User talk:SPECIFICO

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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.

October 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Srich32977. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. None of your text was changed. Adding the space before the paragraph produces a disrupted layout. This was explained in my earlier edit summary. Your text simply repeats what you said before, and I do not intend to comment further on it. – S. Rich (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Ludwig von Mises Institute shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Binksternet (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know/think that Specifico has engaged in EW. The edits involve different parts of the article. BRD has been initiated on them. I'd like to see his replies. – S. Rich (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact, not a single one of these recent warnings from you or Bink is legitimate. Also, you're mistaken about BRD. MilesMoney (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, in view of this and many previous rounds of erroneous accusations against you, I recommend posting a warning on your page that accusations lacking WP:Competent reasoning will be deleted from your page. Steeletrap (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO knows the Wikipedia rules, & We can be sure there have been no fault from his site. I think one of the biggest Wikipedia problems is they do not have any strong policy against giving wrong warnings to Users talk pages. KhabarNegar ^Talk 10:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Or making false accusations on the drama pages, for that matter. There's really no incentive to be honest. MilesMoney (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Careful with those edit conflicts! Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Specifico, I've been wanting to exchange a few words with you for a while now. (I just got back from a 3 day trip for a funeral, so have been rather inactive lately.) You seem to be a pretty good editor, and your comments usually seem pretty well thought out, rational, and civil. But there's something that's been bugging me for a while, and it's been difficult to put my finger on it. I first noticed it at the SPI when you came down condemning it so quickly, and then lobbied so hard for it to be withdrawn, and I've continued to notice it as I've watched the various talkpage and noticeboard threads unfold. I think what's been bugging me is the partisan way in which you defend your friends and attack your "enemies". Every time someone makes a complaint about MilesMoney or Steeletrap, you're there defending them, excusing them, and pleading on their behalf. Yet every time someone makes a complaint about SRich or Binksternet, you're there piling on and condemning. While I totally support defending each other, I think it actually hurts your credibility when you are so partisan about it. As an outside observer looking in I've seen just as much or more disruption coming from your side of the proverbial aisle, and it makes me wonder if you are intentionally ignoring it, or if you are so involved personally that you are unintentionally blind to it. Please note, I'm not asking you to stop defending your friends, but I am asking you to consider the merits of not attacking your enemies. SRich and Binksternet are rational people and can be engaged in rational conversation if you and your friends would engage them. (If you can't see that—if you see them as irrational POV pushers or something—it might be a good idea to do a little introspection.) The way I see it, you are in a position where you could start making compromises, enforcing rational discussions, and even convincing people, if you chose to do that. It might not be quite as exciting as being an officer in this teacup-war, but it would gain you a lot more respect from your peers, would result in more stable and better-written articles, and would save the community a lot of time and headache. In the end, it's your choice, and nobody, least of all me, can force you to do it.

On a slightly related note, I was reading over the ANI thread under the Proposal, general sanctions heading, and it seems like you're trying too hard there. You have four "level one" bolded "vote"-like comments ("Oppose", "Comment", "Observation", and "REQUEST FOR INFORMATION") and you've bolded a bunch of "level two" indented replies ("@Sitush", "As a libertarian", "@Zad68", "THANKS CAROL") and you are the most frequent user of {{od}}, using it in several places where it wasn't needed (example). In a voting-like thread at ANI, I see this as being somewhere between a mild attempt to give extra weight to your own viewpoint, and WP:SHOUTING, neither of which is viewed favorably. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I wish you would pay some mind to Adjwilley's wise words, SPECIFICO. He shares them most likely because he doesn't want to see you blocked which is the direction this dispute seems to be heading toward.

In my limited time as an active Editor here, I've spent a fair amount of time reading over cases at AN and AN/I and when cases involving the same few people keep being brought there again and again, there comes a time when the regulars there get tired of hearing complaints and settling disputes which never seem to get resolved. The more often you show up on noticeboards, the more likely it is that the situation will boomerang back on you. It ceases being a matter of who is "right" and who is "wrong" and instead becomes an issue of who is being "disruptive" and, on the other hand, who is a productive Editor who can work well with others.

