SPECIFICO

@HJ Mitchell: I have sent you an email via the link on your talk page tools. SPECIFICO talk 14:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I've seen it, don't worry. I'll reply when I get home to a proper keyboard. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. No rush at all. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

A visitor from Vale of Glamorgan writes...

Surely Donald j trump, 'was' a politician not is a politician..?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.144.16 (talk • contribs)

Area 51 Gallery...Templates of the aggrieved and indeffed The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

SPECIFICO and Magnolia677 engaged in coordinated editwar

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppa gangnam psy (talk • contribs)

SPECIFICO and Magnolia677 engaged in coordinated editwar (2)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppa gangnam psy (talk • contribs)

Trump

You misunderstand. I was asking for attribution for the quote, as it is an opinion, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. It is not a question of referencing. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks but didn't you find it in one of the sources? SPECIFICO talk 22:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't look. The WP:ONUS is on the editor who added it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Now done, in any case. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in rfc on Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign

Hi SPECIFICO,

I think your long Wikipedia experience and familiarities with policy would be a welcome voice on the current rfc on the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign talk page. There's been a lot of back and forth and I think we need some more experienced editors in the conversation. BootsED (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The RfC is proposing a specific statement that is kind of a flash in the pan and internet fodder while at the same time not proposing more extensive content about the larger topic of preparations the Trump camp is making to hobble the government and convert it to a personal instrument for the advancement of his personal intereests. I'm not sure anything will come of that RfC, but much work is indeed needed on a wide range of American Politics articles that reflect superficial news and internet reporting at the expense of the increasing body of books and scholarly literature on the events of the past 6-7 years. SPECIFICO talk 03:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, better sources are needed than internet news articles overall. A big problem with getting scholarly articles in my opinion is the paywalls present to view such articles, and popular databases such as JSTOR deliberately excluding the most recent articles for the past few years for copyright/pay reasons. If you have recommendations for books and scholarly literature, I would appreciate a list for myself and other editors to view in order to improve the quality of the wiki. BootsED (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

A librarian at a public or institutional location convenient to you can provide access to such work, as can any physical hookstore, if you are near one. SPECIFICO talk 08:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Trump workshop

Re this, Soibangla is being overly stubborn against solid arguments by multiple editors, exhibiting IDHT. Why not start this workshop thread yourself? I'd do it, but it would be too much involvement for my semi-retirement. You could start it off with your own proposed content option, with citations. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

thanks for the ping

also: bullshit soibangla (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

bullshit was predictable and the reason for no ping. Your angry, combative, non-AGF tone is offensive, un-Wikipedian, and unwelcome.

You may not have noticed that I'm trying to expedite the main article content that you want! For the umpteenth time (IDHT), you don't need an RfC consensus to propose specific content. So get on with it or get out of the way of others who are prepared to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I am always happy to host a lttle spat among friends, but I believe that this content was being stonewalled by editors who showed no familiarity or concern with the subject matter. Polling says that half the US electorate are committed Republicans, so it's not surprising that some lesser but still significant minority of WP editors are unaware of what's published in most RS reporting and analysis. The Trump page suffered an earlier crop of same who either got TBANs or got bored blocking and went away. It's disappointing to think that the same thing can happen repeatedly with a new round of visitors. Fortunately, some very thougthful and well-informed new editors have arrived as well. Each time Soibangla has proposed some straightforward article content, various editors have risen up and beaten it down with straw man, red herring, and plum pudding arguments. And that's before the inevitable cheese course. SPECIFICO talk 01:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that pursuit of this main article content is futile? Are you effectively resigning as an editor of contentious content, or just this contentious content? Your comments would seem to imply the former, since widespread editor incompetence would not be limited to this issue. Fortunately, some very thougthful and well-informed new editors have arrived as well. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

