are you aware of the contentious topic designation for ARBPIA? If not happy to provide the template as it does not appear in your user talk history, but if you say you are aware can skip that bit of unpleasantness. nableezy - 15:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've already done your unpleasantness for the day. I gave 3 reasons in my edit summary and discussed the issue here with Nishdiani. Talk page watchers will not be impressed with your participation. Template as you please. Since I've already been sanctioned by an eager Admin on this topic, I doubt you need to deploy your clicker. SPECIFICOtalk16:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Come now, chaps. These pages are flooded by an understandably eager mass of editors, and we need calm minds and experienced hands to sort the mess. I noted a month ago that the sourcing exceeded that of the equally long 2014 war and we were barely into the war. I understand the necessity of documenting day by day, but I know all of that hectic newspapering of history will disappear when really reliable, technically informed scholarship kicks in. I tried to give one example of real insight from that small corner of scholarship.
Specifico. The context usually provided is an indictment by formulaic phrases. Everyone knows that Hamas has a reputation for terrorism. Hardly anyone knows its political history. There are several good books on it, and Paola Caridi's Dalla resistenza al regime, reissued and updated this month from her earlier book (which is available in English) to take in recent events, is the sort of thing that will eventually rewrite the narrative in encyclopedic terms.Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If all our readers were as thoughtful as you and I then this would all be moot. But we're writing for anyone who stumbles by, so I think that our article text needs to be twitter/facebook-mindset resistant. The biggest problem I encounter on contentious pages is certainly not Verification, is rarely WEIGHT, but is almost always framing and context of the narration. SPECIFICOtalk18:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that framing and context are serious problems. We perhaps would disagree on how adequate our standard RS sources (NYTs, Washington Post, Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, Haaretz, the Guardian etc.,) are in this regard. Reading these sources in an area whose scholarship I know fairly well, too often leaves me sighing. But I know I can do little about it, and must withhold my dissatisfaction while watching those sources dictate the narrative, hoping that some time in the future, a year or so down the lines, critical scholarship will begin to give us a documental basis on which to reconsider the articles we have. By then of course it will be too late to better inform readers stumbling by, who will take their impressions from unbalanced or tendentious sections, but our remit excludes us from worrying about that. I must catch a plane. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The worst part, in American Politics articles, is that most editors have never cracked a book, let alone the scholarly researched literature. They form their opinions from the ether -- TV, social media, daily press -- then they google to find RS citations, not understanding that the mission of google is to give them what they want to see. Well, that's a good way to help folks search for what they want to find, but it's no way to evaluate NPOV weight. Best wishes. SPECIFICOtalk21:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to participate in rfc on Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign
Hi SPECIFICO,
I think your long Wikipedia experience and familiarities with policy would be a welcome voice on the current rfc on the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign talk page. There's been a lot of back and forth and I think we need some more experienced editors in the conversation. BootsED (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC is proposing a specific statement that is kind of a flash in the pan and internet fodder while at the same time not proposing more extensive content about the larger topic of preparations the Trump camp is making to hobble the government and convert it to a personal instrument for the advancement of his personal intereests. I'm not sure anything will come of that RfC, but much work is indeed needed on a wide range of American Politics articles that reflect superficial news and internet reporting at the expense of the increasing body of books and scholarly literature on the events of the past 6-7 years. SPECIFICOtalk03:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, better sources are needed than internet news articles overall. A big problem with getting scholarly articles in my opinion is the paywalls present to view such articles, and popular databases such as JSTOR deliberately excluding the most recent articles for the past few years for copyright/pay reasons. If you have recommendations for books and scholarly literature, I would appreciate a list for myself and other editors to view in order to improve the quality of the wiki. BootsED (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A librarian at a public or institutional location convenient to you can provide access to such work, as can any physical hookstore, if you are near one. SPECIFICOtalk08:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trump workshop
Re this, Soibangla is being overly stubborn against solid arguments by multiple editors, exhibiting IDHT. Why not start this workshop thread yourself? I'd do it, but it would be too much involvement for my semi-retirement. You could start it off with your own proposed content option, with citations. ―Mandruss☎23:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
bullshit was predictable and the reason for no ping. Your angry, combative, non-AGF tone is offensive, un-Wikipedian, and unwelcome.You may not have noticed that I'm trying to expedite the main article content that you want! For the umpteenth time (IDHT), you don't need an RfC consensus to propose specific content. So get on with it or get out of the way of others who are prepared to do so. ―Mandruss☎00:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am always happy to host a lttle spat among friends, but I believe that this content was being stonewalled by editors who showed no familiarity or concern with the subject matter. Polling says that half the US electorate are committed Republicans, so it's not surprising that some lesser but still significant minority of WP editors are unaware of what's published in most RS reporting and analysis. The Trump page suffered an earlier crop of same who either got TBANs or got bored blocking and went away. It's disappointing to think that the same thing can happen repeatedly with a new round of visitors. Fortunately, some very thougthful and well-informed new editors have arrived as well.