Do not bait others with provocative comments which are intended to inflict injury and belittle other Editors instead of resolving conflicts. This fighting has been going on since the summer and appears like it will continue indefinitely until some or all parties get blocked from editing. You are still at a point where you can get past this if you (and others) can get over this back-biting and filing of complaints against each other. That's a lose-lose situation and I'd rather have you around Wikipedia, contributing your perspective, for a long time. </soapbox> Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little disappointed that I haven't gotten any response here or seen any noticeable change in your behavior. I was just reading Liz's post above, and I agree with everything she says. This isn't a very good example, it's just your latest post which I stumbled upon a few minutes ago and had to read a few times to figure out what you were talking about. From an outsider's perspective, it looks like you are trying desperately to get in the last word - as if you're saying "We can get back on topic if you are admitting that you're wrong about this completely unrelated point". Please...try not to make things personal. It's possible to talk about the substance without the jabs. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI

I think that opening yet another section just muddies the waters even more. Can we not trust a closing admin to work out what has been said? - Sitush (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree. I don't mean any ill will toward you SPECIFICO and I'm sure your intentions are pure, but creating new sections/proposals and posting as frequently as you have in the ANI thread is working against your purpose. Adjwilley gave you some good advice, above. With all due respect, please consider adjusting your approach. - MrX 00:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Template

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ludwig von Mises Institute, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. The BRD on this issue was opened today and has had a few comments. The law student issue has not been discussed. It is disruptive for you to follow MilesMoney [1] and remove tags here [2] based on your unilateral decision that there is consensus after 17 hours of discussion. (Personal attack removed) – S. Rich (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You're beating a dead horse. I have removed your personal attack here and I ask you not to disrupt the editing of the Hoppe article. SPECIFICO talk 02:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

@Srich You have been told not to post on this talk page. I have removed your violation without reading it. SPECIFICO talk 03:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Property and Freedom Society

SPECIFICO, I will do all I can to locate, and quote where possible, reliable sources so the Property and Freedom Society page can be accurately presented. Thanks for all your time and effort, I have today looked at most of your wokr and it is by in large exemplary. Keep it up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.252.29.220 (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. In the future, please add your comments on article or user talk pages at the bottom of the page. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

RSN Noticeboard

I made this posting (1) in relation to the Volokh Conspiracy source, and thought you might be interested in commenting. Steeletrap (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably wrong again

You see, this sort of thing is something to which you seem prone. You spread a discussion across a wide range of talk pages, probably with good intentions but effectively dispersing the commentary and running the risk of being accused of badgering. I have no horse in this race but I'm not the only one who has previously mentioned this tendency. I really do think that you need to reconsider your approach. Once in a while would attract no great attention but this appears to be a habit and as such it becomes a potential problem. - Sitush (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Happy Halloween! These are freshly picked from my strawberry patch. Steeletrap (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you. Nice to feel the woman's kinder, gentler touch amid all these editor-gladiators. SPECIFICO talk 03:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Any time, dear. Steeletrap (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Steeletrap and User:SPECIFICO reported by User:Srich32977 (Result: ) Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Mises quiz stuff

I think that the pair of you need to stop now and discuss. Let's not have another bout of specious fiddling around. Agree some wording on the talk page and then apply it. - Sitush (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop? There's no problem. Srich cited a policy with the concern that I used the word "claim" so I substituted a wording which is suggested in the policy while still making it clear that it was vMI's statement as to the substance of the quiz. You are projecting and this post really serves no purpose. There's just no behavior which needs your attention here. SPECIFICO talk 00:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Past notifications

Hi SPECIFICO, while there's no rule against mentioning warnings/notifications that an editor has received in the past, in the interest of minimizing drama, I hope you won't bring it up in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Mark. Me too, thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:AEGS notice

Individual editor notice and logging in per Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community regarding Thomas DiLorenzo BLP issues discussed at length on the talk page and now going to WP:BLPN.
As a result of a community discussion, the community has enacted editing restrictions, described at WP:AEGS and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian economics, if, despite being notified of these restrictions, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanction being imposed, the editor shall be given a warning with a link to the community discussion and, when appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor, provided the editor has been previously informed as this message does. This notice does not necessarily mean your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice will be logged at WP:AEGS.
Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed this and had a couple thoughts. Carol is unquestionably involved here, so I don't think you should take this notification as an indication that your behavior has been disruptive. That being said, it is good to be aware of the discretionary sanctions here so I'm not going to remove this. And, as always, extra care should be taken when sourcing claims about living people. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI, ANI mention

