This is an archive of past discussions with User:SPECIFICO. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is off topic for that subsection, which is about adding one sentence to counter "excellent health", nothing else. Could you create a new subsection? ―Mandruss☎19:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Done. If you agree with the suggested restoration of content, I'd appreciate you noting there so I can get the content back in the proper place. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk19:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
It's percolating. You may have noticed that I tend to abstain on such questions, and that's (1) because I'm not comfortable with my competence level in such areas, or (2) because I don't care much either way. That one subsec is the rare exception. ―Mandruss☎19:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm wondering why you didn't make that a subsection of "Trump health", thereby keeping it all together in the archive. ―Mandruss☎20:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Never mind, I went ahead and did it myself. Per WP:TPO, and because I think if you had intended a level 2 section you probably would've put it at the bottom of the page. ―Mandruss☎20:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Not really necessary but coincidentally has been about a year since you were last alerted. Give you the opportunity to refresh your spirit of non-disruption :) I don't think Mr Ernie will do the honors, sadly . Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I already have a section here, so I wanted to refer to your comment on Anythingyouwant's page "Ernie, keep in mind that DS only applies to pages where Arbcom has determined that there are major ongoing disruptions." This isn't necessarily true. Admins have been slapping that sanction on a couple new-ish pages like Fake News Awards and United States federal government shutdown of 2018 before there really was any major disruption. I get your point though, in that the topic in general has many disruptions. Sandstein slapped me with a sanction, so I no longer participate at AE (and I'll admit my contributions there offered little to no value). Personally I find it very difficult to act neutrally in that topic area. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I figure that if the DS go on a page where they are not needed it is not very much of a burden there. But I think the problem is that editors who by ignorance, obstinacy or genius insight reject the mainstream are by definition in the minority and minorities always need to be more assertive to try to be heard. When we find out that -- as Trump said -- it really was the 400-pound guy in his basement in New Jersey who hacked the DNC, then the same editors we call fringe today will have a bonanza of RS to support what they now only suspect is the truth. SPECIFICOtalk20:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The real problem is that politics doesn't play out like other subjects. The right side in a political debate is often a matter of opinion, and even when it's not, the number on the wrong side are typically far less lopsided than in other topics, like fringe theories.
DS sanctions work wonders for pseudoscience topics, but they fall flat with politics because any admin who enforces them invariably takes a side. Since politics is seen by the majority of people (even highly partisan people) as not having an absolute right vs wrong side, it can be both very difficult to get an admin to impose sanctions, and very difficult to make those sanctions stick when the 25% of editors who's politics align with those of the sanctioned party all clamor for the case to thrown out at AE or pile into a clown car thread at ANI to complain about them.
Add to that the sheer number of editors with obvious political views who disclaim even having any political views (I'm looking at you, SPEC, though you're far from alone in that), the hysterical nature of those who support minority views that can't gain traction (see "no words can adequately express..." above), the on-wiki conspiracy theories (see everything TParis has ever said about WP's "liberal" bias) and the endless gaming engaged in by otherwise good editors in order to counter their opposition (no names here, because it's so fucking common across both isles) and you end up with American politics being the hot mess that it is.
What we need is a unique approach to dealing with conflict and disruption in AmPol, instead of simply slapping the same sticker on it that we use for creationism and flat earthers. But there are enough dishonest editors in AmPol that I doubt even a perfect system could get traction. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Nah. As you've seen me say many times, encyclopedia articles don't deal well with developing stories, and I very rarely deal with "breaking news" except when I see editors using WP to promote talking points or biased POVs. Because WP comes up near the top of search engine results, we can't just say NOTNEWS and wait for the facts and RS narratives to settle. I'm surprised you would infer any sort of political POV or even interest from my editing, since I just don't care much about the subject. A lot of what I do seems to involve pushing back against fringe, POV and UNDUE content on various articles. Many editors are naive or uninformed about how the "news" gets reported in the media. I've had a fair amount of professional experience getting media attention for me or projects I was promoting. To the extent WP editors choose to work on news-laden topics, the nature of "news" is something they need to understand. News is constructed not discovered. Reporters are not scientists. Look how many editors are ready to put Pres. Trump's checkup press event into his article as a noteworthy event when the only news is that, after an hour of scripted nonsense, there is no news. Look how many editors were sucked in by the Seth Rich nonsense courtesy of Wikileaks. It took nearly a year