User talk:SPECIFICO/Archive 4

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.  [[Image:Face-angel.svg|40px]]  SPECIFICO  talk  21:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:AEGS notice
Individual editor notice and logging in per General_sanctions 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 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)
 * The link specifically refers to this statement in Carolmoordc's own words: "Note: If you see some resemblance to the wikipedia article on the Samson Option, I also worked on that and contributed many of the same facts from many of the same sources." -- Nothing to justify your behavior there.  You are not allowed to comment on this page, so no reply please.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:36, 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)


 * Upon reviewing the ANI thread, I have blocked you for 48 hours. I have no idea what your or Carol's position on Austrian economics or any particular issue is. But it is plainly evident that your interpersonal behavior is not in the slightest helpful. Please take the next few days to reconsider your actions and adopt a different approach once the block expires. If you wish, you may request a review of my block by following the procedure listed at WP:GAB. NW ( Talk ) 00:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine and Sexology arbitrations vs. false allegations
Notification in lieu of official template that doesn't seem to exist for users - Re: your off topic and/or no evidence/diffs and/or manufactured evidence and/or trumped up allegations against me at two recent ANIS (here and here), as well as in past talk page discussions which I should have reported to ANI previously. If you truly believe there is an issue, bring it with actual evidence/diffs to the proper forum and I will be glad to debunk all of your false or extremely trumped up accusations. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)  15:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I’d like you to be aware of Israel-Palestine arbitration and Sexology arbitration .  Both allow reports regarding questionable or false accusations of bigotry in Wikipedia discussions. Please study them and cease your false allegations.
 * Carol, why are you harassing someone who is currently blocked and has remained silent on their own talk page? What possible benefit could your post bring to Wikipedia? Please reconsider your deeply hostile and counterproductive behavior. MilesMoney (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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_controlGaijin42 (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 Wikipedia. Please consider changing them to English so that we can keep Wikipedia 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)

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)

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)

A cookie for you!

 * 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... Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard --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)