No resignation. Just declining your kind invitation. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Chicken. DFlhb? BootsED? Andrevan? FormalDude? Cessaune? Bueller? Anyone? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Who me? How am I here? Am I the social assassin? Andre🚐 02:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan: The Larry David ref is lost on the likes of me. You're one of a number of experienced and competent editors who have supported some main article content (and aren't semi-retired). ―Mandruss ☎ 03:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll take it as a compliment. Andre🚐 03:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

If my intent was to compliment, I would've sent you a barnstar. Just stating fact. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

So are you dangling a barnstar if I do your bidding? Andre🚐 03:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't dangle, but the Magic 8 Ball says "outlook good". ―Mandruss ☎ 03:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Andre🚐 08:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I stand by my comment at the RfC. I don't see the point in trying to force editors into a specific proposal. WP:VOLUNTEER applies, and the RfC on if any of that content deserves inclusion in the first place is still ongoing. It makes since to me that you wouldn't want to take the time and effort drafting the content to propose when you don't even know if there is an appetite for any of it. Of course no one is precluded from drafting a specific proposal, but I don't see a clear a consensus that the RfC should be closed simply because it hasn't decided on the exact text to be added. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

These kinds of RfCs are counterproductive because you inevitably have people who support inclusion yet vote "oppose" because "proposal isn't specific enough". If we have to discuss each individual sentence before inclusion, so be it, but sources and policy are on "our" side and we should persevere and do that. The think I keep linking to was my proposal and is a good starting point. I thought there was consensus for the first 3 sentences, but didn't push it because that was when the E. Jean Carroll thing turned the talk page into such a mess that admins got involved.

The main BLP should mention it, but I think the priority should be to write a separate article, if the goal is to inform as many readers as possible and present the scholarship comprehensively enough that people understand it's not just 'talking points', 'partisan exaggerations', or 'just Trump being Trump'. Most people just follow TV and aren't aware of the scholarship (it's not partisan; few liberals grasp the complexity of the problem). The two most important AMPOL2 articles on Wikipedia are Democratic backsliding in the United States and any upcoming Donald Trump and authoritarianism article. Sadly I lack the time, and half-lost the will... - DFlhb (talk) 11:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@DFlhb: As you probably know, the separate article is already underway. I don't think it would suffer much if editors took the time to develop several options for main article content, which could then be presented in a new RfC. The question here is whether you have the time (and will) to kick off such a workshop; if you answered that question, I'm not seeing it. The proposal you linked above may be too much; we've been speaking of "two or three sentences", perhaps four. It might expand later, but that's enough to get us over the initial hurdle and any resistance to any main article content. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Missed one per this. PhotogenicScientist? No offense to any other experienced and competent editors who I've overlooked but might be persuaded. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me in this holiday season. But I'm far past caring about any and all issues on the Trump bio page. The article and its talk page are both an appalling dump heap, and I generally have enough sense to stay far away. The one issue I opined in recently, I had brought up myself long ago, and still have some residual care for. Otherwise, Wikipedia gets the article it deserves, there. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@PhotogenicScientist: Fair enough. We all have to make similar decisions and choices. I semi-retired, but because of larger WP issues, not that article in particular. Good luck wherever you go. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

2 out of 2.2 million were displaced in Gaza.

Update the number of displaced people for me please. https://twitter.com/AliciaJ1985/status/1737961681794498946 173.44.89.180 (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Please post any edit requests on the associated article talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For your spirited defense of me, I award you this smiley barnstar. Andre🚐 08:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned from the Palestine/Israel conflict, broadly construed, for 60 days.

You have been sanctioned for WP:BATTLEGROUND editing.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

TBAN violation

Hey. This edit, and the corresponding addition to the article talk page are a pretty clear violation of the TBAN that you were sanctioned under on 26 December 2023. Will you please self-revert the removal from the article? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, I will undo that. I hope you will engage on talk as to my stated concern, which had nothing to do with the topic of the TBAN. As stated: My concern is recentism and UNDUE content and placement on the long article. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICO talk 22:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your topic ban, as you did here, here, here, and here., you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 60 days. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