until the conspiracy theorists overplayed their hand. Somehow I stumbled on these politics articles last year, and I find that reading and citing good sources is a challenge like a good crossword puzzle. It's not helpful to think about POV anyway, because site policies and guidelines are very robust if they're understood and followed. Most of the editors who appear to have a political POV are making bad edits that can be identified and discussed solely in terms of policy and guidelines. Thinking in terms of personal POV isn't helpful. Anyway, I can't imagine things would be improved by having separate norms for various subjects. Simple and robust rules are better. As to DS enforcement, we're all volunteers here so there's no point criticizing the Admins when we think their efforts fall short. I do think it's unfortunate to flog someone like Coffee, however, for actually making the effort to improve the process. And actually the politics articles are much better off than the fringy articles in that there are many editors at American Politics. They have pretty much withstood the bad editing of a small and dwindling minority. The nutmuffin articles like G. Edward Griffin, Dinesh D'Souza, Stefan Molyneux and others are much more vulnerable because even one or two POV editors can disrupt an article that has less than 30 watchers. Politics survives even a constant stream of bad edits. But the article content always improves over time when it's no longer WP:RECENT. Things get sorted out and undue content gets deleted. Even Trump's rhinoceros/kangaroo test will disappear from his article before too long. SPECIFICOtalk23:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, let's get the disagreement part out of the way first: You say you're surprised I would infer any sort of political POV "or even interest" from your editing. Well, your top edited pages in article space are all political or economic (economics is a major aspect of politics, it's worth pointing out), and your top edited page, by almost a factor of two over your next-most-edited page (this one) is Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. And I've seen the positions you take on many of those. You are reliably left-leaning (in the American sense). That's not a critique; I'm very left-leaning myself. But I really wish editors like you and Guy Macon, both of whom I like and generally respect a great deal would own that POV. Everybody over the age of 20 or so has a political POV. Anyone who tells you that they don't is lying; either to you or to themselves. Politics is nothing but socializing and problem solving writ large, and we humans are social creatures who love to solve problems.
But I think that any approach to dealing with AmPol seriously would involve making NOTNEWS apply differently, just like the way WP:RS applies differently to medicine and living people, and for pretty much exactly the same reasons you give, here.
And while I agree that over time, political articles stabilize and get better, I've seen with my own eyes, repeatedly that this is despite all the conflict they cause. It's really a testament to the power of the WP process, that with enough time, we can even get good articles on politics. Look at any political article on conservapedia for a counter-example.
If I had my way, I'd do something like the following:
I'd make a rule that any editor disclaiming any political POV gets an immediate topic ban from AmPol that last until they state a political POV. Any editor who can be shown to have edited against their stated POV consistently would be topic banned, as well. Admins would be exempt from declaring, so long as their involvement was only as an admin. So GoldenRing would not have to declare, but MelanieN would.
I'd enforce a 3-day minimum age on sources, as 3 days is not so much that WP can't be said to be up-to-date, but enough to give even newspapers time to print corrections and blast each other for mistakes.
I'd also create a "no aspersions at all" rule on political talk pages. If someone wants to opine that you should be indeffed, they can come to your talk page to do it.
I'd institute a rule that no admin can be second-guessed on any block of 24 hours or less, and encourage admins to hand them out liberally. Hell, I probably could have used a 24 hour block a few times myself, and I know some of our "mutual friends" could really stand to get one at least once a week.
I'd write a policy page explaining that 24 hour blocks for bad conduct on AmPol pages are encouraged, so that the admins can link to it when blocking. Eventually, the stigma of being blocked will be lessened by the sheer number of people with long blocks logs that all say "Blocked 24 hours per WP:AMPOL24HOURBLOCKS. Everybody who edits in AmPol would have at least a few, and so it wouldn't be something to be ashamed of, or use as evidence at ANI. Of course, longer blocks for site-wide policy vios would be different.
I'd try to get AE back to it's original purpose; a DS enforcement page along the lines of WP:3RRN. A quick report, followed by a bare minimum of discussion, ended with a quick and decisive action by an admin.
Sure, a lot of "innocent" people would get caught in the crossfire, so to speak. And a lot of newbie editors who jumped into politics would get soured real quick. But both of those things are already happening. Anythingyouwant got (rightly and rather leniently, IMHO) topic banned, then when they predictably lashed out over it, caught a block that was barely justified, and then only after the fact. And there's probably a lot of room for tweaking over things I hadn't thought of with that. But I promise you this: if we did those things I proposed, the most hysterically POV pushers would end up indeff blocked or TBANed within a few months. Because if you think about some of those POV pushers and how they act, you'll realize that those remedies will absolutely drive them insane. This is intentional. Just like how WP:MEDRS and the pseudoscience DSes troll alt-med fans, these will troll the AmPol POV pushers.