arbcom
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,


 * Hi. Why list my name there? I've not edited the article for 6 months and I've made about 6 talk page edits over the past 6 months since I stopped editing. Please remove my name from the list. Calling me "core" is simply incorrect. Thank you.  SPECIFICO  talk  20:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was attempting to make sure I included the correct opposition. I will attempt to remove your name, but I don't know what the policy is on that. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hope you all get this under control so you can turn your energies to other pursuits. SPECIFICO  talk  21:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is quite a misrepresentation to say "about 6 talk page edits in the past 6 months" when five talk page edits can be observed in the month of December. Five in December shows an active editor, active in the last month. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey there Mr. Bink. Do you think those talk page edits will be controversial?  You think that Arbcom will want to scrutinize those 6 edits. I returned there 6 months after leaving the article because Mr. Gaijin kindly invited me to an RfC that had been posted. Binksternet, your message is guite a misrepresentation, in my opinion.  Happy New Year to you and Mrs. Bink and the Binklets. :)  SPECIFICO  talk  22:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you think I should unstrike their addition to the case, or just let the clerks/coms deal with if he should be involved or not? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Let the clerks deal with it but if you see no removal of the striking then email them with a query. Being named in Arbcom proceedings is not really optional, as Mediation is. Of course, the named person may choose not to say anything. There is a tendency among a small group of people, of which Specifico is a member, to try to force a shut down of drama board threads. - Sitush (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there Sitush, and welcome back to my talk page. I'm not knowledgeable about Arbcom, but I suspect you may be more worldly than I in such affairs.  I took a quick look at the contributor counts for the article and talk histories for Gun Control.  In general, would those editors whose participation has been more frequent or more recent than mine also be listed at an Arbcom or, if that's not the case, what criteria are generally applied to select the participants in such proceedings?   Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You definitely do not belong in that ArbCom case. As for deciding "participants" - sometimes even Tarot cards won't help in predicting ArbCom . Collect (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I'm so sorry that Sitush and the Bink might be disappointed. I really have nothing to contribute to the process, else I would have stayed there just to offer my views.  Thanks, Collect.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply
Hi Specifico, I got the notification on my phone for this edit, but wasn't able to give a proper response until now, which I believe the comment deserves. I suppose "badgering" might have been a bit harsh, and not quite the right word, for which I apologize. As for Ad-hominem, that would be an interesting discussion. On Graham's hiearchy I would have placed it somewhere between "attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument" (ad-hominem) and "states the opposing case with little or no evidence" (contradiction). I realize that probably wasn't the intention, and probably made the mistake myself of "responding to tone" because of the terseness of your post and my reaction to the pot calling the kettle "involved" and all that. And judging by the comments following mine, I'm apparently not the only one who made that mistake, if a mistake it was. I understand the bit about "due process" and I have the same sentiments myself, which is why I chose to comment in the first place. In my opinion, and this is just personal preference, "due process" would involve people coming to the noticeboard, stating their involvement - if any, and dispassionately stating their case, much the way Medeis did (though with a tad more evidence). It's totally fine, IMO, for "involved" editors to comment, as long as they state their involvement, which I believe Medeis did. Actually, I think a !vote from you would have been quite helpful if it had said something along the lines of "I consider myself involved, and have been on Miles's side of disputes many times...I believe he's improving because blah blah blah [diff] [diff] [diff] and he apologized for xyz here [diff] and hasn't done pdq in 2 months blah blah blah. I also believe that User:A, User:B, User:C, who have commented here, are involved and that the closing admin should weigh that in their decision." That, in my opinion, is more helpful, and more due process, than the threaded back-and-forth that seemed to be going on (not that you were the only guilty party, there, but you did seem most active when I read the section). Anyway, I've probably said too much...sorry for the tldr ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Please be aware of possible Wikihounding
Per Harass which doesn’t have template and recommends dispute resolution before WP:ANI, I am bringing this warning about my concerns here. In the last month you have left the following six inaccurate and/or questionable warnings on my talk page, each of which I have debunked and/or labeled harassment. The are all regarding libertarian or Austrian economics articles.
 * User_talk:Carolmooredc/Archive_VIII, Dec 19, 2013
 * User_talk:Carolmooredc/Archive_VIII, Dec 28 which includes
 * a separate Dec 30, 2013 warning regarding another article
 * User_talk:Carolmooredc/Archive_VIII, Dec 29, 2013
 * User_talk:Carolmooredc/Archive_IX, Jan 10, 2014
 * User_talk:Carolmooredc/Archive_IX, Jan 14, 2014

Remember that on June 23 I warned you about Wikihounding and after three more incidents in the following days was forced to take you to WP:ANI here in a section named “Disruptive talk page notices by User:SPECIFICO”. I think the community is now more aware of this behavior than it was previously. Please stop. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)  02:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There's no hounding going on. If you are unwilling or unable to behave according to site policy you're sooner or later going to blocked or worse.  On WP, we discuss content not contributors.  We provide specific policy-based reasoning to support our views, and we do not disparage or misrepresent our fellow editors.   SPECIFICO  talk  02:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Response to ping
Hi, Specifico. I'm just speaking as an observer and occasional commenter at RS/N. So, whenever I see your name there, it's all about Hayek and the von Mises Institute. And it always seems to go off into mild fantasy: Hayek's state of mind, deathbed confessions, etc. This stuff is clearly fascinating to you, but you need to consider your audience, and I don't think you've done that when making comments on RSN. That's really what I meant by "infantile". An inexact metaphor, of course: infants don't speak or write, and as to whether they fantasize, we may not be too sure :)

The crucial thing seems to me to be this: when Wikipedia is complete (!) neither your fascination with that Institute, nor my feeling of slight boredom on the subject, will matter. If enough people off Wikipedia have talked about it and written about it, it'll be mentioned. If there's endless talk about it on Wikipedia talk pages, it'll have maybe more exposure than it deserves. (I pointed this out in The World and Wikipedia: pages change, but talk pages are there for eternity.)