Each time Soibangla has proposed some straightforward article content, various editors have risen up and beaten it down with straw man, red herring, and plum pudding arguments. And that's before the inevitable cheese course. SPECIFICOtalk01:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that pursuit of this main article content is futile? Are you effectively resigning as an editor of contentious content, or just this contentious content? Your comments would seem to imply the former, since widespread editor incompetence would not be limited to this issue. Fortunately, some very thougthful and well-informed new editors have arrived as well. ―Mandruss☎01:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan: The Larry David ref is lost on the likes of me. You're one of a number of experienced and competent editors who have supported some main article content (and aren't semi-retired). ―Mandruss☎03:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my comment at the RfC. I don't see the point in trying to force editors into a specific proposal. WP:VOLUNTEER applies, and the RfC on if any of that content deserves inclusion in the first place is still ongoing. It makes since to me that you wouldn't want to take the time and effort drafting the content to propose when you don't even know if there is an appetite for any of it. Of course no one is precluded from drafting a specific proposal, but I don't see a clear a consensus that the RfC should be closed simply because it hasn't decided on the exact text to be added. ––FormalDude(talk)12:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These kinds of RfCs are counterproductive because you inevitably have people who support inclusion yet vote "oppose" because "proposal isn't specific enough". If we have to discuss each individual sentence before inclusion, so be it, but sources and policy are on "our" side and we should persevere and do that. The think I keep linking to was my proposal and is a good starting point. I thought there was consensus for the first 3 sentences, but didn't push it because that was when the E. Jean Carroll thing turned the talk page into such a mess that admins got involved.
The main BLP should mention it, but I think the priority should be to write a separate article, if the goal is to inform as many readers as possible and present the scholarship comprehensively enough that people understand it's not just 'talking points', 'partisan exaggerations', or 'just Trump being Trump'. Most people just follow TV and aren't aware of the scholarship (it's not partisan; few liberals grasp the complexity of the problem). The two most important AMPOL2 articles on Wikipedia are Democratic backsliding in the United States and any upcoming Donald Trump and authoritarianism article. Sadly I lack the time, and half-lost the will... - DFlhb (talk) 11:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DFlhb: As you probably know, the separate article is already underway. I don't think it would suffer much if editors took the time to develop several options for main article content, which could then be presented in a new RfC. The question here is whether you have the time (and will) to kick off such a workshop; if you answered that question, I'm not seeing it. The proposal you linked above may be too much; we've been speaking of "two or three sentences", perhaps four. It might expand later, but that's enough to get us over the initial hurdle and any resistance to any main article content. ―Mandruss☎11:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for thinking of me in this holiday season. But I'm far past caring about any and all issues on the Trump bio page. The article and its talk page are both an appalling dump heap, and I generally have enough sense to stay far away. The one issue I opined in recently, I had brought up myself long ago, and still have some residual care for. Otherwise, Wikipedia gets the article it deserves, there. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will undo that. I hope you will engage on talk as to my stated concern, which had nothing to do with the topic of the TBAN. As stated: My concern is recentism and UNDUE content and placement on the long article. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICOtalk22:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
February 2024
To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your topic ban, as you did here, here, here, and here., you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 60 days. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