Oh, and most of the most visible fringey articles are actually pretty damn good. The quality of a fringe article is pretty much directly proportional to the popularity of the fringe views it addresses (actually, it's more proportional to it's popularity with debunkers, but that works out very similarly). So there's lots of crap occult articles, and articles about obscure conspiracy theories that are shit, but stuff like Vaccine controversies is actually really good. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.00:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Look, I don't do all that much around here compared to the more active editors. You're insistently telling me I am a POV editor, and because I'm not and you have no evidence of that I take it as an insult although not a personal attack, because unlike many editors I know the difference. But you also have stated at least twice on article talk pages that my participation is just to criticize other editors (rather than their edits) which is also not true and makes you look bad to boot. Any article that has lots of editors watching ends up OK in the long run - I think we agree on this. The artful and relatively civil POV pushers who get into the sinews of the wording and skirt the edge of due weight and synth are the most problematic. I get along fine with several of them even though their edits are consistently mistaken. The childish ones who are acting out or playing video games or righting great wrongs because they read Dick Cheney's biography -- those are the ones that cause overt disruption. They end up getting banned. The civil ones, like my dear friend Atsme, who first amazed me with the verve and panache she showed at the aforementioned G. Edward Griffin article, end up part of the community whose nonsense never rises to the level of interpersonal disruption. In the case of my civil friend Anything, as I've said more than once on AE threads, the Admins should have recognized long ago that American Politics is (because of the Federal court appointments) an extension of the Abortion topcic, and should fall under Anything's TBAN (broadly construed) there. It's too late for the Oscar nominations but Anything's indignation was truly impressive. SPECIFICOtalk01:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Now that I've read your points, I would say #1 is unworkable and logically inconsistent. Do the math. The rest are in the spirit of what I've been saying for the past year. No arguments more or less. SPECIFICOtalk01:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
NeilN You don't edit in AmPol, at least not with the regularity that the group in question do. There are about 2 dozen editors who can be reliable counted on to show up with arguments (for one side, the other, for a fringe view or for calm and reason) at any given talk page in AmPol, and you aren't one of them. You can figure out who they are by checking out the top editors reported to (and filing reports at) AE over the post-1932 American politics DS, because those two groups have an almost perfect correlation.
If I saw your participation in a dozen or so AmPol discussions, I could come up with a loose description of your political views. I have no doubt you could do the same, if you had to. You may find it offensive that I think I could describe it, given enough evidence of it, but that's simply how people are. We make constant judgements about everything and everyone around us. Not all of those judgements are bad, even when they sound bad to you.
To both; If you honestly can't characterize your beliefs in politics, then you shouldn't be editing in politics (at least not in a major way). I'm being completely serious. I didn't say one has to identify as Republican or Democrat, or even Left or Right. But if you can't consider your own opinions and then give them some sort of loose description, then either you don't know where in the spectrum of politics your beliefs lie, or you don't have the capacity to express abstract thought very well. I can give multiple descriptions of my own politics, with the most common being "Half liberal, half libertarian with a centrist streak." I can also go into a ton of detail about it, describing my views on every political issue that affects me. In the loosest possible sense, you could say I'm a left-wing editor and I'd more or less agree with that. SPEC, I know you're intelligent and insightful enough to do the same. Whether you don't want to say something that editors who don't like you can use against you, or whether you just haven't examined your own beliefs enough to describe them briefly is really beside the point, because I have no doubt that you could. The only people who legitimately could not would be people who lie to themselves about their political views, or people who just don't care enough about politics to put much thought into their political views. But not caring about politics has a side effect of making people not want to edit in politics, especially now with all the stupid drama that goes on there. I know that's not the case with the editors I'm referring to.
SPECIFICO, I can accurately describe your political views in general terms, though I have yet to do so. So can many other editors here, who have previously done so on talk pages (though in condemnatory, battleground and dismissive terms) and in emails sent to me about the constant drama in AmPol (Sometimes also in the same terms, but other times in much more objective terms). Just as you have correctly described the political views of several other editors in emails you have sent to me.
Though I have to admit that an automatic topic ban might not be the best way to do it. But I'm sure that a method of enforcing a "declare your views" could be worked out.
You're insistently telling me I am a POV editor, No, I'm not. SPEC, you're ignoring the majority of what I wrote about it to focus on the part you disagree with, and thereby changing the meaning. I didn't call you a POV editor, I said you have a POV in the same sense that everyone has a POV and I said it's pretty clear what that POV is to the rest of us. There's a world of difference between someone who edits to advance a particular point of view, and someone who edits to improve the project while being informed by their point of view. The former are disruptive editors who should be banned, the latter is everyone else. I'm quite explicitly putting you into the latter category.
