You are perfectly capable of appealing a block without a templated message, Kiefer. Given that this is your seventh block this year, you've got practice. If the log is accurate, Ironholds made a tasteless joke on IRC. You, however, made direct threats on Wikipedia. Neither behaviour is good, but only one appears blockable. If somebody with the ability to investigate the accuracy of the IRC log chooses to block Ironholds over it, I won't protest.—Kww(talk) 00:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to admire yourself in your mirror.
I can confirm the logs are accurate, but they were not made in a public channel on freenode (was made in #wikipedia-en-admins, a.k.a. the evil admin cabal channel). I'm not tempted to unblock, as the remark made by Kiefer is way much worse than the private discussion on freenode. →AzaToth00:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC) (typo fixed by KW 17:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Hey, is this whole Arbcom case over this IRC log? Why didn't anyone give me a heads up?--v/r - TP16:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot address the question of what this ArbCom case is about, anymore than I had an idea of what the "Civility Enforcement" case was about (before it turned out into the middle act of a campaign to harass Eric). Kww and Fram never tried talking, and I'm not sure Kww is so hot to pursue his 3 month block anymore. I considered the matter with IH closed, until the case started and Wikipediocracy began posting IRC logs.
I have tried to keep you out of it. I did use the Crying Game dialogue once before, when somebody fantasized about murdering you on wiki, and nothing was done. (Good to see that the account was finally blocked, after all.)
I don't have time for this. I get a few minutes here and there when I can edit. In a month, I'll have hours for research daily! :) But I'm not about to put my head in the sand after seeing log after log after log. Kiefer.Wolfowitz16:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I just wasn't aware I had any connection at all to this IRC case and was surprised to find myself at the center of it.--v/r - TP17:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of 3-month block
From Kww's talkpage
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If I presume the IRC log is accurate, Kiefer's response is still over the top. At worst, the IRC log is a tasteless joke between two people about a third whom they dislike. Kiefer's is a direct physical threat combined with a direct insult.—Kww(talk) 23:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It could certainly be argued. He can try to persuade the community that that's the case, but I don't buy it.—Kww(talk) 00:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kiefer's is a direct physical threat combined with a direct insult - gee, the way I see it, Kiefer's response was a fully normal response, though a bit of a tasteless joke, to what appears to be either a) threats of physical violence and insults, or possibly b) two sneaky admins conniving in how to get Kiefer in trouble. Have you had contact with them?
Regardless. This needs to be reviewed at ANI. And I this must be like the twentieth time in recent history where I am simply amazed that you are allowed anywhere the block button Kww, or the other admin tools for that matter. Too bad we don't desysop for outright and obvious stupidity.Volunteer Marek00:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw no reason that such an obvious block required community discussion, Marek. It never ceases to amaze me how little self-control people here have when it comes to communication.—Kww(talk) 00:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the fact that you "saw no reason" is exactly part of the problem here. It never ceases to amaze me how little self-control or even reflection some admins have when strutting around with their block button. Pretty clear indication they shouldn't have them in the first place.Volunteer Marek00:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have unblocked. Yes, Kiefer Wolfowitz's comment was unacceptable on its own, and repetition of this or similar comments, even when provoked, should result in new blocks. But considering the circumstances, with a functionary making an extremely inappropriate "joke" (if one can call it that) on a channel where Kiefer Wolfowitz has no means to respond, a "tit-for-tat" response, while very ill-considered, is also understandable. The fact that thus far, Kiefer Wolfowitz has received a 3 month block while User:Ironholds hasn't even received a warning (even if his remark was technically, wiki-lawyerishly off-wiki, it is still a location where he acts in function, not some off-wiki personal discussion), is a guarantee that this block will not have the desired effect at all, and will only increase the feelings of unequal treatment of admins (or other functionaries) vs. non-admins.
Kiefer Wolfowitz, please, if something like this happens again, don't lash out, just go to some noticeboard and make a calm and civil complaint there. That will at least have a chance that the result will be the reverse of what happened now. Fram (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
I wrote a brief note on your talk page, Fram, the contents of which I won't repeat here.
Editors with more interest in IRC regularly report (at Wikipediocracy) similar inanities by the same editors, most of which I ignore, even when I happen to read the synopses. Life is too short.
Some admins seem to be employing the "Las Vegas method" when it comes to use of the block button - a giant roullete wheel where the ball can bounce into any of the "block duration" slots. Black for TalkPage access, red for none. Or am I being hopelessly naive and simplistic here? Maybe it's a prolonged game of blackjack with several sets of crooked decks? Whatever, sometimes consistency seems to be sadly a little lacking, and it's hard to know how to react? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please consider fixing ScottyWong's indefinite block of Eric? Scotty's past history with Malleus and WP policy against requesting blocks suggest that he should not be the one to indefinitely block Eric.
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Offsite comments and personal attacks and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Are open, honest, refreshingly direct, very funny, and crucially, consistent. They are trying to grind you down. Stick to your guns. Ceoil (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! When I was recently blocked for i.a. welcoming a gentle editor to pick up his teeth, I thought of your being blocked for threatening to jump through a computer screen, a la Tron. I've always liked that chivalric bit from The Crying Game, and the "It's in my nature" ending....
I'm still amazed I got away with that, revealing my special internet/screen powers. Could happen any day now, if the wrong person put a 'the' in the wrong place. I'm a force to be reckoned with. Tremble fools. PS Block record or not, I'd still prefer to be the one that told it straight, and not behind a back. Ceoil (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Demographics of Wikipedia editors: Minors, especially neurologically disabled boys
Kiefer, I don't particularly want to join the IRC/Arsten discussion just to ask you a couple of questions, so coming here seemed easier and more direct. Do you have anything to back up your assertions that the median age of editors is 17 and that "many editors have neurological or social disabilities"? The second asssertion is a bit vaguer (what does "many" mean and how do we define neurological and social disabilities), but I'd still like to know what you base the claims on. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think 17 years old was from a survey of WP users, which was described in the weekly newszine.
"Many" was purposely vague. Regarding neurological disorders, many editors have identified themselves as suffering from Aspberger's syndrome, autism, and bipolar (manic depression) disorders; presumably others also suffer from (adult) ad(h)d.
I looked briefly and found a survey that had a census with only 30% response. It found 13% of editors were aged 13-18. The census threw out responses by children 12 and under (and adults 82 and older), without stating the numbers thrown out. (It also confused editors with accounts.) I updated my remarks. Thanks for the question. Kiefer.Wolfowitz20:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into it and, particularly, thanks for the source of the survey (which led me to a Wikimedia table online). You've probably read the report more carefully than I have, but I couldn't find the 30% response figure in there. It's also important to bear in mind that the survey was taken across all Wikipedias, not just the English one. Anyway, it looks like the biggest group, based on how they sectored it, is the 40+ crowd, but the average age is 32. Based on my own virtual observations, which don't count for much, that sounds about right here. And my observations sometimes include how old someone says they are, but the rest of the time are based purely on what editors say and how they say it. Anyway, I often say more than others want to hear, so I'll stop. It was nice having a friendly chat with you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello Kiefer. As you might know, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement as soon as you can. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence.
No problem. Since Hahc has recused from the case now consider his post issued by me. That's why he had reverted his removal of it. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)21:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've seen that I removed the humorous section and shortened the rest?
You were told to hide the section on IRC canvassing in the discussion of my ANI discussion?
Did Worm That Turn participate in the "instructions" or did he recuse?
The specific instructions were to "please hat and collapse the section entitled "IRC's corruption:A liability" and retitle it to "IRC". Please also warn Kiefer that he has gone well past the word limit." Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)22:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Answer the question, which I repeat: did WTT recuse?
Who authorized it? Was it a committee instruction?
The instruction was given by an individual Committee member who has not recused, as is standard practice. No Arbitrator, including myself, has objected. WTT has not commented in any related thread. NW(Talk)22:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am still clerking because clerks are allowed to participate in arbitration cases as members of the community (with some exceptions). See WP:AC/C#Recusal for more information. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)22:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey KW. Just to be clear, I've been away from Wikipedia for the weekend, I've given no private instructions to clerks on the matter at all. I am recused on the incident in question, just as I am recused on any Arbcom requests related to you, I'm sure I stated that a long time ago. Because I've not participated, the committee couldn't say if I'd recused or not. I have commented on the more general issue of IRC, you can see my comment at the the case page. I hope that answers your questions with respect to myself. WormTT(talk) 10:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Salvio's statement on the page.
I don't want to add more text, given the previous complaints.
I plan to see which members of the WMF Board have accounts on English Wikipedia, and also alert them of the IRC discussion, as I did with Wales and Gardner. I am uncertain about the liability of Arbcom members in cases of misfeasance or malfeasance. My experience of non-profit boards in other states leads me to believe that individual board members are individually liable in such cases. I would not want to be liable for failing to implement the steps of the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts on child protection, with years of notices that there were problems on Wikipedia. Kiefer.Wolfowitz23:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unfamiliar with US law in this field, so this is not a particularly educated response, but anyway here goes. ArbCom has no *direct* control over IRC; as far as I'm concerned, I think we may sanction people on-wiki owing to their conduct on IRC, but, even assuming ArbCom as a body agrees with me, we still lack the ability to ban people from the channel or to close the channel (assuming for the sake of the argument that we would ever decide to close it). So I don't think we could be held accountable for what goes on in there.