These edits do not relate to discussion of the topic of the ban, nor are they contentious. I suggest you reverse this. SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:TBAN is clear, Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". Editing sections of articles or talk pages is explicitly covered by the topic ban. Discussing sources related to the conflict is covered. Removing a section of criticism explicitly about the topic is covered. Discussing removal of criticism about the topic is covered. Editing the phrasing of the sentence In 2001, the Israeli–Palestinian peace process begun with the Oslo Accords in 1993 and 1995 collapsed with the start of the Second Intifada and the departure of committed peace broker Bill Clinton from office as U.S. president. is covered. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware that TBANs relate to such content wherever it occurs. But it's pretty tenuous to suggest that this uncontroversial copyedit of careless or incomprehensibly worded text is a violation of a TBAN on the Palestine Israel conflict so serious as to need a 60 day block from Wikipedia. Context and topic of the discussion, the intention of the editor, and the meaning of the edit matter. That's why Admins are given Discretionary powers. I've done a lot of editing on difficult pages and I have not seen that sort of minor copyedit draw that kind of Admin response. If I were to appeal this, you would need to demonstrate that these diffs were disruptive and that this block is necessry to prevent disruption. SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

If you were to appeal this, you'd have to explain the edits about the Abraham Accords. Levivich (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Greetings. I certainly didn't the TBAN required me to stop participating there. You and I discussed some references there, so possibly you agree - or at least did at the time of the edits. At any rate, I took a look at the appeal criteria, and I believe it's #2 that applies overall. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I had forgotten about the TBAN until I saw the block. I definitely think a TBAN on I-P covers Abraham Accords, there is no source about the accords that don't put it in the context of I-P, as does the first sentence of the background section of the Wikipedia article on it, which is the sentence you edited in the diff above. The entire Israel section of the Donald Trump article is covered by I-P broadly construed. Obvi.

TBH I don't say this because I want to see you TBANed or blocked and I actually have no opinion on the TBAN, I don't even know what it was for and never looked at the history (and don't care, no offense), and tbh 60 days sitewide block seems steep to me for "productive TBAN violations" which is how I'd categorize it.

When I saw your name with a line through it on the talk page, I came here to see what it was about, and seeing you talk about appeal, well, let's just say I felt I should give you a heads up lest you thought I thought AA aren't part of IP and deduce that others would have the same opinion. Personally I think an appeal of either the block or the TBAN could indeed be successful if the appeal addressed the AA-related edits (idk how exactly I've never won an appeal). So anyway now I've given you a heads up. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ :-) Levivich (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting fact: Blocked editors do not have the "thanks" link for a talk page diff. So, thanks. The diffs cited for this block, if they are unambiguously a violation, were at any rate unintentional and clearly not disruptive. SFR knows I am unlikely to go to the trouble and/or drama of an appeal, so they have apparently chosen not engage here. See you in April. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The violations are clear and unambiguous, and an edit being constructive is not an exemption to a topic ban. Based on your initial responses and how this has played out in the past I didn't think that further engagement on my part would be constructive. The length of the sanction matches the length of the initial sanction that you violated, and is intended to prevent further disruption. That you are unable or unwilling to recognize your violation is evidence that such violations would recur. This is also evidenced by your long history of sanctions, which are generally answered with the type of behavior that led me to avoid engaging beyond what is necessary.

Look at your initial response to the block, These edits do not relate to discussion of the topic of the ban, nor are they contentious. I suggest you reverse this. Does that do anything to convince someone that the violations won't recur? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Welcome back . Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Battleground editing

Hi, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when you left this antagonistic comment on my talk page. However, your revert this morning really was not appropriate. You are apparently deliberately ignoring an RfC. Please either explain how your edit does not violate the RfC, or state why the rules do not apply to you. Riposte97 (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Riposte97, editors have no responsibility to answer to you, especially not when the revert you're referring to (see Special:Diff/1222978008 for the actual revert) does not go against the RfC close you cite. TarnishedPath^talk 13:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