But you also have stated at least twice on article talk pages that my participation is just to criticize other editors (rather than their edits) which is also not true and makes you look bad to boot. That is not true the was you have put it. Your participation in certain discussions may have consisted of nothing but feeding to the drama, and I may have called you out on that, but that's not the same as making a generalized statement about your participation in the topic, or saying anything about your reasons for participating. SPEC, I like you and I respect you, but that simply doesn't make you immune from criticism, or mean that I agree with every single thing you say. And anyone who think it reflects poorly upon me to point out that someone is being unhelpful in that moment is someone whose opinion I don't much care for, anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
@MPants at work: "Half liberal, half libertarian with a centrist streak." - which has different meanings in the U.S., Britain, Cuba, Canada, France, Poland, etc. Never mind the conflation of social and financial ideologies. "You may find it offensive that I think I could describe it, given enough evidence of it..." That's not what I would find annoying. I would find it annoying that I would have to view and describe my beliefs through an American lens for point #1 to have any sort of meaning. Anyways, my two cents. --NeilNtalk to me14:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN:...which has different meanings in the U.S., Britain, Cuba, Canada, France, Poland, etc. Never mind the conflation of social and financial ideologies. Yes, and the context is built right in. It's the meaning in the US, as we're talking about American politics. As for the conflation of social and financial ideologies, that's just a fact of politics. "Socially liberal and economically conservative" is as valid a description as any other.
I would find it annoying that I would have to view and describe my beliefs through an American lens for point #1 to have any sort of meaning. But you wouldn't have to, given your editing history. If you added AmPol to your editing portfolio, you would quickly come to see how your views are characterized in the sources, and who among editors and notable persons quoted or written about by the RSes shares your views, and how they are described, by themselves and by the RSes.
And while it may remain annoying to have to do so, can you honestly say that it's any less annoying than -for example- being repeatedly dragged to ANI and complained about on admin talk pages because you refuse to engage with an editor who lies constantly, or god forbid, had to audacity to call them out on one of their lies?
Also, it's worth pointing out that the strictures are designed to be annoying. They'll annoy everyone, but those pushing views not aligning with the sources will be the most annoyed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.14:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Mr. Pants: I'm serious about the salad thing. Think about it. Anyone who could reduce political or social issues to a single dimension is not likely to be understanding it very well. SPECIFICOtalk15:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
You're the only one who's mentioned a single dimension. To be clear: I've been referencing a description. Wikipedia is descriptive, but that doesn't mean all of our articles consist of a linear scale indicating whether the subject is "good" or "bad", for example. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
OK I'll bite. Could you make your or a model user's bullet point one POV disclosure? Thoughtful understanding and POV disclosures are like rhinoceros and giraffes. They're only side by side on Alzheimer's screenings. SPECIFICOtalk15:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I already gave an example of my own, above. NeilN quoted it: "Half liberal, half libertarian with a centrist streak." That's a loose description, but editors would be free to use even looser ones (e.g. "left-wing", "conservative", "alt-right", "libertarian" or "centrist"), or to write ten paragraphs on their user page. I've been vague for a reason; to allow people to have plenty of wiggle room, and avoid wikilawyering over whether someone's been specific enough. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
@MPants at work: "...you would quickly come to see how your views are characterized in the sources". Which indicates a problem. I think NPOV of major political bios for any country could be improved if more weight and attention was given to what international sources are saying. It would help with WP:UNDUE issues and de-emphasize local partisan POVs. --NeilNtalk to me15:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I think NPOV of major political bios for any country could be improved if more weight and attention was given to what international sources are saying. I agree with that entirely. Maybe my strictures above should have another bullet point. But as to how it applies to editors, I don't see why the American sources -who may be biased, but who are in generally in very tight agreement about what views are "liberal" or "conservative" or "libertarian" or what have you- couldn't be used to gauge one's own views. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
We also have discretionary sanctions for Eastern Europe, Palestine-Israel, Pakistan-India-Afghanistan, etc. I think you'll get quite a reaction if you suggest American editors editing in these areas have to figure out how their views would be described by the local sources. --NeilNtalk to me16:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
No, I'm not suggesting we apply this standard to other topics with DS sanctions. They might need customized standards themselves, but not having edited in those topics, I can't make an informed judgement of whether that is so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
That kind of pithy summary is meaningless and provides no instrumental advantage. Our sourcing and content policies on the other hand are deep and robust and have an extensive history of exegis and application to guide us. We just don't have very many Admins who fully understand or apply them. SPECIFICOtalk16:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
That kind of pithy summary is meaningless and provides no instrumental advantage. Well, you're in disagreement with the entirety of the RSes if you think "liberal" or "conservative" are descriptions lacking any meaning. And the advantage provided by requiring editors to declare it is twofold:
It makes editors remain conscious of their own declaration. I know from experience and peer-reviewed psychology that declaring a bias makes people more internally aware of that bias when considering new information. It's not a cure-all by any means, but it helps moderate views somewhat. I know you've seen me take positions at odds with my usual political view, and each time knowing my own biases helped me come to that decision.