If this comment seems out of place and irrelevant to you, please, simply ignore it, as you would a friend who gives useless advice because he doesn't actually understand. Enjoy your editing. Andrew Dalby 13:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Andrew, "infantile" is not a metaphor. You know that.  It's an adjective.
 * In the context of your RSN comment, I presume you were expressing annoyance at me (phrased as a remark about my words) or that you were denigrating my views, for whatever reason. In either case, your statement was out of place for two reasons. First, it did not contribute to the content/sourcing discussion because it did not specify which of my statements you were referencing or in what way you felt they were flawed. For that reason, your comment could not have helped move the RSN conversation forward. Second, your remark was not Civil in WP terms, and that's not good WP behavior.
 * I hope you'll think about this and consider striking the personal incivility and stating a substantive objection to my view so that I can respond in the proper forum. Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  13:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to, Specifico. Remember the exchange between Holmes and Moriarty: "'All that I have to say has already crossed your mind,' said he."
 * I'll check the metaphor thing, though. Andrew Dalby 20:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "We?" What? You made a disparaging personal reference which was not supporting any purpose of the thread. It would be to your credit to remove it but that's your choice to make.  I notice that you're a regular contributor to RSN and it occurs to me you may not have been aware that these Austrian Economics articles are under Community Sanctions and are currently the subject of an Arbitration proceeding.  20:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this diff: - I don't know whether to interpret your tone as light-hearted, critical, or disparaging of my remarks. At any rate and more to the point, I don't understand what you're trying to say. It seems you agree with me that Hayek looked through but did not say that he'd read Block's book. What else are you trying to say? Please state it clearly and without the personal remarks and ironic (?) tone. I'm trying to discuss this matter with the assembled editors on that thread and I think that can only occur if we try to be clear and straightforward. No hard feelings but please don't make any further personal remarks, disparaging or otherwise. You can make those here or on your own talk page if you wish. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk  20:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I never disparage any Wikipedians, Specifico. As I've hinted above, I have the impression that your fascination with Hayek leads you to prolong discussions about him and continue to bring up his name in discussion at far greater length than is really useful to the encyclopedia -- perhaps even at greater length than his notability deserves! If you find this observation unhelpful, please forgive me. Andrew Dalby 21:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not only is it unhelpful but you refuse to state what it's based on, so that it cannot be anything other than empty disparagement which does not contain any seed of resolution. Be that as it may, I again ask you to state your content and policy based response, if any, to my message at RSN so that we can get on with our job of improving the article. Thank you.   SPECIFICO  talk  00:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 8, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 01:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am leaving this note to inform editors and  that I have referred or linked to their contributions in the Evidence portion of this arbitration, which is now in the Workshop phase.   SPECIFICO  talk  23:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

synth revert on gary north
Saw your synth revert on Gary North. Not sure if that is actually Synth. I realize this is just an essay, but it is an indication that there may not be consensus for the way you are interpreting synth. What_SYNTH_is_not Gaijin42 (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that in this case the juxtaposition leads the reader to conclude that North correctly predicted the troubles at Bitcoin. If so, that would be SYNTH.   SPECIFICO  talk  16:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Quanitative economics
Since you seem to have an interest in the rejection of evidence by scholars in the Misesian tradition, I recommend you read more about "the split" that divided the early CATO Institute. An Austrian economist who DID use data was hired by CATO, and Rothbard was driven into a frenzy at the sight of (speaking metaphorically) the equations on the blackboard. Steeletrap (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What basis do you have for this tale? Please cite your source.  Even thought MR is dead, this alleged dustup may have involved others who may still be among us.  Most of the Cato fellows have PhD's from mainstream universities, so they would have had to demonstrate proficiency in mathematical methods in order to graduate.  I recall that Rothbard himself took maths as an undergraduate at Columbia, and it's surprising that anyone who endured a Math major would find formal thinking abhorrent, or even unsettling.   SPECIFICO  talk  22:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm occupied over the next few days. However, I'll have this information to you by the end of the week. Steeletrap (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC) We instructors of sociology have it hard you know!

