Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 01:38, 3 January 2014 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:SPECIFICO/Archive 4) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is SPECIFICO's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 31 days

ANI notice

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

WP:ANI Notice

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

GA reassessment for Murray Rothbard article

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

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

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

The joys of friendship

This was a little off topic for ANI, but I wanted address it:

I consider it a Personal Attack for you to call MilesMoney my friend and you should strike that remark. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Done, sorry (and confused!) that you found that offensive, but clearly, you deserve the right to characterize your relationship or lack thereof however you wish. My apologies for apparently implying something you didn't want implied.HectorMoffet (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hector, please state exactly what was it that you were implying and please explain why you are confused that I would find it offensive? Thanks. User:SPECIFICO

Hey Spec,

I really wasn't "implying" anything other than that, based on your friendliness towards MM, it was appropriate to list him as your friend. When you objected, I removed it.

The bigger message I was getting at in my original comment is that if you really want to support a fellow editor, you need to help them see the ways in which they are unintentionally sabotaging themselves. So often, our natural human loyalties lead us to want to defend the people who have defended us, and to support the people who have supported us. That loyalty has kept our species alive, and I do respect that you want to stick up for MM.

But there was a consensus of 6 editors who opposed an edit, and MM felt entitled overrruled them all. In essence, telling six people that he believes his opinions matters more than all of theirs combined. That trajectory, if continued, is an unpleasant one. The first six editors he offends will over look it, but after awhile, the editors he's offended and hurt add up, until he is asked to leave the project.

The point of going to ANI wasn't to say that MM is a bad person, or to say that he should be banned from the project. The point was to say that he needs to change his behavior in order to thrive in our community.

Really stop and think, in the long term, are you helping MM by supporting his actions? Or is your support, though well-intentioned, making it harder for him to find clarity?

Sincerely hoping this helps in some way, HectorMoffet (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Hector. You did the right thing to move the conversation here and off the ANI. I have been a harsh critic of Miles and have instructed him repeatedly to tone down his manner of speech and to ignore various editors who troll newbies for blood on WP. He's not my friend. I have no interest in helping him. I don't want to stick up for him. I don't recall ever having exhibited "friendliness" to him. What I have done is speak up for due process, fairness, truthtelling, and what I view as basic civil liberties which I expect to prevail on the web just as in real social or governmental processes. To be blunt, to suggest that my motivation or goal is anything else is to question my good faith and honest behavior on WP.

As I understand it the issue on Rosen was a BLP issue and policy is very clear that we err on the side of caution and leave such disputed content out of the article until we can be sure that it would be no violation to include it. Your revert violated this principle. It was wrong. You should not have done it. Miles explained that to you. You chose to escalate and turn that simple dispute into a far-and-wide discussion of his behavior to which you recruited various editors who have complained to or about MilesMoney in the past. I didn't find most of your diffs very convincing. They omitted context. As an experienced editor, you might have realized that as with most ANI threads, almost any reference to a complex set of interactions can set off a free-for-all. I was sorry to see you do that. I don't believe it was constructive.

A number of editors spoke up in support of MM and against your ANI. Good for them. I wrote a short post about the social structure of WP. I presume you've read and considered it. I have no interest in helping MM. You should reflect why you continue to be convinced I have such a motive. He does happen to be one of the more knowledgeable and clear-thinking editors around some of these articles and so I hope you will consider what you might have done differently or could do better in the future to support him and his navigation of this unusual community on WP. Certainly your ANI was ill-conceived, ill-timed, ill-stated. It only served to promote the usual confused battleground chatter. I don't know whether the ANI is still open, but if it is I again urge you to withdraw it.

Thanks again for stopping by. SPECIFICO talk 00:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, I'm glad that I was sat down when I read this. Aside from pointless musings at ANI, which are totally off-topic and have (perhaps inevitably) drawn an equally off-topic response from Carol, I see that you are pontificating here in a similar style. Although it is true that you have on occasion tried to rein in the excesses of MM, there is much to suggest that you are more of a facilitator for one of the more obvious pov-pushers on these types of articles (another one being CMDC). It would probably be best to let Hector make their own mind up, even though you are entitled to your opinion. Either way, MM is not going to be around here for much longer unless they dramatically change their attitude. Even allowing for newbie status & some spurious templating, it is a long time since I've seen someone's talk page contain quite so many warnings & advisories over such a short period without them being blocked, and still the suspicions seem to persist that this is a sock account. If you want to help MM then the best thing you can do is not blame everyone else & the system for MM's failings: you're kidding him and yourself. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but I do not want to help MilesMoney. On that count, you don't seem to have understood my remarks at ANI or here, but that's OK too. You're welcome to read more closely or ignore. Let's call this thread closed. My post on the ANI was a direct response to a point mooted there by... Sitush. Follow the indents. On this page, I wasn't addressing you and it's not clear what purpose it serves for you to repeat your opinions in this context. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Invitation

Hey Specifico, glad to see you back. I hope all is well with you. As you have been one of the regular editors participating in articles related to Austrian Economics, and I was hoping I could convince you to participate in a small experiment on dispute resolution. It's formatted as a simple question and answer, with a hint of RfC/U, aimed at getting participants to talk with one another, recognize potential problems, and with any luck, commit to fixing those problems. The page is at User:Adjwilley/Austrian_economics and you are free to edit at your leisure. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Adjwilley. Glad to participate. I am a bit preoccupied with some family matters but I will contribute -- perhaps piecemeal -- and should be able to get my thoughts up in the next week or so. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your dedication to the thankless role of Admin at WP, and this seems like a promising initiative. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

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

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

gun control rfc

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

Your use of German and Russian in Gun Control

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

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

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

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

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

apology

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

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

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

Ho, ho, doh! (WP:Competence)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A cookie for you!

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

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

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

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

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