It provides an additional datum for identifying disruptive editors. An editor who describes themselves as a "California liberal" yet advocates pro-Trump, anti-Democrat positions in every discussion is clearly there to push an agenda, whereas an editor who identifies as "alt-right" who does the same thing is much more likely to be editing in good faith. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
This is actually quite helpful, but I'm afraid it shows that you don't have a very deep understanding of political or public policy processes. And the idea that "RS" state that thoughtful views on complex issues can be reduced to a single dimension is both false and irrelevant. SPECIFICOtalk16:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
but I'm afraid it shows that you don't have a very deep understanding of political or public policy processes. That's unnecessarily combative, completely false and in direct contradiction to things you have said previously, both in emails and on wiki.
And the idea that "RS" state that thoughtful views on complex issues can be reduced to a single dimension is both false and irrelevant. Once again: You're the only person talking about a "single dimension". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
You're conflating content with behavior. I'm only discussing behavior here, though some of my points have mentioned content. As far as behavior goes, we (justly and for very good reasons) already use editor POV as a guide. See WP:CRUSH, WP:RGW and other such essays which are frequently cited in behavioral discussions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I think one of the reasons editors with the AmPol POV on the right think there is favoring of editors on the left is because you can simply look at the last couple years worth of AE episodes and see which "side" received more sanctions. Of course one would have to assume that the behavior on both "sides" is roughly equal. I think there was an editor keeping a log of those results but I can't remember who or where it was. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I've made pretty much the exact same observation myself. I think it was TTAC who was keeping track, but I'm not sure. I have a link to the actual page tracking it on my home computer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
All this talk about POV makes me uneasy. It's like getting my heinie pinched taking a photo with an MP or something. No more POV stuff. Talk policy guidelines process and enforcement. It's neither useful nor thoughtful to personalize social processes and contexts. By social process in this case I mean WP editing collaboration. SPECIFICOtalk17:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I can make heads or tails of this comment. The bit about personalizing social processes doesn't make any sense. Are you saying you would like to stop discussing this? If so, that's fine by me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm a social scientist. I have at least some ability to consider complex social interactions in terms of structure and process rather than individual will and opinion. That's the only approach that makes sense to me, so if it doesn't make any sense to you then oddly enough we've accomplished a great deal. We've learned to enjoy one another's company from time to time without trying to discuss these issues. Best wishes. SPECIFICOtalk17:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
That's the only approach that makes sense to me, so if it doesn't make any sense to you... Again, you're putting words into my mouth that I never said. But I'm not going to bother pointing out the multiple ways in which I've already addressed structures and processes, nor argue against the implicit assumption that individual will and opinion can be separated from social interactions which you seem to have made unless you explicitly ask me to. So best wishes to you, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
In all seriousness, I really think there's a bit of a gulf here that we had some difficulty communicating across. You misread some of what I said, and I couldn't make heads or tails of some of what you said. In the end, it's no big deal because it wasn't a serious policy proposal being discussed, more of a "If I were king..." thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Well I haven't seen any "anti-Trump" editing, nor would I expect to -- because the mainstream RS among world media is "anti-Trump". The reason we have "pro-Trump" editing is that for individuals who happen to hold or promote that personal viewpoint, there's no way they can satisfy their objectives within WP site policy. Hence we find them violating due weight, synth, BLP and whatever else stands in the way of promoting "pro-Trump" POVs. It just doesn't happen to be the mainstream view of him right now. Ironically, if you ask me my personal view, I think he's been highly effective at implementing far-reaching policy changes for the American Republican agenda of the post-Nixon era. I would say he's the