March 2014
This is your last warning. The next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Srich32977, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''You know full well that editing another editor's talk page comments is unacceptable behavior. I can change my comments, and I did so before you responded. You may not.'' – S. Rich (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about or why you are so upset. Please don't post here until you can express yourself calmly and clearly. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk  04:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
This is your last warning. The next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Specifically, this edit:  – S. Rich (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

NOTICE of ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Passive aggressive
SPECIFICO, please don't tell people you're in conflict with that you "hope they find peace with themselves". Seriously. It's even worse than telling somebody to "calm down". And don't tell them "All's well", either. Who are you, Robert Browning? Bishonen &#124; talk 00:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Hello. I don't consider myself to be in conflict with Sitush. The two of us have exchanged supportive notes on a sporadic and infrequent basis over the past 6-9 months. As he's stated, the Austrian business has at times caused him agitation and he sometimes expresses it in frustrated and unconstructive ways. "All's well" means something like "no need to reply, no conflict, just leaving a spontaneous reaction to your recent post."  I think your tone is a bit harsh for the occasion. If you didn't mean it that way, no problem.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think my tone is right for the occasion, and specifically that my header (possibly the harsh part) is. If you think that was a supportive note, or even that it expressed "no conflict", well, it doesn't look like the recipient took it that way. Doesn't that give you pause at all? But it's not my business, I'm (obviously, I hope) not accusing you of anything in an admin capacity, or warning you. Just leaving you a spontaneous reaction. I'm done now. You're quite welcome to have the last word. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Look here, I have no problem with you. Go back and read the initial message I left on his page. It was cordial and direct.  In my opinion, Sitush sometimes posts writings that do not advance the noticeboard discussions but rather express his personal dismay, annoyance, or worse.  Not always, but sometimes.  I am far from the only editor who's pointed out to him when he strays in that way. That sort of talk page note is not uncommon.  I'm sure you've gotten and left them from time to time. So have we all.  Sitush's response was not in that collegial tone.  My reply to him acknowledged that.  There was nothing "passive aggressive" about it.  I chose not to engage his specific testy reply and, having seen that he is "retired" and knowing from prior statements of his that he has real world challenges these days, I wished him well.
 * I've seen you make many thoughtful contributions in the past. However in the current environment around the libertarian articles, the arbitration, and the current ANI, it's problematic to leave misleading notes such as yours in place without comment. Many users here do not take the time to check facts, evaluate opinions, or sort out the references and histories behind messages such as yours. They can be damaging.  I've posted about this in the past in other contexts, because I believe that it is a negative factor in any community or social system, online or not.   It's not I who cares about "last word" -- that was Sitush's rather telling reaction.  He's peevish and childish sometimes, way too involved in his self-image as a village elder here, and he projects his frustrations on others.  Not always, but this is a clear example of his having done so and you stepped in the middle of it. "Give me pause"?  I suspect you are too thoughtful in real life to think that Sitush's anger is my responsibility.  SPECIFICO  talk  11:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) Pages related to the Austrian school of economics and the Ludwig von Mises Institute, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.
 * 2)  is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased. Steeletrap may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
 * 3)  is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it, either living or deceased. This topic-ban does not extend to articles concerning Austrian economics but not related to the Ludwig von Mises Institute; however, should SPECIFICO edit problematically in the broader area, the topic-ban may be broadened if necessary through the discretionary sanctions. SPECIFICO may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
 * 4)  is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased. Carolmooredc may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
 * 5) Editors who have not previously been involved in editing the articles at issue in this case are urged to review these articles to ensure that they are in compliance with the applicable policies and best practices, including neutrality and the policies governing biographical content.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Notice of RfC and request for participation
There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated: Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:Gun_control

Notice of RfC 2 and request for participation
There is an RfC on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page which may be of interest to editors who participated in "RfC: Remove Nazi gun control argument?" on the Gun control talk page. Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * RfC: Replace existing Nazi gun control paragraphs?