WP:TBAN is clear, Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". Editing sections of articles or talk pages is explicitly covered by the topic ban. Discussing sources related to the conflict is covered. Removing a section of criticism explicitly about the topic is covered. Discussing removal of criticism about the topic is covered. Editing the phrasing of the sentence In 2001, the Israeli–Palestinian peace process begun with the Oslo Accords in 1993 and 1995 collapsed with the start of the Second Intifada and the departure of committed peace broker Bill Clinton from office as U.S. president. is covered. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that TBANs relate to such content wherever it occurs. But it's pretty tenuous to suggest that this uncontroversial copyedit of careless or incomprehensibly worded text is a violation of a TBAN on the Palestine Israel conflict so serious as to need a 60 day block from Wikipedia. Context and topic of the discussion, the intention of the editor, and the meaning of the edit matter. That's why Admins are given Discretionary powers. I've done a lot of editing on difficult pages and I have not seen that sort of minor copyedit draw that kind of Admin response. If I were to appeal this, you would need to demonstrate that these diffs were disruptive and that this block is necessry to prevent disruption. SPECIFICOtalk02:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I certainly didn't the TBAN required me to stop participating there. You and I discussed some references there, so possibly you agree - or at least did at the time of the edits. At any rate, I took a look at the appeal criteria, and I believe it's #2 that applies overall. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICOtalk20:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had forgotten about the TBAN until I saw the block. I definitely think a TBAN on I-P covers Abraham Accords, there is no source about the accords that don't put it in the context of I-P, as does the first sentence of the background section of the Wikipedia article on it, which is the sentence you edited in the diff above. The entire Israel section of the Donald Trump article is covered by I-P broadly construed. Obvi.
TBH I don't say this because I want to see you TBANed or blocked and I actually have no opinion on the TBAN, I don't even know what it was for and never looked at the history (and don't care, no offense), and tbh 60 days sitewide block seems steep to me for "productive TBAN violations" which is how I'd categorize it.
When I saw your name with a line through it on the talk page, I came here to see what it was about, and seeing you talk about appeal, well, let's just say I felt I should give you a heads up lest you thought I thought AA aren't part of IP and deduce that others would have the same opinion. Personally I think an appeal of either the block or the TBAN could indeed be successful if the appeal addressed the AA-related edits (idk how exactly I've never won an appeal). So anyway now I've given you a heads up. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ :-) Levivich (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting fact: Blocked editors do not have the "thanks" link for a talk page diff. So, thanks. The diffs cited for this block, if they are unambiguously a violation, were at any rate unintentional and clearly not disruptive. SFR knows I am unlikely to go to the trouble and/or drama of an appeal, so they have apparently chosen not engage here. See you in April. SPECIFICOtalk20:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The violations are clear and unambiguous, and an edit being constructive is not an exemption to a topic ban. Based on your initial responses and how this has played out in the past I didn't think that further engagement on my part would be constructive. The length of the sanction matches the length of the initial sanction that you violated, and is intended to prevent further disruption. That you are unable or unwilling to recognize your violation is evidence that such violations would recur. This is also evidenced by your long history of sanctions, which are generally answered with the type of behavior that led me to avoid engaging beyond what is necessary.
Look at your initial response to the block, These edits do not relate to discussion of the topic of the ban, nor are they contentious. I suggest you reverse this. Does that do anything to convince someone that the violations won't recur? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when you left this antagonistic comment on my talk page. However, your revert this morning really was not appropriate. You are apparently deliberately ignoring an RfC. Please either explain how your edit does not violate the RfC, or state why the rules do not apply to you. Riposte97 (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you might agree that dishonest propaganda is inappropriate at Wikipedia. Would you really mean it though? I only ask because dishonest propaganda can be quite effective, and it empowers those who employ it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am new, still learning, trying to understand. Thanks for helping.
I added a new citation to the Thomas Sowell to Reception section, i.e. Social Justice Fallacies was a NY Times bestseller month after it's publication. I was surprised to see my edit removed and this note: UNDUE PROMO. Should not have been marked a minor edit.
I am sorry for marking it as minor. I've now learned about: Help:Minor edit. But I'm still confused. I thought I was just adding a fact. Will the cited information be acceptable if, perhaps, reworded or put somewhere different in the text? I'd appreciate your advice. Thank you.