most effective president since Reagan in that regard, and that he may have surpassed Reagan as a figurehead for the Republican far right that was born in the latter days of the New Deal era at the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce and has brilliantly institutionalized a platform for its interests by infiltrating academic and public policy institutions to normalize that agenda. SPECIFICOtalk20:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment of the first couple of sentences there, though not all the specifics (I have seen anti-Trump editing in the form of editors who insert claims critical of Trump which are not verifiable or not due). I disagree with some of the characterization of the last bit in that I think a lot of the credit you're assigning Trump should rightfully go to his advisors, and I think you may be overstating his effectiveness a bit (though he's certainly been more effective than Bush Sr. or Jr. in that regards), but other than that, I'm pretty much on board with it, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
With Eisenhower, Reagan, and Trump the Americans have canonized the model of a celebrity figurehead for an underlying agenda. Every time the Democrats recited how Hillary was the most qualified candidate ever, it just confirmed they have no idea what qualifies an American candidate -- it is neither intellect nor policy understanding. Folks are villifying Steven Miller nowadays, but David Stockman was every bit as ignorant even though he's now ripened into an anti-Reaganist elder statesman. Note that on a few key positions, e.g. Fed Chair and others, Trump was able to recruit well-qualified leaders. The others, including Gorsuch, are well-functioning in the assigned task of deprecating the roles they have been assigned. SPECIFICOtalk21:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
You'll get no argument here. I just think that it's less Trump making those calls, and more his advisors making those calls (and probably making Trump think he made them). The difference between the characterization Trump has been giving of himself for the last 30 years and the characterization of a man pushing America to the right in a canny way just doesn't jive, especially when you consider Trumps track record in promoting his brand in new ways; For all of the historic diversity of "Trump"-branded products and services, the only successes he's ever enjoyed were in real estate (hard to fail in that, given enough capital) and reality television, which has its own set of rules that only make sense to reality television fans, cast and crew.
Lord knows that most people, including most voters, don't understand the difference between qualifications and appeal. It's for damn sure the Democrats weren't understanding that in the election. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Right, Trump is one of the most effective US Presidents, regardless of whether he personally cares about public policy -- policy is not his job. But look at how the American press ridicules the cabinet meetings in which they all tell him he's a great President. Well, he is -- so far at least. Remember Reagan was a pudding with a pompadour for 4-6 years in the Oval Office, and the American man in the street thinks he defeated the Russians. Yes those Russians. SPECIFICOtalk21:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
A lot of the controversy boils down to differences in what one considers "great". Was Hitler a great military leader? He had all of Europe either shaking in their boots or falling to his armies, even managing to steamroll Russia for a bit. But his strategic decisions were all either crap or mediocre. If success is the sole measure of greatness, then I'd have to agree that Trump is the best thing for the political right since Reagan. But I've met too many people with incredible talents in the arts who still have a day job and too many of my Army buddies -incredibly dangerous and cunning warriors one and all- are now just memories in the minds of their friends and families. Success may have a strong correlation with ability; but it's not 1:1.
The problem is that, on the left (and in much of the center, and in certain parts of the right); they discount success entirely, preferring to mock Trump for his failings to paint a picture of a man in over his head, ready to stumble and fall into an impeachment any day now. They focus entirely upon his lack of ability because that's what the left wants to hear. Meanwhile, the moderate and extreme right focuses entirely upon Trump's success, completely ignoring his lack of ability. They paint a picture of a man who's dominated business, entertainment, and now politics, because that's what the right wants to hear.
And then there's the tiny fringe of people who don't care about being reassured by the media, who look at Trumps success and his abilities. And they tend to come to conclusions similar to what we're discussing right now. But there's so few of them, that they're drowned out by the much larger pro-Trump and anti-Trump camps.