Then again, I feel I'm the wrong person to discuss the issue, because I have already made abundantly clear to my fellow arbs that I will never get involved in child protection issues because of liability concerns and general qualms (we are a bunch of dedicated people who try to do what's best for the encyclopaedia, but we lack both proper training and resources to deal with such investigations). My only involvement in the topic area has been to push for the foundation to take over. SalvioLet's talk about it!09:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your writing and the substance of your statement, here, on top of your clear and principled statement at the case.
ArbCom, even in declining the case, could state
"We repeat our concern about child protection, which is a problem even with our existing policy and our lack of time and training to handle such cases ourselves. Moreover, we are disturbed by on-Wiki and off-Wiki behavior consistent with profiles of child predators that is allowed by current Wikipedia/WMF policy. Such behavior, even if innocent, must immediately stop. We urge the community and WMF to adopt child-protection policies similar to those of the Scouts. Such policies would allow the WMF to remove editors contacting minors against their parents' wishes and informing minors of visits to their towns.
A similar statement on IRC could be made, perhaps using suggestions I made. `
Kiefer, I'm sure I'm reading "we are disturbed by on-Wiki and off-Wiki behavior consistent with profiles of child predators that is allowed by current Wikipedia/WMF policy" wrong, but if you have any information about accounts engaging such activity occurring you should immediately send such information to the committee, rather than just try and get the child protection policy strengthened. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)11:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to current policy, adults may not solicit information. However, if a minor may have volunteered the information of their location, email, IMs, etc., there does not seem to be a clear requirement that the adult (1) send a copy of the hazardous communication (with identifying information redacted) to arbcom/oversight (which is required by the Scout policy), (2) warn the child not to send such information, with a warning that a repeat of this behavior would result in a blocking. Thus, child protection policy does not prohibit actions like I described, as far as I can see.
The existing policy and common sense should combine to prohibit such actions, but common sense is in short supply.
WMF should audit the emails of the user and the children involved, and see whether its policies (weak as they are) have been violated.
Arbcom regularly delete edits that include identifying information of likely minor editors and have on occasion blocked said editors who persisted in posting their personal details (in addition to blocking accounts that could be engaged in grooming.) What you are describing and excoriating us for not doing is regularly practiced. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)13:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read what I wrote. The policy does not directly prohibit a minor sending contact or residence information to an adult via email. There does not seem to be a policy prohibiting an adult from using such information, even on wiki, as I have described. Please direct WMF to audit the emailsto see whether the information was volunteered or solicited, following up with emails to the most concerning children and a random sample of the other emails to children. (WMF has recipients but not content of emails. See hatted discussion below. 23:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC))
Please change the policy to remove an apparent policy loophole which would allow adults to contact minors privately, in the case where the minor volunteered the contact information. Kiefer.Wolfowitz13:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Email via WMF
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I intended "email sent by the account throughWikipedia/WMF". A gentle, non-alarming request for permission to examine related emails and IMs of minors (those flagged for suspicious approaches and a reasonable random sample of the others) sent to the minors' parents via the minor should also be made. Kiefer.Wolfowitz09:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are aware of recent concerns about your community-development staff and IRC. Let us leave aside those concerns. Apart from your department, there are still problems with sexual banter in children in IRC discussions like this. Such discussions are common enough that any reasonable person should be concerned about further problems with chatrooms and email contacts as well as WMF-affiliated events (meet ups, Wikimania). Kiefer.Wolfowitz09:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you, the WMF keeps no copies of the emails that are sent through Wikimail. We couldn't audit those if we wanted to. I know that you are aware that the WMF exercises no authority to police servers owned by another company, so we are not in a position to police freenode. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WMF logs the dates and recipients of emails, which suffices to send requests to the parties. WMF's CIA/NSA liason can help with the examination of the information. Kiefer.Wolfowitz09:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To provide transparency and accountability, chat rooms should be prohibited.
Administrators found canvassing should be desysopped; administrators participating in chats with canvassing and other unethical behavior should be admonished (and desysopped after a repeated failure to report unethical behavior).
How surprising that all of ArbCom want this section hidden.
Despite the high participation of vulnerable editors, WMF and English Wikipedia lack serious standards for child-protection; in particular, neither complies with the minimum requirements of the United States Child Online Privacy and Protection Act (COPPA) and the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which ban participation at social-networking sites by children under 13 and require parental approval for other children. Neither organization meets the benchmark set by the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts.
WMF and Wikipedia's should require training and adherence to internet-safety rules by its staff and volunteer leadership (participants in educational programs, Tea House, "Adoption Schools", IRC access, etc.). In particular, leadership roles should be limited to adults (or possibly include children 13 and over who have received permission from their parents) who have completed and agreed to adhere to safety guidelines. In particular, on IRC, private chats are grossly inappropriate when many participants are minors; such contacts violate the 2-adults present rule of Boy/Girl Scouts.
ArbCom has already communicated to Sue Gardner its concern about being overwhelmed with c. 20 cases of child protection each year. And these are cases more severe than cases that have been ignored, because of the toothless child-protection policy of Wikipedia:
An editor tells a boy when he will visit his town.
An editor tells a boy how to get around his parents' efforts to stop him emailing, and continues emailing and IMing the boy, despite the boy's objections.
Such editors' on-Wiki actions violate the child-protection codes of the Scouts and other responsible organizations, but not WMF and Wikipedia. What happens on WMF/Wikipedia's IRC, particularly in WMF/WP IRC chat-rooms?
Do ArbCom members agree to pay for civil and criminal legal-costs related to IRC from their own pockets, and so agree to refuse WMF funds or legal council?
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So far, this looks as irregular as your harassment of Eric Corbett/Malleus Fatuorum; I won't condescend to dignify another case of ArbCom running amok with my participation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz15:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Some issues need to be dealt with, obviously. 22:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments on the Evidence talk page
Kiefer, there is no need for comments like this, it is an allegation against a non-party and so is not permitted on case pages. If you continue to breach the requirments listed in the notice I will restrict your participation in the case and/or you may be blocked. If you comply with the conditions listed in the notice there won't be a problem. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Callanecc,
You are letting stand a BLP violation against Sarah Palin made by Kurtis, who btw confused Palin's role with McCain's (in my comparison).
Glad that you have your priorities straight.
Have you asked Nuclear Winter why he has not recused, despite having nominated Keyes ( Ironholds / Okeyes (WMF) ) for his last failed RfA?
Yes, sorry I never informed you. Your comment (which I would not have noticed had WP:Echo not pointed me to it) actually was the first time that I remembered that I had nominated Ironholds for RfA once. As I posted on the arbcom-l mailing list, my recollection of my interaction with Ironholds had primarily been in IRC after he finally passed RfA; I don't even remembering what prompted me to offer a nomination for him. I have recused more to avoid the appearance of impropriety more than actual feelings of partiality. I hope that explanation is satisfactory? NW(Talk)15:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, and, as I did for WTT and Brad, I have mixed feelings about your recusal, since you are as far as I remember careful in writing, thoughtful, and fair minded. WTT the same, although with probability 10% he can be overcome by thought control from JClemens, etc. ;) Brad is usually fair in Arbcom cases, too, and avoids the worst proposals, as far as I remember. Well, with the risk averse arbs recused, we'll see what happens. Kiefer.Wolfowitz15:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming I'm looking at the same thing you are, I'm not 100% convinced that it is a much a clear cut BLP violation as you say it is. Kurtis is using that (which with one reading could be seen as personal opinion and summation) to advance his evidence. If you feel that there is a clear cut BLP violation post a section on the evidence talk page or email the clerks mailing list stating exactly what you think is a BLP violation and why.
No I'm not, Kurtis is using that to make the point in the next sentence. In any case it's not my job to analyse evidence. If you have an issue with the BLP do what I said above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for being irritated by Kurtis's being confused by my example of John McCain's choice of Palin as making him less qualified to be President, according Colin Powell. That is, a bad choice reflected poorly on McCain. That Kurtis twisted things around and added gratuitous insults against Sarah Palin should be no surprise, given what we see from Wikipedia's "community" staff and ArbCom's support of Qworty. This is a misogynist place. Kiefer.Wolfowitz12:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IRC is off wiki, but then...
...why is it linked to from Wikipedia space and participation used for RFA worthiness? More Kirk, less Spock.
And actually the "seekret" admin IRC (not linked any more because of past scandals, but very frequented) is even spookier than giving something sanction.
FWIW, and not that you give a shit what I think. But, I think you are busting IH's chops too much. I would just bury the hatchet and put him on your ignore list (this forum has one, right?)
He's got some strange behaviors at times, but he's not that different from you or me in some ways. Writes content. Let's it lose verbally. And it was actually pretty deft to think of the lighter remark that fast.
Just make sure you are not playing the victim too hard. People do that a lot here.
Yes. And I didn't take it seriously. I have no wish to protect him and have sparred with him, so if I were just a Wiki game player who wants to manipulate the moderation system to get foes vanquished would just be happy someone was getting fucket at Arbcom (or even losing his job). And I knew you would not agree with me...but it's my Bayesian gestalt. Feel free to preserve your opinion on the remarks, I know you are pretty different than me. Just make sure some time to step back and think meta. (You can still feel same on IH, just want the split-second self-reflection in addition [this is not an x-y equation, it's more like third semester calc with z's and w's). 21:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to be a total meddling diplomat and post on both of y'all's pages that I think you should each apologize (directly and unreservedly), that you should avoid each other, and that you each write good stuff. TCO (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Until I read that quote, I was willing to minimize conflict. See my statement earlier.