If an uninvolved editor takes the view that the edit doesn't violate the RfC, I won't press the point any further. Riposte97 (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Riposte97, if you think alternative wording would better furfill the RfC close I'd encourage you engage (if you haven't already) in discussions at Talk:Donald Trump#North Korea in the lead, again. Happy editing. TarnishedPath^talk 23:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Take a step back

I suppose you might agree that dishonest propaganda is inappropriate at Wikipedia. Would you really mean it though? I only ask because dishonest propaganda can be quite effective, and it empowers those who employ it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

x

Looks like you accidentally removed another user's comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixed by revert. Please try again. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 12:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Rent control

FYI:

W:NPOV

Talk page RCUS

81.0.36.0 (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

UNDUE PROMO / Thomas Sowell Reception section

Hello,

I am new, still learning, trying to understand. Thanks for helping.

I added a new citation to the Thomas Sowell to Reception section, i.e. Social Justice Fallacies was a NY Times bestseller month after it's publication. I was surprised to see my edit removed and this note: UNDUE PROMO. Should not have been marked a minor edit.

I am sorry for marking it as minor. I've now learned about: Help:Minor edit. But I'm still confused. I thought I was just adding a fact. Will the cited information be acceptable if, perhaps, reworded or put somewhere different in the text? I'd appreciate your advice. Thank you.

Best,

Anita Researcherasc (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I did not mean to startle you with that "not minor" bit. Minor edits are things like typos or run-on sentence repair that do not change the content of the article or its meaning. The reason for the "m" tag is to save editors the time of reviewing such changes when they are unlikely to be of much interest or concern. I think the book belongs in the list of his publications. Thousands of books make the bestseller lists but few are particularly significant for an encyclopedia. If that volume attracts widespread attention, discussion, or criticism, it may become noteworthy enough to go in the article text. I hope this is helpful. SPECIFICO talk 02:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

What are you referring to?

This edit of yours accuses me of “misrepresentation”. What are you talking about? I simply quoted the Mueller Report: “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government and its election interference activities”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is the conflation of SPECIFICO's use of the words "no collusion" ("please stop repeating the Trump/Barr lie "no collusion".") with a reply that is not about "collusion", but about "conspiracy" and "coordination". AYW's simple statement, on its own, is quite accurate, but it does not address what SPECIFICO wrote.

Mueller never said there was no "collusion", only "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated..." They did cooperate with the Russians in myriad ways, and aided and abetted the Russian election interference efforts in many ways. Many consider that to be collusion, which, although not illegal, is called treasonous by some sources, as the Trump campaign was aiding a military attack by the Russian military's GRU.

From Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections:

On March 5, 2017, James Clapper said, in an interview with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press that the January 2017 ICA did not have evidence of collusion, but that it might have become available after he left the government. He agreed with Todd that the "idea of collusion" was not proven at that time. On May 14, 2017, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Clapper explained more about the state of evidence for or against any collusion at the time of the January IC assessment, saying "there was no evidence of any collusion included in that report, that's not to say there wasn't evidence". He also stated he was also unaware of the existence of the formal investigation at that time. In November 2017, Clapper explained that at the time of the Stephanopoulos interview, he did not know about the efforts of George Papadopoulos to set up meetings between Trump associates and Kremlin officials, nor about the meeting at Trump Tower between Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort and a Russian lawyer.

See also: Mueller report#Conspiracy or coordination vs collusion. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