grudges are about the most useless thing in the world
In my time n Wikipedia, I have done my darndest not to hold any grudge against anyone at all. My posts are, to the best of my ability, aimed in line with policies and guidelines (especially BLP), and never at personalities. Though I am aware of some editors whose sole raison d'être appears to be to track my every edit :( and make snide asides about me. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You know that I do neither of those things. As best I can recall we are on the same article/talk no more than once a month. Am I missing something? If so please don't hesitate to be explicit about it. When something is bothering me, I tend to be rather direct about it.  Sometimes people take offence at that, but if you feel that I've said something to express veiled displeasure with you, it's very unlikely I did that intentionally.  You said something about us not being the best of friends, but I don't recall interacting with you much at all.  As to indirectness, I tend to err on the other side.  Just ask Srich, who's regularly calling "bullshit" when I post on his talk page. Anyway thanks for the visit.   SPECIFICO  talk  22:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not assert that you did . Only that I can point to some who do :(  and with whom I do not correspond well.  Email me for examples . And might you tell me where I made a comment about "friends"?  If so, I meant no insult, for sure.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Not best friends, or something similar, on the Arbcom thread, no matter. It sounds as if we're on the same page.   SPECIFICO  talk  23:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been known to say that more-or-less to show that my positions are based, as best I can, on factors other than "standing up for friends" which one does see at times around here.  I make decisions based on facts, and never on personalities, which annoys the heck out of some people . Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for the explanation.  Makes sense.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And so I get "officially added" as a disputant in the ArbCom case of course -- you may recognize the cast of characters .   and the "evidence" on ,my evilness (shades of Despicable Me).  Naturally the addition was just about at the deadline, but lurkers are free to join in the exercise, to be sure.    Collect (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

American politics arbitration evidence
Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [•] 14:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Caplan
Please look at Mises.org/Caplan. Also note he has published in the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. – S. Rich (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't you have anything more productive to do with your time? Caplan is not affiliated with vMI.  QJAE is a refereed peer reviewed journal. Having published there, if in fact he has, does not make him an affiliate of vMI.  If you knew anything about Caplan you would not believe there's any affiliation.  I have no interest in sorting out whether you're misinformed or worse. This thread is closed.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Arb Enforcement requested
I am notifying you of an ArbCom Enforcement request. --Netoholic @ 05:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Molyneux
Writing to inform you that you should consider the Molyneux article as associated with the Mises Institute, and so falls under the provisions of your topic ban (detailed at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics. Feel free to raise concerns about future citations that are needed on the talk page. -- Netoholic @ 18:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've left a response on the Arbitration page. Molyneux is not associated with the Mises Institute, but if he were associated, the ban would also prohibit me from commenting on the article talk page. SPECIFICO  talk  21:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel like I was being nice to give you just a simple notification, with no prejudice. The article has several references to Mises, and Molyneux has obviously been a frequent topic there . Besides, even if he is a tangent subject to Mises, your ban has provisions to expand as necessary. I will be happy to refer this or future edits to the administrators noticeboard in the future. -- Netoholic @ 23:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no basis for your claims. File a complaint at Arbcom if you wish, but do not post on my talk page again. Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Stuff I'm not banned from: [   [[User:SPECIFICO | SPECIFICO ]] talk  00:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO talk  01:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO talk  02:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

http://freedomainradio.com/About.aspx is a blanket source for the entire paragrah, for a lot of minor details like his areas of study at York, so this edit is unfounded. The debate source is used to point out that he was in debate at Glendon, the rest of the details are WP:SELFPUB, which is fine. You should revert. -- Netoholic @ 19:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The list of courses taken as an undergraduate is WP:UNDUE. He didn't "study debate" he was a member of the Debate Society, which is an extracurricular activity. Please make your article-related comments on the article talk page.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Its not undue detail when the issue we're establishing is whether he is a philosopher. I am here on your talk page giving you personal feedback and making a personal request to revert yourself. -- Netoholic @ 20:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't post on this page again. SPECIFICO  talk  20:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

When "The Corbett Report" posts something about Molyneux, then The Corbett Report is a secondary source. I think you may need to read up on what constitutes the difference between primary and secondary sources. --Netoholic @ 15:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Horchata
I noticed on your userpage that you enjoy horchata. I love horchata, and as a resident of South Texas I readily have access to ubiquitous taquerias (at nearly every corner) which make the finest horchata (as I've never had horchata anywhere else, I cannot claim NPOV on the matter). I sometimes even take it to my weekend-dedicated co-workers as a treat (accompanied by a breakfast taco of course) during certain busy seasons of the year. Store-bought horchata simply does not compare. If you're ever in the coastal bend, be sure to try some. Cheers,  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 23:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I've visited almost every border town in South Texas but surprisingly, we have a large Mexican population in the NY Metro area these days and there's fine fresh-made horchata to be had throughout the area at food trucks, taquerias and upscale joints such as this one.  SPECIFICO  talk  03:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "fractional reserve banking". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 08:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)