There's too many similar quotes. Did you notice that three named victims of the shooting list shared the same gender? The community has to deal with IRC's misogyny. Kiefer.Wolfowitz21:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Kirk link, featuring the stately Harry Mudd. :)
There is an issue for the community with having a rep with his record of statements. I defended him and asked that e.g. NYB not go after his job on the basis of one remark. Then I saw more of the same.... He should go in his boss's office and say, "I think it best for everybody if we restrict the title of my position to something like user-needs specialist...".
The other issue is that IRC is bad even without him. There needs to be a clean up. I don't see it happening without publicizing the severity of its problems. I don't have the time to morph into Alinksy, alas. Maybe Kaldari could call out, "This has to be dealt with"?
(I could imagine another route: What if some Congressman who was on the fence over SOPA and COPPA has a daughter and looks over these IRC logs?) Kiefer.Wolfowitz22:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Workshop
Hi Kiefer, I'm not jumping up and down or accusing you of anything, just a quick and hopefully simple question: What is the relevance of this to the case? It might be that I'm missing something (apart from Mark being the filing party) so I thought I'd check with you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please define the scope of the case. Arbs who accepted it wanted a discussion of all behavior of all the parties, or was that more bullshit from ArbCom? Kiefer.Wolfowitz12:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before blindly serving, you might examine the history of ArbCom, paying attention to arbitrators who resigned or were voted off or expelled. If arbitrators can be socks, why not other administrators? Kiefer.Wolfowitz13:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true that you're not calling Mark a sockmaster, you appear to be intimating that he may be one; that behaviour can de described as "casting aspersions", even if you're only asking and not affirming anything (i.e. "I have been told you have frequently abused your wife; now, tell me: is that true?"). Also, you are referring to vague concerns raised by another editor on her talk page, without even linking to them. As things stand, that question is pretty much pointless and can actually lead to much unpleasantness, not to mention that accusation of sock puppetry are best handled at SPI (though when they, as in this case, involve an admin, the usual rule is that your concerns should be raised in private with ArbCom). To cut to the chase, however, now, in the event you have evidence that Mark may be operating or have operated illegitimate alternative accounts, I encourage you to share it with ArbCom (in private, as is our current modus operandi – no, we're not trying to cover this issue up: ArbCom have desysopped admins who used sock puppets, I can think of at least one example), but, in any event, please remove your question from the workshop page. Thanks. SalvioLet's talk about it!13:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mark can answer the question or leave it stand.
Well, AGK failed to disclose his past accounts before the last election, and Courcelles has recused (and one of the discussions with Ironholds and Fluffernutter on IRC has another account being called "Courcelles", it seemed to me.
Thus, I'm not impressed by ArbCom's record of obeying its own rules on disclosing alternative accounts before elections, and I have more faith in SandyGeorgia than I do in Mark or ArbCom. Kiefer.Wolfowitz13:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This came up on my notifications. I have no knowledge of Arsten socking, and the issues that do need to be explored wrt Arsten would be better explored via an RFC or one of several different arb cases ... and I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so at the moment. What he did to me speaks more about him than me, so I'm fine with the record as it stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you state that you have no beliefs about Arsten and socking? For example, would you be willing to accept accept bets corresponding to your personal probabilities 1/3, 1/2, 2/3 (where you would be paid that percentage of the total pot)? Kiefer.Wolfowitz13:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kiefer, I honestly have no knowledge of what you may be referring to. My concerns about Arsten are unrelated to socking on his part, rather other issues, involving support of known socks and the pro- and anti-FA factions that have grown up around several banned/indeffed sockmasters, creating a battleground in several content review processes and leading to an involved block of me ... unrelated to any notion of Arsten himself being a sock, and issues better explored in an RFC or other arb cases, if someone has a year of their life to devote to it. I don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think an RFC necessarily has to precede an Arbcase in this instance, since the factionalism has been festering long enough across enough pages and involving enough users that a case could be justified without a prior RFC. But an RFC is often a good first step, even if in this case it would only bring forward evidence of the factionalism. I also don't think you should be so negative on the arbs, or at least on all of the arbs. Some of them probably have a very good notion of what is going on, how complex it is, how long it has been going on, how profound the effect has been, how much they contributed by fouling up a few cases several years ago so that the FA process was dragged through the mud, and may be frustrated that no one has the time or inclination to bring it all out. For me, the FA process has been so thoroughly killed by the factions, and the quality/worth of a bronze star is so far removed from what it was two years ago, that I'm not interested in the case, or spending another moment of my life engaging unpleasant factions and cabals. But give the arbs a break ... if no one gives them the evidence, there's little they can do. They aren't all clueless, but face it ... the community no longer cares. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try again, also responding to Master Hatchsomething.
It's a standard question at RfA: Disclose all your past accounts.
At Mark's RfA, one of his nominators stated that he had used an account before, which was named. Neither of his nominators nor Mark stated that the named account was his only alternative or previous account. Kiefer.Wolfowitz14:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some time ago, when I first became aware of Arbcom, I was surprised that the acceptance of a case did not include a clear statement of scope. While I fully understand that the scope can change as evidence is presented, and changes in scope may result, I still think it would be helpful to identify the scope, and amend it as needed. This case is a perfect example.
It is not unusual to one of the disputants to file a case, and in those circumstances, the behavior of the filing party is certainly in scope. However, the opening statement of this case suggests a dispute between two parties, neither of whom is Mark Arsten. That doesn't mean, in my preferred world where a scope is defined, that Arsten's behavior would be out of bounds for discussion, but it does mean that anyone wishing to discussing his behavior should make a case that it is relevant to the dispute, or amend the case scope to include it. I haven't seen any hint that Arsten's editing is relevant to the incident. Perhaps it is, but without such evidence, the requests for Arsten to reveal other accounts and to comment on comments made by another party in another place sounds like a fishing expedition.
I've reviewed the acceptance statements of the arbs, which doesn't quite define the scope, but provides hints about what the arbs think the case is about. I may have missed something, but I saw not a hint that Arsten's behavior is relevant. Perhaps it is, but I suggest that KW should explain the relevance.--SPhilbrick(Talk)15:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Ironholds nor myself regard ourselves as being in a dispute. Arsten seemed to think that IRC's status could be clarified, or so he said. We've seen enough of the arbs not to care what they think or what they are pulling off. I am participating because Keyes's comments about violence and women are unacceptable and this is a forum for the community to deal with those issues. His behavior in chatrooms with children is also unacceptable, as 28bytes (talk·contribs) and Floquenbeam (talk·contribs) have already commented, whose they are more respected by the community than is Sue Gardner (talk·contribs), who apparently approves of Keyes's years of consistent behavior. Kiefer.Wolfowitz15:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction. I accept that the case is not narrowly about a dispute between you and Ironholds, as there is no dispute, but is about some broader issues. Can you explain how the possibility that Arsten may have edited under an account other than the one identified is relevant to IRC or Keyes's comments about violence and women? And is the question about SG's observations an independent question, or an elaboration of the socking question?--SPhilbrick(Talk)15:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my place to censor the question. I think it should be included if it is relevant, but excluded if it is not, but that's my opinion, not my call. I'm interested in this case, as the status of IRC is muddled (at least to me); I'm troubled by the use of off-wiki material used for on-wiki sanctions (while not prepared to prohibit it, I'd like to see huge hurdles erected). I think all editors would do well to act as models, but WMF employees have a stronger duty to do so. I'd like to see misogynist language quelled whenever possible. So there are several aspects I would like to see explored, but unless Arsten's editing behavior is relevant, I'd prefer to avoid derailments. (FWIW, I arrived at this page after reading the sorry saga of Sandy's block, so I'm not exactly feeling good about Arsten's recent actions, but that's no excuse for dragging him into unrelated issues. If they are unrelated.)--SPhilbrick(Talk)15:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Arsten one question, so far, in the proceedings, and I've said as much as I'm going to say about it.
Frankly, I've had enough of on-Wiki discussions of the educational benefits of erotica for children (worse on IRC, with Russavia one of the discussants), explanations on how to go around parental attempts to stop a kid from using email, telling a kid when to expect a visit to the hometown, etc. All of this is apparently okay. But making a dick-picture of Wales gets Russavia banned, so I guess there are limits..., but apparently child protection is less of a concern.
Ironholds needs to deal with his repeated behavior, which has been known for years. This is also a step in dealing with the disgusting behavior on IRC generally.
ArbCom also declared the issue of IRC canvassing for blocking me at ANI off limits, which demonstrates their ability to be used as experimental subjects in Sweden without needing the approval of an ethics committee.