So exactly where and when and how did I allegedly misrepresent anything? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for SPECIFICO, but your reply did not address SPECIFICO's point, while being presented as if it did. This is a very common conflation of terms, one deliberately used by Trump and his followers, and then uncritically adopted by many on the other side. People aren't careful. Words mean something, and precision is important. Trump deceptively means that because "conspiracy" was not proven, then neither was "collusion", but that's not true at all. There is evidence of conspiracy (some examples above, such as Papadopoulos and the promised "dirt on Clinton", Stone with WikiLeaks, and the Trump Tower meeting. There is also Manafort's passing election data to Russian intelligence.), and lots of evidence of collusion using many different terms. It's a long subject. 'nuff said. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If as you say "words mean something," what "precisely" does "collusion" mean? TFD (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Some equate conspiracy with collusion, but since Mueller, with his limited and strictly criminal investigation, made a difference between collusion (non-criminal) and conspiracy (criminal), and focused only on one, let's try the types of things he did find. Because they were not strictly criminal acts, he did nothing about them. His focus was only on finding illegal conspiracy that could stand up in court, an impossibly high bar. He also had his hands tied behind his back with a rule that forbade him from even finding anything prosecutable. He could not prosecute a sitting president, so he just gathered evidence, made no judgement about it, and handed it over to Congress, in hopes they would do something, but the Republican controlled Congress did nothing. In fact, it covered up for Trump and Russia. To prove conspiracy, one has to find written records or actual recordings where one party says "I will do this" and the other party says "Then I will do that." all in words than cannot be twisted or misunderstood. Such evidence is rare. I doubt if any such conspiracy ever existed. It was more of a tacit understanding, described by Mueller: Mueller report#Conspiracy or coordination vs collusion. Trump and Russia had common goals they kept secret, hence all the lying.

Also, there is the Senate Intelligence Committee report, which went much further than Mueller and was a national security and counterintelligence investigation, unlike Mueller's criminal investigation. The Senate investigation found a whole lot more nastiness, deceit, obstruction, and possible evidence of conspiracy and treason-like stuff. All of that can be described as collusion. These investigations found myriad secretive contacts and communications between Trump operatives and Russian officials and spies, cooperation with the Russians, aiding and abetting their efforts, sharing information and polling data, lying about contacts, shifting blame to Ukraine, promising Assange a pardon in exchange for him shifting blame to Ukraine, denying there was any interference, then denying it was Russia, then denying it was illegal or improper, then Trump claiming he had a right to do whatever he wanted, etc. That type of stuff. None of that requires any explicit "conspiracy" or "coordination". That's the type of stuff Trump and his campaign did to aid the Russians as they expected to benefit, and they did. It's all in the "collusion" wheelhouse. Our articles here detail all this, with sources.

You'd enjoy reading this quality team effort, from Lawfare's subject matter experts: A Collusion Reading Diary: What Did the Senate Intelligence Committee Find? Mueller was a pure amateur who failed beside the Senate Intel Committee. They went really deep:

"The fifth and final volume of the Select Intelligence Committee’s bipartisan report on Russian interference in the 2016 election is an incredibly long and detailed document. At a whopping 966 pages, volume 5 alone is more than twice the length of the Mueller report, and it covers a great deal more ground." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

>"precision is important"

>"treason-like stuff"

Pick one. Riposte97 (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll read the Lawfare article. I just wanted to point out that at least in some jurisdictions, conspiracy does not require any written or spoken communication at all, merely a tacit agreement to engage in an illegal enterprise. I believe that argument was made in some of the Jan. 6 convictions, where we don't know if anything was spoken before intruders entered the Capitol building together. Of course it is a lot harder to prove. TFD (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

TFD, you're right. The authorities just have to have some sort of evidence that such a "tacit agreement" exists, and that's usually some sort of written or spoken evidence. It doesn't have to be a signed and notarized contract! From Mueller report#Conspiracy or coordination vs collusion: "Investigators further elaborated that merely having "two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests" was not enough to establish coordination." That statement by Mueller defines his understanding of both collusion and conspiracy:

1. Collusion: He described what was happening between the Trump campaign and Russians as "two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests". That happened a whole lot.
2. Conspiracy: More than just "two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests" Coordination must be involved. Mueller uses "coordination" as a synonym or necessary part of "conspiracy".

George Croner of the Foreign Policy Research Institute has also expressed his concerns with what he describes as a "curiously flaccid" approach taken by Mueller in dealing with what the public would normally interpret as "coordination". He sees Mueller's dependence on a formal "tacit agreement" approach as "an overly cautious" and "legalistic construct".