In three more years, we're going to be faced with the other end of the political pendulum, and one has to wonder if Trump's successes are an overreach. Is the pendulum going to swing back further to the left? It's actually hard to say. Last time (Reagan), it sure didn't. We got a much more moderate Republican, but still a right-winger. It was only four years after that when Clinton managed to "not inhale" his way into the white house. But at the same time, any look at history will show that the pendulum swings further and further to the left, each time. The alt-right, which we consider to be extreme right wing today would have been considered just barely right of center, 70 years ago. Could you imagine a politician of any party in the 1960's saying they believe in the rights of gay people to get married? This past election was fun to watch, and very interesting. But the next election is really going to be fascinating. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.22:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mr Ernie: AE isn't the whole picture. I've blocked far more anti-Trump editors than pro-Trump/anti-Clinton editors without needing AE simply because they were being disruptive or violating BLP doing stuff like this. --NeilNtalk to me19:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
That's a good point NeilN and thank you for sharing it. Appreciate the hard work the admins put into keeping the topic area as free from disruptions as possible. SPECIFICO and MPants thank you for the discussion, although I must say most of it went over my head. I'm not a scientist; I work in a factory. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Ernie, I have found you're a great editor here because you are always ready to exchange ideas with other editors without getting bogged down in name calling or POV accusations or any other nonsense-type stuff. Come back any time! SPECIFICOtalk20:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
NeilN Sorry, I was re-phrasing it via copy and paste and messed it up some. What I meant to say was; the worst instance of someone making a BLP vio and then defending it as true, (and thus acceptable) instead of understanding the problem was a virulently anti-Trump claim made by an editor who was also virulently anti-Trump. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Question
Just saw your note on the talk page, where you said "Regards???". I'm confused, can you explain what the "Regards???" was in response to? Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi I was just kind of struck that you were being so polite and gracious to a disruptive single-purpose account editor who is violating BLP on a politically-sensitive article. Not to worry. You gave a good concise answer, I previously denied other such requests with an explanation of "no." SPECIFICOtalk22:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
This is actually moot because Coffee has stated that he didn't sanction TTAC for any page violation. However, I will answer your question here, since you pinged, if you are still curious and it appears you are still claiming he violated a DS rather than what he was actually sanctioned for. The point is that regardless of any talk page notice, discretionary page sanctions (1RR/Consensus required) are not in effect until they are logged in the DS Sanctions log. Coffee knows this and logged it when he added his template. However, that is the only log entry for that page and was made this morning. Whoever added the previous template didn't log it as required. That is why, I suspect Coffee didn't make it a Discretionary Sanction nor say he violated a discretionary sanction. Coffee said TTAC was sanctioned for behavior in the topic area, not any particular revert or addition. You are repeating an allegation he isn't making which is pointlessly argumentative. --DHeyward (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Well that particular editor has so many foibles that it's kind of like Ronald Reagan's famous bowl of jellybeans. Pick whichever one catches your eye. Anyway, I think this bit about the log is excessively wikilawyering, it's entirely unconvincing, it shows he has no clue how to engage collegially, etc. And of course, because TTAAC falsely claimed that the template did not appear on the page at the time he made the edit, he committed more violations on the talk page and AE threads as I mentioned. I don't understand why he continues this meaningless appeal, for a reason he apparently is unable to articulate to anyone's satisfaction. Unfortunately it can take a long time and lots of wasted attention before editors either improve their behavior or depart. And as editors on these articles, you and I both suffer that drag. Thanks for your visit. Come back any time. SPECIFICOtalk01:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
To reply to your AE question... No, I do not argue in favor of this user. If admins think he needs to be sanctioned, so be it. But sanctions should be simple, understandable and serve the purpose. This is my point. Let me give you another example. That was bad block because the user was blocked for a single revert on page, and he made a revert of an IP. It also was not an obvious violation of anything. No everyone can be good as an admin in such hot subject area. And I am not blaming anyone of bad faith. This is simply very difficult. My very best wishes (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
But look -- judging from his record in American Politics, personalizing edit discussions, snarky and dishonest edit summaries, (look how many he marks minor or vandalism) sockpuppeting, lying to Sandstein to get his ban lifted -- this guy is a huge waste of time for the community. You may not like "probation" but it's a documented option within policy. My point is that TTAAC himself finally gave up trying to deny his misconduct. So the solution would be to find a different remedy if you think for example it should be a TBAN or a block, or whatever. But why enable more disruption from an editor who's proved he can't handle interpersonal interactions on this site? After all, DS really means we are all "on probation" on these articles. But misconduct must be stopped. Because a small number of incompetent editors end up damaging the site for editors and users. SPECIFICOtalk00:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I would leave this to admins. Most of them are very good. Here is the problem. A lot of complaints in such subject areas can be viewed as actions to get an upper hand in content disputes. I am not telling this is the case here, but one must be very careful. My very best wishes (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Based on your email to me saying that you understand and agree that article talk pages are not to be used to call for discretionary sanctions to be imposed upon on an editor I am lifting the restriction as no longer necessary. I trust I won't be seeing such calls in other unusual places. --NeilNtalk to me20:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Fixed just as you posted :) I seem to have acquired a habit of forgetting to put "result=" in the closing template. Thanks for the reminder! Cheers, Fish+Karate13:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
It really is a problem how to slice this big current event into bite-size articles. That's why I hope there is no collusion, no cover-up. Less work, more quality time for editors. Anyway, I learned a new template SPECIFICOtalk00:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Ah good times. If I may ask, what part of the country were you looking at? We had been looking at going back to Korea for retirement, closer to family. PackMecEng (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Northern Italian lakes/food/wine/ and elegant widowers galore. The government requires you to show some financial resources, because they barely provide social services to the natives. But the surroundings can't be beat, and for fancy medical care and other serious needs, the nearby Swiss can perform minor surgery in the open air using only their Army Knives and a bottle of Williamine. SPECIFICOtalk22:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
BTW, I hope you are happy. Because of you I had to sit down the other night and watch that Carlson section. Not super fun times. PackMecEng (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Tucker is like a the train wreck you can't keep your eyes off. Abstinence is the only cure. SPECIFICOtalk
You recently deleted a source from articles related to limited liability, corporations and negative externalities. I believe the source was on point (please read the full source, not just the abstract, before coming to a conclusion). In your comments explaining your edits, you described the source as an "unpublished working paper." I therefore suspect that you may be worried that the source is not a reliable source per wikipedia policy.