(interesting ec)One of the troubling aspects of the SG thread was when she specifically asked POTW a question and he ducked it. She asked again, and he ducked it so she gave up. I've asked you twice, you've declined to respond, so I'll stop wasting my time. Your questions to Ironholds were pointed and relevant. I thought perhaps your question to Arsten might also be and I simply didn't see it. I've changed my mind.--SPhilbrick(Talk)16:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@SPhilbrick, curiously, a more appropriate place to examine the behavior of all, and the factions, would be the infoboxes case. Funny how often the same folks are showing up ... but then, I think a shorter path to a better outcome for the Wikipedia would be to simply open an arbcase on Conduct in Content Review Processes (since the same misbehaviors are occurring at FA, GA and DYK processes, including their talk pages, always involving the same folks) and simply put sanctions in place to make them all stop, without worrying about who "they" are, which would take a year of evidence. If that happened, maybe a whole lot of misbehaving admins would get their houses in order, and a former would stop the invective, hyperbole, and ad hominem that are killing these processes, resulting in fears of retribution, and driving off anyone who has even a vague recollection of better days in content review processes. And to Kiefer's point, is it coincidental that every misogynistic taunt I have experienced has come from an admin? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kiefer, I've edited under three accounts during my Wikipedia career:
As to the concerns about about my blocking of User:SandyGeorgia: I value community input about my actions and in this case, there was a consensus that the block was unwarranted, and I reverted myself accordingly. All I can promise in the future is that I'll do my best to avoid ever making a block that causes unneeded drama and fails to line up with community expectations. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: You seem new in the blocking-and-unblocking business. As a more experienced gentleman, let me assure you that administrators have never apologize to me for overturned or shortened blocks.
Once 28bytes answered a question I asked, in the RfC/U on my sins. I asked whether the diffs showing incivility were actually taken out of context. Specifically, I asked whether I was initiating incivility or was responding to incivility or personal attacks. 28bytes actually answered the question. (I checked the Book of Revelations, quickly, and returned to editing only after I confirmed that 28bytes's action was not mentioned as a sign of the end of things.) I remember asking the same question of Salvio and Sarek, after I'd been blocked, and neither deigned to answer. Kiefer.Wolfowitz19:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rhetorical. Arsten blocked me and then very quickly overturned himself with an inaccurate statement in my block log, which avoided him being hauled up to ANI, thereby getting him off the hook. I don't need an apology-- it would be indicative of a lot if it happened, though, and is indicative of more that it hasn't. I don't think recognizing that "mistake" was ever likely to happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see I have been mentioned here, so let me comment on a couple of points. KW, I haven't commented on Ironholds' IRC discussions (or your Wikipediocracy posts) because I haven't been following them closely. I did comment to Ironholds regarding his interactions with Drmies and Floquenbeam, which I have followed, but which are presumably outside the scope of this case. Secondly, SandyGeorgia is highly skilled at quite a number of things, but identifying sockmasters is not one of them, as ShroCat and Andy Mabbett can tell you. (Disclosure: I'm not any better at it than SandyGeorgia, and am continually surprised to find out which high-profile accounts used to be someone else.) Let's leave the sock-hunting to the people who are good at it, shall we? If Mark Arsten were operating illegitimate multiple accounts I'm sure Wikipediocracy would have written a blog post about it. 28bytes (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@28bytes: Oh boy ... a whole lotta misrepresentation of me in that post, 28. So now, and again, because I asked for clarification of obfuscation I'm suddenly accusing? And just to be sure we're on the same page, I had ZERO to do with anything related to Mark Arsten and socks here ... my role in this discussion was to clarify that I had no such knowledge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I know you're not here accusing Mark of socking. I'm just offering KW a tip that you (and I) are not the best people to consult when it comes to identifying sockmasters. 28bytes (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, thanks ... and you can say that again ... my inner Pollyanna has been had over and over and over again, as I AGF'd and was taken for a ride more times than I can remember by sockmasters! I usually err in the other direction :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Copyright infringement
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Without the page-history handy (or noted in the first edit summary), editors sinking deeper into the abyss of senility or searching for duller phrases than "net negative to Wikipedia" may have difficulty.
Kiefer. The issue is that you should not have told Tiptoety what you wrote on their talk page. The way case pages are created is not Tiptoety's responsibility, but the Committee's. All your concerns about copyright infringement should be presented directly to ArbCom for evaluation. We, [former] and current clerks have no individual authority over ArbCom procedures, and are not responsible for this kind of things.
Now, as a personal note, there is no copyright infringement whatsoever. Wikipedia works under the cc-by-sa 3.0 license, and as long as your comments have your signature attached, copy-pasting them to anywhere complies with that license. The source must only be added to the edit summary or any other visible place when the text that is being copied does not have a signature or any other mark to recognize its original author. I'd recommend you to read the entire text of the license. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ2103:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you took my joke seriously, you should consider its truth. If a single arbitrator has ever commented in the proceedings and failed to sign his comment while leaving a comment elsewhere (as often happens on talk pages), then there would be no attribution to the arbitrator, which in principle would violate the "by attribution" licensing of CC_3.0 BY. Some of the more persnickety arbs (of today or of the golden age) could care, others less. If I put up 10 USD, how many USD will you put up to show your confidence that such moves have never violated CC BY? Kiefer.Wolfowitz20:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was going to write a full reply, but DFTT and all that - and make no mistake Keifer - you are a troll and it's a pity you can't distance your trolling from your good work. You know the answer to the above - and you also know others point out your regular cut and paste moves and then you can come back with some clever remark. Kudos though - you really are effective in your trolling. Hopefully, sometime, you'll grow up. Pedro : Chat 21:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did mean to ask, how is first child? Must be a year or so old now (I forget); I did see it on your talk page. You're going to shame me now and tell me the they're three! To be honest, when I saw you became a family man I was, as everyone should be, delighted for you; it adds a lot of perspective to life. Best. Pedro : Chat 21:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - and re: the edit summary - you can get ¡ into them, apparently. One at the start, the "right way up" at the end. Makes the Mexican more authentic. Troll. Pedro : Chat 21:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my piropo.... ;) At least one WMF staffer advised cutting and pasting non-English characters and punctuation into Visual Editor, which is another spectacular WMF failure. (I wonder whether Swedish writers leave angry yellow notes on Wikipedia?) Kiefer.Wolfowitz10:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You do arouse mixed feelings in me, even when I forget that you are apparently still an administrator.
Well, I'm still a Pedrophile, but really you should get to know a mathematician or logician sometime. (Drmies too.) TParis seems to have, or at least has watched enough episodes of The Big Bang Theory to interface with me, when his sense of duty overpowers his economy of time.
Our daughter is nearly one and is about to be enrolled in day-school: I know that I'm supposed to wait until later to see which mutant super-power(s) she has. So far, it seems to be finding the shortest path to what we don't want her to have. Now we are raising to have her stop practicing Ramadan fasting during the day while mama inserts and knocks out the darndest genes at the lab. She has to eat normally before daycare begins, or I will consider myself a certified failure as a dad.
(I'll soon have more than a few minutes consecutively to work during the day, which will be very much appreciated, professionally and personally.)
Swedish daycare makes me appreciate social democracy and feminism even more, even as they (singular?) are burdened in Sweden by the rise of the new class, whose road to class power is featuring some very strange obsessions.... We've been fighting summer colds for almost a month now, courtesy of drop in daycare, where the toddlers lick the toys. What does not kill me strengthens my immune system. I forget how old your daughter is.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz21:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - nearly one; I think between one and three was perhaps the most magical age; suddenly you see so much development. You also start ruing the development;
You can't wait for them to walk, then you wish they'd sit still. You can't wait for them to talk, then you wish they'd be quiet! :)
My little lady is nearly five; she's just finished her reception year at school - very frightening! Enjoy her whilst she's at that special age. Best. Pedro : Chat 12:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies
How time flies, yes. Good thing about being five is that it saves your parents a lot of money. We're looking at $1500 a month for a 1-year old and a 4-year old in Montessori. And this ain't Sweden, though we lick the toys here as well, and a bunch of other things. You'll be interested, perhaps, in the latest fad in US babyland: cotton diapers. This outfit is all the rage, and we're playing along with little Liam. Kiefer, for the record, I once was a promising student in the philosophy of science, with a specialization of sorts in logic. Of course I threw the ladder away the moment I thought I had climbed up to some level of knowledge, so I prefer to be silent on the topic. Wovon man nicht sprechen kann...Drmies (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I want to purchase sniper diapers, stockpiling them for my older age, where they will have more virility than Depends undergarments, I'll wager. (Although, the improvements in diapers fill me with hope for humanity. I could go on for hours about the wonders of diapers from Pampers, Huggies, and ICA!)
Our user fee for day care is substantially less, so much so, that I would be embarrassed to tell you. :D
I don't know whether it's good to go into the philosophy of science. Developing statistical methods and concepts seems to be the best route towards understanding and advancing science. (In Sweden, too many social scientists want to talk about only issues related to Karl Popper....)
I've never regretted time I've spent studying logic. Logic, lattice theory, and linear algebra (real and complex fields) have the biggest bang for the buck! :)
Kiefer.Wolfowitz10:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Up against the wall, the way IH likes it"
"(Pinning her up against the wall, as Ironholds likes :-)"
WMF CEO Sue Gardner (talk·contribs) jokes about pinning a female employee up against a wall, the way "Ironholds like it" [1]
[10:10am] <sgardner>: Thehelpfulone: we could ask Kat, right now :-)
[10:10am] <Thehelpfulone>: indeed, mindspillage what do you do?