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Note on Barnstar

It is pretty UGLY, but seeing your name next to it made it pretty. <3 Steeletrap (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You GO, girl. No accident you are a daughter of Athena, goddess of knowledge and intelligence. SPECIFICO talk 22:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Meh. I'd totally prefer being the goddess of spunk. :P Steeletrap (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Mises Sanctions as a Horror movie plot: Anyone can die?

Today's cascade of notifications reminds me of a 90s slasher horror film like Scream. Anyone -- that means you and I, as well as User:Binksternet, User:carolmooredc, User:Srich32977, User:MilesMoney, or even new Sheriff User:Sitush could die at any moment, at the bloodied hands of a callous, capricious, admin with many other murders to his name. (Though he totally doesn't deserve it, my money is on Srich, since he's too brave to stay in the safe house, and will actively seek to try to seek information from/impersonate the killers.) Since Miles Money appears to be a zombie (he was topic-banned from ALL Austro-libertarian articles prior to 'rising from the dead' in a re-opened ANI), I don't see him being killed again. Steeletrap (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You anthropologists are always one step ahead of the game, I'd say. Or, maybe it's just that women's intuition you were born with. SPECIFICO talk 04:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I strongly object to being called a zombie; I prefer the term white walker. More seasonal.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: WP:ANI is desperately random. You never know what a report is going to turn into, or whom it's going to turn against. This one is all about Carol, but she's trying to name everyone who has ever edited an Austrian economics article, perhaps to spread the wealth. I guess her actions make sense, in a certain way, but I don't understand why admins put up with it. Don't they know that this makes a laughing stock out of them? MilesMoney (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

For some reason, Rich has decided that the above is a personal attack. As usual, he's a bit vague when it comes to backing up the accusation. For example, precisely how am I attacking her? By saying that she brought up the names of other editors? Rich's accusation rings false. MilesMoney (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I've forgotten whether I'm allowed here or not but if anyone is "trying to name everyone who has edited an Austrian economics article" then Steeletrap's opening comment here is a more complete example. And, Miles, while it was not a personal attack in my opinion, the safest way for you to avoid what will be a very nasty sanction is never to discuss the motives or actions of other contributors except at centralised noticeboards such as ANI. I've survived under a sanction situation for a long time now: if the people involved in this circus keep their noses clean then AEGS won't be enforced. Alas, few of you are doing so and it says much for the admins that you malign here that they do tend to overlook infractions unless they become serious. - Sitush (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a very good reason I'm commenting here and not on WP:ANI, which is that I'm quite consciously avoiding the bait. You reported Carol for maligning the motives of others, and her response is... to malign the motives of others, such as myself. This has nothing to do with me and I want nothing to do with it.

In a sane world, some admin would require her to deal with the issues you raised instead of trying to create a circus environment by casting blame far and wide. We don't live in such a world, apparently, but I'm not interested in joining that circus so I'm ignoring her canvassing and avoiding that ANI report.

Does her behavior make a mockery of ANI? I think it does. But if anyone is maligning the admins, it's Carol. MilesMoney (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Miles, you are a one-man mischief machine. Please keep on your new best behavior, or "behaviour" as you might say. Especially on my talk page. Sitush, you are welcome on my talk page so far as I know. Only Srich was uninvited, I think, but he posts here all the time anyway. Welcome to my talk page. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Wait, did people seriously take offense at my above post? If I call admins elves or dragons (as opposed to supernatural serial killers) is this also offensive/a PA? Steeletrap (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

My browser's spell-checker enforces American spellings, so I type "behaviour" and it turns into "behavior". If only it could automatically edit out my mischief!

So far, the extent of this mischief is that I refuse to be baited. Should I feel guilty? MilesMoney (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your posting of personal details about another editor, by linking the blogs, is WP:TPNO. – S. Rich (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop restoring the link to that blog please, it is a BLP vio, CMDC is a real person after all so BLP applies. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)