Hello. I did not mean to startle you with that "not minor" bit. Minor edits are things like typos or run-on sentence repair that do not change the content of the article or its meaning. The reason for the "m" tag is to save editors the time of reviewing such changes when they are unlikely to be of much interest or concern. I think the book belongs in the list of his publications. Thousands of books make the bestseller lists but few are particularly significant for an encyclopedia. If that volume attracts widespread attention, discussion, or criticism, it may become noteworthy enough to go in the article text. I hope this is helpful. SPECIFICOtalk02:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the conflation of SPECIFICO's use of the words "no collusion" ("please stop repeating the Trump/Barr lie "no collusion".") with a reply that is not about "collusion", but about "conspiracy" and "coordination". AYW's simple statement, on its own, is quite accurate, but it does not address what SPECIFICO wrote.
Mueller never said there was no "collusion", only "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated..." They did cooperate with the Russians in myriad ways, and aided and abetted the Russian election interference efforts in many ways. Many consider that to be collusion, which, although not illegal, is called treasonous by some sources, as the Trump campaign was aiding a military attack by the Russian military's GRU.
On March 5, 2017, James Clapper said, in an interview with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press that the January 2017 ICA did not have evidence of collusion, but that it might have become available after he left the government. He agreed with Todd that the "idea of collusion" was not proven at that time.[1] On May 14, 2017, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Clapper explained more about the state of evidence for or against any collusion at the time of the January IC assessment, saying "there was no evidence of any collusion included in that report, that's not to say there wasn't evidence". He also stated he was also unaware of the existence of the formal investigation at that time.[2] In November 2017, Clapper explained that at the time of the Stephanopoulos interview, he did not know about the efforts of George Papadopoulos to set up meetings between Trump associates and Kremlin officials, nor about the meeting at Trump Tower between Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort and a Russian lawyer.[3]
I can't speak for SPECIFICO, but your reply did not address SPECIFICO's point, while being presented as if it did. This is a very common conflation of terms, one deliberately used by Trump and his followers, and then uncritically adopted by many on the other side. People aren't careful. Words mean something, and precision is important. Trump deceptively means that because "conspiracy" was not proven, then neither was "collusion", but that's not true at all. There is evidence of conspiracy (some examples above, such as Papadopoulos and the promised "dirt on Clinton", Stone with WikiLeaks, and the Trump Tower meeting. There is also Manafort's passing election data to Russian intelligence.), and lots of evidence of collusion using many different terms. It's a long subject. 'nuff said. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some equate conspiracy with collusion, but since Mueller, with his limited and strictly criminal investigation, made a difference between collusion (non-criminal) and conspiracy (criminal), and focused only on one, let's try the types of things he did find. Because they were not strictly criminal acts, he did nothing about them. His focus was only on finding illegal conspiracy that could stand up in court, an impossibly high bar. He also had his hands tied behind his back with a rule that forbade him from even finding anything prosecutable. He could not prosecute a sitting president, so he just gathered evidence, made no judgement about it, and handed it over to Congress, in hopes they would do something, but the Republican controlled Congress did nothing. In fact, it covered up for Trump and Russia. To prove conspiracy, one has to find written records or actual recordings where one party says "I will do this" and the other party says "Then I will do that." all in words than cannot be twisted or misunderstood. Such evidence is rare. I doubt if any such conspiracy ever existed. It was more of a tacit understanding, described by Mueller: Mueller report#Conspiracy or coordination vs collusion. Trump and Russia had common goals they kept secret, hence all the lying.
Also, there is the Senate Intelligence Committee report, which went much further than Mueller and was a national security and counterintelligence investigation, unlike Mueller's criminal investigation. The Senate investigation found a whole lot more nastiness, deceit, obstruction, and possible evidence of conspiracy and treason-like stuff. All of that can be described as collusion. These investigations found myriad secretive contacts and communications between Trump operatives and Russian officials and spies, cooperation with the Russians, aiding and abetting their efforts, sharing information and polling data, lying about contacts, shifting blame to Ukraine, promising Assange a pardon in exchange for him shifting blame to Ukraine, denying there was any interference, then denying it was Russia, then denying it was illegal or improper, then Trump claiming he had a right to do whatever he wanted, etc. That type of stuff. None of that requires any explicit "conspiracy" or "coordination". That's the type of stuff Trump and his campaign did to aid the Russians as they expected to benefit, and they did. It's all in the "collusion" wheelhouse. Our articles here detail all this, with sources.