[10:10am] <sgardner>: (Pinning her up against the wall, as Ironholds likes :-)
Kiefer, the section about Sue that I removed from the evidence page may be appropriate for an RFC regarding IRC, in order to demonstrate that the foundation is apparently aware of Ironholds conduct, but it has nothing to do with the case as it has been framed. I mean, if we end up deciding that misbehaviour on IRC may warrant the imposition of sanctions on-wiki, then the fact Sue was aware of IH's behavious is immaterial, because we will only be evaluating his conduct (geneally, a person should not be penalised for the misconduct of another). If, on the other hand, we conclude that IRC and Wikipedia are two entirely different entities and no amount of misconduct on the latter may ever justify sanctions on the former, then the fact Sue was aware of IH's conduct is even more immaterial. The current case should not be used as a way to blow the whistle on the Foundation regarding gender issues: quite simply, that's not the venue. For that, I am asking you to please revert this edit of yours, thanks. SalvioLet's talk about it!11:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it, for several reasons, most of them improper.
Hi KW. Regarding [2] - you are right to push for this. Arbcom do hold secret evidence pages from time to time, and I have on wiki and off wiki evidence where Arbcom members have both denied and confirmed this. (refactored comments) Pedro : Chat 20:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given WTT and Demiurge1000's record of dishonesty in my RfC/U and the misrepresentations at this case, ArbCom should fulfill its telos and believe anything they write. Kiefer.Wolfowitz19:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
101 [17:14] * tommorris wonders if we could tempt the really fucking perverted by offering a premium Jimmy Wales RealDoll.
106 [17:15] <Ironholds> tommorris: we could have a Peter Damian one!
107 [17:15] <Ironholds> as anatomically vacant as a ken doll
108 [17:15] <tommorris> Ironholds: you have to pay extra for the shemale option
109 [17:15] <Ironholds> "punching him in the face feels like punching the real thing!"
This led to a discussion on the talk page of Jimbo Wales:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is it safe to use OTRS ?
Hi Jimbo, today I happened to read this. As you see a Wikipedia administrator, and a member of the Wikimedia OTRS team User:Tom Morris "wonders if we could tempt the really fucking perverted by offering a premium Jimmy Wales Real Doll". So his wondering made me to wonder, if it safe to use OTRS. I mean do you believe that the members of the Wikimedia OTRS team are responsible enough to be trusted with people's personal information? Thanks.76.126.140.123 (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those comments are juvenile, insulting and embarrassing. I apologise to both Jimmy Wales and to Peter Damian: it was stupid for me to say those things, and I'm sorry. I also apologise for using a transphobic slur.
I realised at some point between 2011 and now that participation in the "drama" side of Wikipedia makes me miserable and turns me into a sort of person I don't want to be. (On my deathbed, I can't imagine that I will regret not spending more time posting on ANI.) I now try to consciously opt-out of such situations. I think I have matured as a person; I would not take part in a conversation like the one excerpted above today. IRC can promote a rhetorical one-upmanship which can be excessive, mean and immature. I'm far more careful in what I say and have pared down the number of Wikimedia IRC channels I participate in.
Great, apology accepted from me at least. I expect Peter will accept that apology as well.
One problem with IRC is that it has the feel of a casual off-the-record chat with friends, and joking around is the norm. The result of this is a tone and manner of speaking that is often inappropriate upon further reflection. OTRS, on the other hand, has a formal and dignified tone that tends to bring out the best in people.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the confidentiality of OTRS goes, I can tell you that User:Fæ has expressed concerns about this more than once. Fæ is in a position to know, having been an OTRS volunteer and participated in a two-day WMUK workshop on OTRS. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
eh...
Fuck it, KW, you went down swinging. Passive resistance or a measured defense would have served you better than dropping trou and shaking your booty at ArbCom, but it was either going to be a lynch mob or a judicial lynching at a certain point so I guess it doesn't matter that much in the long run. Remember not to edit around the ban, that's cause for permanent immolation in Alice's Wonderland, whereas even certifiable dickwads have been restored to full status if they patiently wait out the calendar and then genuflect to the priesthood... The alternative, of course, is a full throttle, no holds barred war on WP fought from the Island of Lost Souls off-wiki. That's more to your temperament but would be a great loss to the encyclopedia, in my view. I hope you'll hang in there and give it another spin down the road. See ya at WPO. Carrite (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you see? - Herman crying in his Swiss grave.
This awful city—it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children.
— Walter Kovacs, Rorschach's journal, October 12th 1985.
There is good and there is evil, and evil must be punished. Even in the face of Armageddon I shall not compromise in this. But there are so many deserving of retribution ... and there is so little time.
— Walter Kovacs, October 13th
Your rebuttal to evidence by WTT et al
Kiefer, your most recent submission is precisely the sort of thing that can't be submitted as public evidence. If you have concerns of that nature, you must communicate them privately to the committee. Defaming other people – even editors and even by insinuation – could draw lots of trouble to you and Wikipedia. We (the arbitrators) have opened a private discussion about your recent submission, and you must not make any similar such evidence submissions in the future. Thank you, AGK[•]23:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. There was a small part of your submission that was fine: "Ironholds has his problems, if the history of his user page has been accurately conveyed at Wikipediocracy. He has a lot of work to do. However, he is a minor concern in comparison to Demiurge1000." I will let you restore that to your evidence section, if you want to do so. AGK[•]23:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tired of the BS. Demiurge1000 has accused me of threatening Keyes when I suggested, after 2 people told him to resign and he offered his resignation to Gardner, that he should consider the consequences for unemployment insurance.
I'm also accused of threatening on Wikipediocracy, when in fact anybody who has read the threads knows that I am responsible for removing such statements---three that came to mind start with B's---Bishonen, BWilkins, Beeblebrox---three that are usually not considered part of my "fan club" or protectors or "enablers".
Demiurge1000's false accusations remain on Wikipedia, while my true statements (which have had links and diffs many times, as ArbCom knows) have been censored.
Thank you for your offer, but secret evidence is not my way, not at this point. (I also do not want to add a conclusion without evidence or reasons (which allow others to search my talk page archives to find evidence); we have enough irrational declamations at ANI and I won't add another at ArbCom.)
The community must deal with its having known about the abuses for years.
When I had cancer, I was convinced that I had a hernia. I read a medical-surgical nursing textbook before my ultrasound and I broke out in a cold sweat when I read about cancer. I still thought I had a hernia even after the ultrasound. A friend had a similar experience with her denial of her husband's affair.
My instincts were sound, as can be seen from reading my first encounter, where I commented on a userbox (and then struck through the comment as beneath me, also denying so much ...). We all have to take responsibility for our acquiescence and preference for comfort over truth. Kiefer.Wolfowitz23:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. There's no need to protect anonymous user Demiurge1000.
I believe Demiurge1000 should be added as a party to this request.
Someday, the Senate is going to investigate what has been going on at Wikipedia and WMF, at least that's what WMF and Wikipedia staff and officers should worry about. Kiefer.Wolfowitz11:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Christian Science Monitor breaks story on Ironholds and Sue Gardner
I saw the section you added to the talk pages of the List of Wikipedia controversies and Wikimedia Foundation articles. Are you somehow suggesting that the link be added to those articles? That would not be appropriate in my opinion and if you are just trying to get people to read the blog post then I think it is even less appropriate. Should other news sources pick up the information in Dan's blog then that would be another matter. Dan may be a journalist and his blog may be attached to the Christian Science Monitor but that doesn't change the fact that he has strong personal opinions regarding this site and is fairly close to matters concerning this site as a current contributor.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.22:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Christian Science Monitor is one of the world's great newspapers, particularly on international news (for U.S. readers). Silver Seren (talk·contribs) has discussed the status of blogs and other parts of leading newspapers, such as The Guardian, and I believe that he can confirm that they are edited and conform to professional journalistic standards.
Sydney Schanberg may have had strong personal opinions about Red Guards and their slaughtering intellectuals too, but I trust that you would allow his New York Times reporting to be used, where relevant. Kiefer.Wolfowitz22:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Schanberg had a personal connection with the subject and was the only one to have written about it then I would most definitely not support using his reporting, especially if it concerned named living people. My preference would be for you to remove those comments altogether and I do not think it is appropriate for you to be trying to get the Signpost to write about it either. Consider also that it is not a good thing to do in the current circumstances. Perhaps that does not bother you, but it may bother others.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.23:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my previous comments to Eric Corbett, Carrite, etc., when I have been advised on expediency rather than principle. Wikipedia is not a political arena for me.