From Mueller_special_counsel_investigation#Conspiracy_vs_collusion: "They also investigated if members of the Trump campaign "coordinated" with Russia, using the definition of "coordination" as having "an agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference". Investigators further elaborated that merely having "two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests" was not enough to establish coordination."

So there are different ways of describing these things, and while the Mueller report did not prove "conspiracy" or "coordination" beyond a shadow of a doubt, the Senate Intelligence Committee report did find evidence of collusion and some instances of possible conspiracy, such has Donald Trump's knowledge of, not reporting, and lying about the Russian government's promised offer of dirt at the Trump Tower meeting. That promise was a followup to the previous promise to Papadopoulos that the Russians would release dirt on Hillary to help the Trump campaign. When Donald Trump Jr. got the message that dirt would be provided at the Trump Tower meeting, he was ecstatic, as he probably thought that this was finally what Papadopoulos told the campaign they would get. He was disappointed. The Russians don't seem to have any serious dirt on Hillary, just embarrassing minor stuff.

"The Committee's bipartisan Report unambiguously shows that members of the Trump Campaign cooperated with Russian efforts to get Trump elected. It recounts efforts by Trump and his team to obtain dirt on their opponent from operatives acting on behalf of the Russian government. It reveals the extraordinary lengths by which Trump and his associates actively sought to enable the Russian interference operation by amplifying its electoral impact and rewarding its perpetrators—even after being warned of its Russian origins. And it presents, for the first time, concerning evidence that the head of the Trump Campaign was directly connected to the Russian meddling through his communications with an individual found to be a Russian intelligence officer." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

References

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. I would like to know your opinion when you are free about adding See Also section on Trump article. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but my first reaction is that section would grow as wide as the Milky Way and be unmanageable. See also, hair, hype, humility, etc. SPECIFICO talk 20:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Question RE: ARCA

I noticed that you voted as an arbitrator on an ARCA motion. Did you mean to do this? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

oops. would you mind moving it? I don't understand the structure there. THANKS. SPECIFICO talk 02:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. I've created a section for you.

WP:ARCA is something where all the non-arbs have to keep their comments in their own named sections, so if you have any comments they will have to go in that section. Only arbitrators can vote on motions. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I should have noticed why the votes were numbered, not bulleted. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from Donald Trump, broadly construed. You are also topic banned from post-1992 American politics, broadly construed, for six months.

You have been sanctioned for continuation of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and incivility that resulted in a community-imposed topic ban here. Most recently this was demonstrated here.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with this topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Diffs, please. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case opened

You offered a statement in an arbitration enforcement referral. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 5 updates

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:

First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.

Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

And a Happy New Year!

May your holidays be filled with peace and joy. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Thedarkknightli (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Adapted from {{Xmas6}}. Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:Altamel/Christmas}} to their talk page.

Thedarkknightli (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
• AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
• Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
• WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each: Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
• Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
• The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
• The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
• Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
• Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.

Details of the balanced editing restriction

• In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures.
  • This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly logged, and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future.
  • Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed.
• They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace).
• This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive.
• Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions.

• If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

Your userbox deutschsprachige Wikipedia

Hi! I happened to see the box on your user page that says "Dieser Benutzer hat kein Artikel für die deutschsprachige Wikipedia erstellt". That sentence contains a slight grammatically error, it should be "Dieser Benutzer hat keinen Artikel für die deutschsprachige Wikipedia erstellt". Another issue: German is more gendered than English, "Dieser Benutzer" is the masculine form, "Diese Benutzerin" would be the feminine version. In conclusion, you may want to change the sentence to "Diese Benutzerin hat keinen Artikel für die deutschsprachige Wikipedia erstellt". Just wanted to let you know. Happy editing! — Chrisahn (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Hello SPECIFICO: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Iljhgtn (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Iljhgtn (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

And a Happy New Year!

May your holidays be filled with peace and joy. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Thedarkknightli (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Adapted from {{Xmas6}}. Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:Altamel/Christmas}} to their talk page.

Thedarkknightli (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2025 (UTC)