Please note that there's an exception for self-published sources which applies in this context: "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications."
I believe that this exception applies.
Please see also WP:RS/Scholarship The working paper source includes an extensive review of academic sources that qualify as reliable sources.
I don't agree that this working paper should be inserted in a bunch of articles to which it's more or less related. We don't even use everything written by notable figures or even Nobel Laureates. I'm sure you can understand there are tens of thousands of academics writing all kinds of things every day. WP has a high bar for sourcing. If the author is particularly notable and the work has been cited by other scholars or practitioners for the proposed content, that gets more convincing. This author appears to have a certain theory about corporate taxation. I'm not aware that his work has been widely recognized or that he has an operationally robust theory or rubric for implementation of such a policy. As a first step, if this paper is published and cited by others for the proposed WP content, that would strengthen the case for inclusion. At that point you could post your query on WP:RSN, showing the source and the articles and text you believe it supports for inclusion on various Wikipedia pages.
I have noted some newer editors that have publicly stated the "MSM's blatant sensationalistic and partisan POV" is skewing the article(s) on Trump: "Unfortunately, sensationalism, speculation and bias comprise a substantial portion of the Trump articles published by MSM, most of which is circular reporting originating from a singular primary source that was questionable at best." [1] This and others User:Birtig seem to have only one focus and a disbelief in RS media reporting. I don't know what or why this is happening, but it's becoming an issue on several Trump related articles and disruptive on some. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
There seem to be lots of "new editors" who don't behave the way newcomers to this site usually do. It's important to insist they stick to policy and guidelines and not to rush ahead after they stumble. But there are also various experienced editors who step outside the topic areas of their expertise and make glaring errors of policy and interpretation in the politics area. Our policies and guidelines are very robust in the way they address the problems that can arise from POV or incompetent editing. We just need to stay on track, no matter how frustrating it can be to waste time quelling WP:TE and POV pushing. SPECIFICOtalk00:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Questions from new editor
Hi Specifico,
I understand and appreciate that you undid my edit on Angela Cappetta. However, I see value in listing her other public collections, and I don't understand why you keep removing them.
I wonder whether these important museums could be included in this Wikipedia listing. What edit would you propose? Did I simply get the code wrong? Kindly let me know.
Hi SPECIFICO,
I understand that you undid an edit I created on Angela Capetta. However, I feel it is relevant to mention other public collections that hold their work. Was this a matter of me getting the code wrong? What edit would you suggest?
Please cite a diff of my edit that concerns you. It's not clear this Capetta is WP:NOTABLE -- so the way to improve that article is to find WP:RS independent secondary references that can be used to support article content. At any rate, if you'll indicate the deletion that concerns you, I will reply. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk15:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Dear SPECIFICO,
Thank you for your reply: I had cited references to other collections but you removed them. I am simply wondering why. Since you took them down, you clearly know which ones I'm referencing. If the code was wrong, it would be good form to let me know my mistake, rather than eliminating my citation.
There is also an ethical issue with the reference to women going public re: bad touch . I specifically refer to the NY Times article by Colin Moynihan. Your additoon of this seems devisive. The spirit of participation in such an exposé is not to have it follow an individual trollishly, but to flush out a predator. It is not good form that the controversy follow a victim.
NoMuppets — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoMuppetsEver (talk • contribs) 19:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The public collections work would need to be cited to an independent secondary reliable source reference. The institutions' websites are primary sources. That's why I remove such content. Without secondary sources that consider the work noteworthy enough to cite and/or discuss, the text would be considered WP:UNDUE. The content about the Roma incident is mentioned in an independent reliable source and so it is valid article content. It's possible that Cappetta herself might request that it be removed, but that's something she herself would need to raise with an Admin here. SPECIFICOtalk02:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
By the way, you can sign your posts by typing four tildes after your text like this ~~~~ That will compile as a signature with your username. SPECIFICOtalk03:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
-- BullRangifer (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC) BullRangifer (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
SPECIFICO talk 00:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
— JFG talk 00:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)