At ArbCom, your suggestions mostly are thoughtful, apart from your suggestion that I not comment on minors at Wikipedia. What principle/policy would allow this? So you would have had me banned from alerting the community via MfD about the weird, likely harmless exercise by Ocassi, which does seem to many of us bad for Wikipedia and likely bad for some minors? Kiefer.Wolfowitz23:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, I imagined you wouldn't favor the idea that you should avoid something for the sake of expediency, but a lot of people do not like seeing you pursue this dispute in a self-destructive manner. As for my proposal at the arbitration case, I think you have a tendency to blow things out of proportion and communicate your concerns in a way that creates confusion and hostility. I really don't think much of the game you mention, not for the reasons you give though, but your response there kind of makes my point. Likening Wikipedia to the tobacco industry and saying other editors are "targeting 7-year-olds" is exactly the kind of inflammatory rhetoric on the subject that created this situation in the first place.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.00:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dealing with issues is preferable to denial. The community is addressing some of the issues I've raised, partly because the media likes quotable comments. For instance, how many unicorn games do college students play? How about 7-8 year olds? There seems to be consensus at MfD that the Adventure Game is bad for Wikipedia and bad for kids. Kiefer.Wolfowitz11:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree it's not a blog post, and I personally wonder why Mathsci isn't blocked. This kind of thing that is obviously not a blog post, obviously not just "opinion" or an "op-ed" being called such in an attempt to further their edit war shouldn't be tolerated. Salvio, this does seem a one-sided block. At the very least, fully protecting the article for 3+ hours may help. ~Charmlet-talk-14:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've had many discussions of blogs associated with newspapers, and I trust Silver Seren (talk·contribs)'s guidance, that they are RSes because they do have editorial control. I think he can cite the professional ethical statement about such "blogs" or "opinion page" pieces, and perhaps he's done it here. Kiefer.Wolfowitz15:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible I'm wrong, but I don't see any indication this is a "blog" section of the CSM, as far as I can tell it's an article that was subject to the editorial oversight equivalent to other articles, thus making it just as reliable.
This is in contrast to something comparing something with /opinion/ in it from CNN to an article, or a blogs.cnn.com blog. Bottom line, I see absolutely no indication this is a blog/opinion piece, but every indication it is actually an article that has been subject to the organization's full oversight. However, I tend to define "blog" as 'not oversighted by the organization'.. Regardless, your block was horribly one sided. ~Charmlet-talk-15:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Charmlet: Thanks for your honest and clear comments, which should have been read more carefully by those edit warring. Good luck in the future! Beware of Pv=nRTs and the sun in your eyes. Kiefer.Wolfowitz14:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Banned by a clerk apparently unfamiliar with block logs
You have previously been warned about making allegations against non-parties, I gave some leeway to allow you to more easily rebut the evidence presented by non-parties however this comment along is too far. Whether it is material to the case or not is debatable (one which I'm not going to have with you), however it is unsupported by evidence; in fact I can't see how you have even try and justify Demiurge1000 given the evidence already submitted. Given that you have been warned about this and warning(s) haven't achieved their intended goal, you are banned from all pages related to the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case until 12:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC), this includes any page beginning with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds or Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds. Failure to comply with this restriction will further sanctions such as a block or extension of the restriction. If you wish to appeal this sanction you may by sending an email with your reasoning to the Clerks-l mailing list or ArbCom-en-b (arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org) mailing list. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I can't see how you have even try and justify Demiurge1000" is not English. But I suppose that we have agreement that justifying Demiurge1000 is best left to the supernatural. Kiefer.Wolfowitz22:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Demiurge1000 was blocked for lying, as any competent editor can verify by checking his block log. As primary author, Demiurge1000 was even more culpable for the falsehood accusing me of removing material from Penn Kemble for my "ideological reasons".
Let us hope that an honest competent arbitrator remains at ArbCom, now that Casliber stopped wasting his time, and can help you navigate Wikipedia's user interface.
It does indeed, but that's entirely appropriate for the show trials that ArbCom cases so often are. I don't understand why they don't just cut straight to the verdict without bothering about any evidence: KW banned for a minimum of six months (which effectively means for ever) and Ironholds given a mildly worded slap on the wrist. EricCorbett13:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I found it fascinating that they would shy away from conduct on an "off-wiki" location that is clearly linked to and affiliated with Wiki, but are so anxious to go after "the site that shall not be named." Intothatdarkness14:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[ec]One of 'em, yep. There's also the associated "need help? go here" site. Pathetic, really. By the way, did you (Eric) or Kiefer happen to know Larry Sanger? This is starting to look like the purges of Lenin's old comrades orchestrated by Stalin in his early days in control. Although, given the decline this might be more reminiscent of the "doctors' purge" in the last days. The question then becomes who gets to play Beria? Intothatdarkness14:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's more like Maoisim and the Red Guards, unlettered fanatics schooled to recite quotations from The Little Red Book while destroying Chinese civilization (especially universities) and causing a famine that killed 10s of millions. It's been a while that I've received advice on style and article writing and proper respect for sports from Newyorkbrad, but now Worm That Turned is giving advice on dullness on talk pages. Is that a policy? Because writers are ridiculing another project of Ironholds & Co., visual enema.
The ironic thing is that Callannec has banned KW because, he says, KW's claim that Demiurge was blocked for lying is "unsupported by evidence", despite the fact that the evidence is very clearly stated here. Black Kite (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You think just because you can read and write and look up a block log you are better than Callanec? You better shape up or ship out, Black Kite, with your high fallutin' ways. Kiefer.Wolfowitz14:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerks do not normally investigate evidences; I'm pretty sure that if KW flatly pointed out the issues and provided us with diffs (such as the ones provided by BK up there), we wouldn't have as much of an issue. Let me see what can be done about this. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps17:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that none of the vague comments about my previous blocks, e.g., by your master Worm That Turned, have resulted in even a warning, so the issue that you have is your double standard. Don't reply here until you've warned somebody else. Kiefer.Wolfowitz11:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The dishonesty of ArbCom
For some time not just Worm That Turned and Newyorkbrad but the also the rest of Arbcom has had links about the on- and off-Wiki pursuits of one of the "non-participants", who somehow is still participating in this case. Why is he not blocked?
The usual rules of ArbCom require that all parties to a conflict are involved. They removed even Mark Arsten, the filer of the case, against another of their rules. Then they allow Worm That Turn and Demiurge1000 to continue the years-long campaign against me, not discussing the "dispute with Ironholds" but dredging up their old complaints from 2011, while I'm not allowed to discuss their behavior.
They are dishonest as a committee, and I have yet to see an honest member amongst them, stating an objection to any of the authoritarianism.
One correction here: they're Stalinists. Stalin was a master bureaucrat, and used his access to the levers of Party administration to gain control. Lenin had ideas - Stalin had processes and show trials. Intothatdarkness15:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moritz Schlick also failed to recognize the primacy of the folk.
With respect to the folks cited in your edit summary, Stalin still got there first and was better at this sort of thing than either of those gentlemen. He was also quite bland and unmotivating personally, whereas at least Mugabe has a certain charisma about him. Intothatdarkness16:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it's necessarily fair to single out any phantom individual here. It seems to be the politics of the closed and unaccountable committee that's being examined. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but I personally think the content part of Wikipedia is relatively intact but compared to the community which looks like a run down democracy replaced by a new Stalinist regime. Prabash.Akmeemana18:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed decision is due in under a week, just to let you know. If you've really gone, then good luck for the future. AGK[•]20:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now we can only speculate about what might have been, like the time like Yeltsin faced down the tanks before The People's Weekly World could announce its support for the Communist coup.
Hi, thanks for the revert. Is it normal for the workshop being closed without any template put up (or am I blind and missing it)? I don't really have much experience with arbcom cases. SnowolfHow can I help?20:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Salvio left a note, which is not as eye-catching as a template. Discretion is his middle name.
It used to be that I submitted a lot of evidence on the topic, e.g. "Civility Enforcement", which was ignored, and I was surprised to learn that "Civility Enforcement" was not the topic of the case after all; I learned later that Iridescent (talk·contribs) had already forecast the decision based on knowing the personal politics of the arbitrators.
Could you explain why you think the statement is false? Or are you stating that the comment is true? If so please explain why a true statement is unacceptable.
Can you explain your inaction with respect to Qworty, that Angel fellow who was just banned, etc., when you were an arbitrator? Why did it take so long for this year's pathetic Arbitration Committee to admit that it could not handle existing child-protection cases and that it needed help? Why didn't you take responsibility when you were on Arbitration Committee?
Hi Kiefer, to be honest, I don't entirely follow your comments above. In regard to my inaction when I was an arbitrator, I think it's a common misconception that an arbitrator is a kind of super-admin whose role is to go around making difficult blocks. In my view the role of an arbitrator is nothing of the sort, and should be focused on deciding what cases to accept, analyzing the evidence, and voting on the proposals. PhilKnight (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it unacceptable to state that ArbCom is accepting such behavior?
Aren't you ashamed of your personal failure to deal with child protection while you had the community's highest office?
Actually Phil, I had forgotten that you were one of the arbitrators harassing Eric Corbett through the Civility Enforcement case. You and others responsible have no business complaining about criticisms of ArbCom, since you are largely responsible for discrediting it in the community's eyes.
You and other arbitrators have a curious choice of priorities, letting mimicry (or the real thing) of child predation occur while harassing Eric. Kiefer.Wolfowitz16:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ooooh. The irony. Behold the hypocrisy of it all!!! Kiefer Wolfowitz cannot stop going hysterical imagining arbs solicit children's company through wikimedia events. But conveniently ignores noticing his blue eyed boy when he expressly says [4] and does not even notice when youngsters are welcomed to an event where alcohol is on the menu [5]. Wow!!! So much for self righteous child protection crusaders !!!!OrangesRyellow (talk) 3:36 am, Today (UTC+2)
Former arbitrator PhilKnight is another administrator who doesn't know how to use his block button. My block is expired, but Knight snafued the IP-block. Please block Knight for the hours he wrongly blocked me.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Other comments
RED: Retired, Extremely Dangerous
RETIRED, Extremely Dangerous
This user takes out the trash on Wikipedia.