"The fifth and final volume of the Select Intelligence Committee’s bipartisan report on Russian interference in the 2016 election is an incredibly long and detailed document. At a whopping 966 pages, volume 5 alone is more than twice the length of the Mueller report, and it covers a great deal more ground." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll read the Lawfare article. I just wanted to point out that at least in some jurisdictions, conspiracy does not require any written or spoken communication at all, merely a tacit agreement to engage in an illegal enterprise. I believe that argument was made in some of the Jan. 6 convictions, where we don't know if anything was spoken before intruders entered the Capitol building together. Of course it is a lot harder to prove. TFD (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TFD, you're right. The authorities just have to have some sort of evidence that such a "tacit agreement" exists, and that's usually some sort of written or spoken evidence. It doesn't have to be a signed and notarized contract! From Mueller report#Conspiracy or coordination vs collusion: "Investigators further elaborated that merely having "two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests" was not enough to establish coordination." That statement by Mueller defines his understanding of both collusion and conspiracy:
Collusion: He described what was happening between the Trump campaign and Russians as "two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests". That happened a whole lot.
Conspiracy: More than just "two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests" Coordination must be involved. Mueller uses "coordination" as a synonym or necessary part of "conspiracy".
George Croner of the Foreign Policy Research Institute has also expressed his concerns with what he describes as a "curiously flaccid" approach taken by Mueller in dealing with what the public would normally interpret as "coordination". He sees Mueller's dependence on a formal "tacit agreement" approach as "an overly cautious" and "legalistic construct".
From Mueller_special_counsel_investigation#Conspiracy_vs_collusion: "They also investigated if members of the Trump campaign "coordinated" with Russia, using the definition of "coordination" as having "an agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference". Investigators further elaborated that merely having "two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests" was not enough to establish coordination."
So there are different ways of describing these things, and while the Mueller report did not prove "conspiracy" or "coordination" beyond a shadow of a doubt, the Senate Intelligence Committee report did find evidence of collusion and some instances of possible conspiracy, such has Donald Trump's knowledge of, not reporting, and lying about the Russian government's promised offer of dirt at the Trump Tower meeting. That promise was a followup to the previous promise to Papadopoulos that the Russians would release dirt on Hillary to help the Trump campaign. When Donald Trump Jr. got the message that dirt would be provided at the Trump Tower meeting, he was ecstatic, as he probably thought that this was finally what Papadopoulos told the campaign they would get. He was disappointed. The Russians don't seem to have any serious dirt on Hillary, just embarrassing minor stuff.
"The Committee's bipartisan Report unambiguously shows that members of the Trump Campaign cooperated with Russian efforts to get Trump elected. It recounts efforts by Trump and his team to obtain dirt on their opponent from operatives acting on behalf of the Russian government. It reveals the extraordinary lengths by which Trump and his associates actively sought to enable the Russian interference operation by amplifying its electoral impact and rewarding its perpetrators—even after being warned of its Russian origins. And it presents, for the first time, concerning evidence that the head of the Trump Campaign was directly connected to the Russian meddling through his communications with an individual found to be a Russian intelligence officer."[26] -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look, but my first reaction is that section would grow as wide as the Milky Way and be unmanageable. See also, hair, hype, humility, etc. SPECIFICOtalk20:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARCA is something where all the non-arbs have to keep their comments in their own named sections, so if you have any comments they will have to go in that section. Only arbitrators can vote on motions. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)02:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are indefinitely topic banned from Donald Trump, broadly construed. You are also topic banned from post-1992 American politics, broadly construed, for six months.
You have been sanctioned for continuation of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and incivility that resulted in a community-imposed topic ban here. Most recently this was demonstrated here.
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 above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to tworeferrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:
First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.
.svg)