Freedom of Speech
WikiProject Freedom of speech
It's sad when a discussion of freedom of speech has the picture of the authoritarian justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., apologist for the federal state's silencing of paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights (Schenk v. United States) and forced sterilization.
No hard feelings. I'm very busy this week, again. You are not responsible for everything that happens on Wikipedia.
Your comment when I was blocked struck me as poorly timed, but reasonable. Being blocked I missed the hilarious understatement of your advice to TRM, "if you find yourself commenting dozens of times in an RfA, perhaps...."
Please remember my advice to Eric that you both should try to appraise each other with greater justice.
I did not know that. The only son of Justice Stone whom I have heard of was Lawson Stone, who was a lawyer whose name comes up in discussions of Ex parte Quirin. I'm going to read his article now and check his Erdös number. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Lawrence Tribe apparently wrote an honors undergraduate thesis in algebraic topology at Harvard. Former SDS President (now sociologist) Todd Gitlin also has a B.A. in mathematics from Harvard. Kiefer.Wolfowitz20:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My mathematical accomplishments peaked in two summers at HCSSiM. On the other hand, when Professor Tribe was a law clerk, he wrote the statistical analysis for an extremely influential opinion of the Supreme Court of California, People v. Collins. The judge he was clerking for felt he couldn't improve on (or perhaps fully follow) Tribe's statistical reasoning, so he just tacked it verbatim onto the opinion as an Appendix. When I first read the case (either as an undergraduate or in law school), I said to myself "the Appendix is really the heart of this opinion and its analysis is compelling"—it was only years later that I found out who had written it and what had become of him. The opinion, including the Appendix, is here, and see also the historical appendix here; when I have a moment in the next few days I'll rewrite our wiki article on the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reference to the "prosecutor's fallacy", which seems to be taught in Sweden as a good practice to law students. (The Humboldtian miseducation of humanists and social-scientists in Sweden is a topic on which I would probably violate WP:BLP, NPA, Civility, etc., numerous times, indeed, so I won't start....)
I remember reading The Atlantic Monthly's profile on Erdős when I was a civilian. I believe the article won a national prize, and it later was expanded as the book The Man Who Loved Only Numbers (with its bad title), which mentioned George Piranian's playing a role as custodial guardian of Erdős (before it was assumed by Ronald L. Graham); Piranian's comment on McCarthyism was typical. One of Erdős's accomplishments was founding the field of random graphs, which reminds me of the Arbcom discussion of users Malleus Fatuorum and George Ponderov.
Richard Gill (whose user name can be found in the Monty Hall problem case proceedings, has a great set of slides explaining forensic statistics involved with all mobile traffic in a country's capital. A take-home message was that if two phones seemed to be connected one day, then (to a good approximation) the next day they would separate with probability 1/2, and this branching could be modeled independently of the past; that is, the next day's probability of continuing to be linked would be roughly 1/4 and the next 1/8, etc., to a good approximation. Gill's model of mobile phone calls years ago (which need not approximate UK laptop traffic of 6 months ago) suggests that it would be hazardous to extrapolate that laptops that seem to be linked spatially-and-temporally (overlapping one or even several days) are indeed used by the same person.
For the rational study of the law the blackletter man may be the man of the present, but the man of the future is the man of statistics and the master of economics.
Justice Hugo Black's dissent In re Anastaplo would "immortalize Anastaplo", said Justice Brennan upon reading it. Black's dissent was read at Black's funeral, by his instructions.
George Anastaplo is, like C. A. Patrides was, an interesting Greek-American intellectual (who also served in WWII). Other editors may wish to help write an article.
The effect of the Court's 'balancing' here is that any State may now reject an applicant for admission to the Bar if he believes in the Declaration of Independence as strongly as Anastaplo and if he is willing to sacrifice his career and his means of livelihood in defense of the freedoms of the First Amendment. But the men who founded this country and wrote our Bill of Rights were strangers neither to a belief in the 'right of revolution' nor to the urgency of the need to be free from the control of government with regard to political beliefs and associations. Thomas Jefferson was not disclaiming a belief in the 'right of revolution' when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. And Patrick Henry was certainly not disclaiming such a belief when he declared in impassioned words that have come on down through the years: 'Give me liberty or give me death.' This country's freedom was won by men who, whether they believed in it or not, certainly practiced revolution in the Revolutionary War.
Since the beginning of history there have been governments that have engaged in practices against the people so bad, so cruel, so unjust and so destructive of the individual dignity of men and women that the 'right of revolution' was all the people had left to free themselves. As simple illustrations, one government almost 2,000 years ago burned Christians upon fiery crosses and another government, during this very century, burned Jews in crematories. I venture the suggestion that there are countless multitudes in this country, and all over the world, who would join Anastaplo's belief in the right of the people to resist by force tyrranical governments like those.
In saying what I have, it is to be borne in mind that Anastaplo has not indicated, even remotely, a belief that this country is an oppressive one in which the 'right of revolution' should be exercised. Quite the contrary,
the entire course of his life, as disclosed by the record, has been one of devotion and service to his country-first, in his willingness to defend its security at the risk of his own life in time of war and, later, in his willingness to defend its freedoms at the risk of his professional career in time of peace. The one and only time in which he has come into conflict with the Government is when he refused to answer the questions put to him by the Committee about his beliefs and associations. And I think the record clearly shows that conflict resulted, not from any fear on Anastaplo's part to divulge his own political activities, but from a sincere, and in my judgment correct, conviction that the preservation of this country's freedom depends upon adherence to our Bill of Rights. The very most that can fairly be said against Anastaplo's position in this entire matter is that he took too much of the responsibility of preserving that freedom upon himself.
This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that Anastaplo has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows, not only that Anastaplo has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost. It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law-men like Malsherbes, who, at the cost of his own life and the lives of his family, sprang unafraid to the defense of Louis XVI against the fanatical leaders of the Revolutionary government of France---men like Charles Evans Hughes, Sr., later Mr. Chief Justice Hughes, who stood up for the constitutional rights of socialists to be socialists and public officials despite the threats and clamorous protests of self-proclaimed superpatriots---men like Charles Evans Hughes, Jr., and John W. Davis, who, while against everything for which the Communists stood, strongly advised the Congress in 1948 that it would be unconstitutional to pass the law then proposed to outlaw the Communist Party---men like Lord Erskine, James Otis, Clarence Darrow, and the multitude of others who have dared to speak in defense of causes and clients without regard to personal danger to themselves. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.
But that is the present trend, not only in the legal profession but in almost every walk of life. Too many men are being driven to become government-fearing and time-serving because the Government is being permitted to strike out at those who are fearless enough to think as they please and say what they think. This trend must be halted if we are to keep faith with the Founders of our Nation and pass on to future generations of Americans the great heritage of freedom which they sacrificed so much to leave to us. The choice is clear to me. If we are to pass on that great heritage of freedom, we must return to the original language of the Bill of Rights. We must not be afraid to be free.[1]
Justice Black's dissent In re Anastaplo would "immortalize Anastaplo", said Justice Brennan upon reading it. Black's dissent was read at Black's funeral, by his instructions.
I guess we can all see the writing on the wall by now. I know your complaints regarding certain problems were made in good faith (even though I believe some of them to be flat-out wrong). Thanks for all your work on various articles and for keeping attempting to keep a lot of complete nonsense and silliness off Wikipedia. I wish you the best in your life off Wikipedia, although I'm pretty certain we may occasionally notice each other on Wikipediocracy. (I do have an account there, although I virtually never post comments.) Good luck. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I'm surprised by the outcome. Disappointed and disgusted, yes, but not surprised. Who will be the next enemy of the state? Take care, Kiefer. Intothatdarkness13:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's never good news to be a party in an ArbCom case, but one day they'll achieve their goal and we'll all have been banished. Only a matter of time. EricCorbett14:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all the good wishes. Remember to follow Mencken's advice on pleasing his ghost and forgive some sinner and wink at a homely girl. Kiefer.Wolfowitz14:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All the best KW thanks for the welcome you gave me earlier on your talk page, enjoy life and hope we talk again, as for me, Im probably going to be off for a bit, and come back by time for Christmas. Prabash.Akmeemana19:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I pray you to believe what I have said.... I have reported what I saw and heard, but only part of it. For most of it I have no words. If I've offended you by this rather mild account ..., I'm not in the least sorry.
Although we've had our differences and battles, I never considered myself an enemy of yours.
I hope you have a great time off Wikipedia. Good luck and ¡hasta pronto! — ΛΧΣ2101:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rest in peace, time to let go. You fought the law, and the law won. It was a good fight, but dont be tempted to aim back with sock during your ban....thats sort of giving in, playing into hands. Anyhow....some ridicilious fun to distract, guessing you will appreciate the studio wizardry. [7] - 1968, analog, tape. Best. Ceoil (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You fought the law, and the law won. - but if you're an admin then this remake of that old song is more appropriate: [8]. The law is for little people.Volunteer Marek01:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PROTECT, as far as I am aware the talkpage will only be locked in cases of "continued abuse". WP:BAN says pretty much the same thing. So, for the first question, I would say "yes". For the second, I'd say "don't hold your breath", unfortunately. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed: Yes and no—unless there be
a greater scandal resulting in the banning of another editor, a reassessment of Wikipedia by the reading public (who may still think that Qworty was an isolated event----of 5 years!), and the strengthening of WP:Child Protection, or
a revolt among writers at the next ArbCom election. Perhaps CasLiber will run again? Already, Worm That Turned and AGK have announced that they will not seek re-election, and one hopes that Risker will step down. (The treatment of Elen, with whom I've had heated disagreements, was unforgivable, particularly given her distinguished service and humanity.)
Perhaps in some months I shall write a public appeal to ArbCom, which the wicked may mistake for ridiculing the present committee.... ;)
I shall be happier away from Wikipedia for a while. If I write something, it's easy for somebody else to add it.... :) Now I am tired, and I wish to focus on other pursuits (as I've long planned). Please forgive me for not writing personal messages and acknowledgments to every greeting, but I am rather tired of this place, and I have a lot of personal and professional responsibilities.
Kiefer isn't blocked from editing his talk page. For the second, I think Black Kite is right. One wonders, though, if there are bonus points for his contributions to the ArbCom case. That is, if ArbCom is correct, then Kiefer was right (in part or in whole) in his assessment of Ironholds and his use of, for instance, IRC. And like it or not (certainly plenty of people won't), he was persistent and successful, if that desysop was his goal. It takes some big ovaries (sorry for the sexist term) to do that. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very much against these indefinite blocks/bans, because the basic message they send is "you'll remain blocked until you post a sufficiently self-abasing request, and you'll probably have to do that repeatedly". EricCorbett21:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've written extensively at Wikipediocracy about my motivations. I've never cared about the administrative status of Ironholds or his employment (apart from the title). The WMF should continue to employee him, since they knew about his IRC activities and he should also be treated as a person. However, Wikipedia must deal with the rhetoric of violence, particularly against women. Many of the young editors no doubt have read and can probably discuss violence fluently; alas, until they've known somebody who's been beaten and have had her boyfriend repeatedly cry about how sorry he is, repeatedly, they just don't understand the importance of a no-tolerance policy and an insistence on dealing with violent rhetoric.
Similarly Wikipedia must always consider its treatment of vulnerable users: examples have included editors in crisis who suddenly demand to have their confidential emails released to the public; children and young adults, especially those with Asperger's syndrome, etc.). I have tried to be consistent, and I have no apologies for my stands. Of course, some rhetoric was counter-productive or needlessly hurtful, and of course I regret some of my comments (as I've regretted receiving many comments...).
I get too tired to look closely at the decision. How many of the diffs that were cited in the case were provided by me, quickly censored, and resulted in my being threatened with blocks? I am too tired to count, and the activity is bush league. Kiefer.Wolfowitz20:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't quite understand why you're having a discussion with KW on his talk page. Talk pages are provided to editors to help facilitate their editing, and a certain amount of general conversation and so on is not a problem, but Wikipedia is not a forum and, in any case, KW is no longer an editor. Since he is banned, he has no use for his talk page, since he cannot ask for an unblock using it, but must go through BASC or ArbCom to be reinstated."
and I feel that I should warn others to stop writing here, lest they also be accused of consorting with a non-editor (or non-editor per WP:MOS).
I already should have repeated the instructions to his friends given by Egon Balas before he had his public denunciation as an enemy of the Communist paradise of Romania (after which he would develop rickets from serving two years of solitary confinement in a dark cell):
Please protect yourself from recriminations and accusations of disloyalty by simply repeating the official accusations against me. You don't need to add new accusations. I will know about your sympathies and not have to worry about your fate. (Will to Freedom, from memory)
Moral: Fall in line and conform with shunning. (Reader's of Balas's autobiography may agree that my being banned is better than my being beaten on the bottom of the feet with a rubber hose.)
Sincerely,
Kiefer.Wolfowitz20:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's an impressive contribution on the part of BYK. It's so good to see such a commitment to expression and unfettered access to knowledge. Intothatdarkness20:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have this quote on my user "every editor is a human being", but should probably add that "non-editors" are also human beings. See there also "The Ban on Love" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disappointing, but not entirely unexpected. Kiefer will soon be airbrushed out of WP history, as will we all who refuse to join the cult. EricCorbett22:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me a lot of the caste system in India. Banned users are the Dalits, those to be shunned, hidden, and unmentioned; admins, to a much lesser degree, are the Brahmins, and all other editors are the Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras. I find this development in people's mindsets to be particularly unhealthy, and even concerning when I read pompous and almost, in a sinister way, excited pronouncements by individuals on the admin's noticeboard that now "...it's time to propose a community ban on <name>. I think the community needs to step up and say to him, 'You are done here.'" This isn't healthy for the targeted users and especially those proposing the bans. But meh, I'm no psychiatrist; it's just my opinion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the step from person to non-person in the glorious Peoples' Republic of Wikipedia. And serves as a reminder why no one should get attached to the place. Intothatdarkness14:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Child Protection apparently now bars discussions of behavior not barred in WP:Child Protection (although barred by responsible organizations like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts). Perhaps ArbCom could designate a clerk to update the policy? Kiefer.Wolfowitz21:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Such a lovely community
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WP administrators display devotion to the quality of articles (on music, mathematics, civil liberties and rights---to mention a few of the topics discussed on this talkpage since ArbCom banned me)....
Here is a more complete version, which I created from scratch (!):
Hallén, Hans-Olof; Hanner, Olof; Jannersten, Per (1994). Rigal, Barry (ed.). Bridge movements: A fair approach. Bridgeakad. (Bridge academy) (Translated by Barry Rigal from the 1990 Swedish Tävlingsledaren (The leader of the tournament) ed.). Alvesta: Jannersten Forlag AB. ISBN91-85024-86-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
I think that Hanner's work on intersection numbers is discussed in
Lindenstrauss, Joram and Benyamini, Yoav. Geometric nonlinear functional analysis Colloquium publications, 48. American Mathematical Society.
Thanks. I added the bridge publication and the mention of his work with Grenander. I looked in Google books for mentions of Hanner in the Lindenstrauss–Benyamini book but didn't see anything detailed enough to be worth mentioning. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't find the mention of Hanner in the Grenander interview. Perhaps I confused him with Bengt Mattern, the independent statistician who developed spatial statistics? But you or somebody else added the James reference (topology handbook) in the Radstrom article.... Perhaps there is mention of Hanner in another source, e.g. Lindenstrauss and Milman's article in the Handbook of Convex Geometry. I'll try to look for a source. Kiefer.Wolfowitz19:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are bad errors in both the Raadstr"om and Hanner articles: The James reference seems to be improper, because it mentions nothing of statistics. My insertion of the interview of Grenander also seems improper, because there is no mention of Hanner (as I verified using the IMS pdf version, which is searchable, unlike the linked archive X version); either I confused Hanner and Matern (very unlikely) or I misremembered an interview or semi-autobiographical entry (e.g. with Cramer or Wold or Whittle), which I cannot locate. Please remove these errors, for me, as a mitzvah.
Thanks for your help. I don't have H. Cramer's works, but I shall try to check his autobiographical statements to see whether I can find a discussion of Hanner.
My writing of significant articles is over, but I could see myself returning to improve existing ones, if ArbCom changes.
In the 2012 arbcom election, I made an election guide that contained an evaluation of candidates as role-playing characters, which led to arbs actively requesting to be so evaluated. There was no objection to my description of one as a "former warlord ...", perhaps in implicit recognition that my characterizations contained an element of truth...? In my ArbCom case and in the banning decision, a similar comment about political organizing (using "preen" and "groom", consonant terms in behavioral biology) was cited as evidence of an essentially "unbroken" record of incivility and innuendo.... (Maybe I missed a SNL segment in which Church Lady was involved with sexual-predatory grooming, and the ArbCom case's presentation of evidence was not as duplicitous as it seems...?) Judges Risker, WTT, and AGK have announced that they won't run again for arbcom, which will spare them the fate of Jclemens and other arbitrators repudiated by the community.
Your ban is unwarranted from what I can tell from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Evidence. I did not add any material to that page for a reason: IMO there was absolutely no evidence of misconduct on Wikipedia, on either your or Ironhold's part. For their part, ArbCom again brings shame and disrepute onto the projects via their unreasonable actions. That said, please feel free to post edits to my sandbox, preferably on the English Wikipedia sandbox but any other as needed (it may take a while for me to notice though), for inclusion in the English Wikipedia, per WP:PROXYING. Int21h (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention to contribute again, but I thank you for the kind spirit of your offer.
I agree that a ban on myself was unwarranted. Please correct me and ArbCom if you can find any prohibition in Wikipedia policy on private individual contacts between adult editors and children (e.g. with Aspberger's syndrome or similar conditions) that take place despite and in defiance of the objections of parents. Such contacts do not violate WP:Child Protection; thus, discussions of such contacts do not merit the banning or indefinite blocking mentioned in WP:Child Protection.
My watchlist contains only this page now, but I do get some notifications on articles I've written, when somebody reverts an edit of mine.
Articles
The revised caption "Ry Cooder plays slide guitar using an open tuning that allows playing major chords by barring the strings anywhere along their length." should be changed to specify "each major chord ... at one fret along the neck".(Modulo an octave, or twelve frets.) My original "strumming" was precise, since arpeggiating chords is not the motivation behind open tunings, and could also be restored.
Perhaps Dr. Blofeld (talk·contribs) might fix an article (following Eric Corbett's fixing Open C tuning:
Guitar chord. This is a minor issue. [9] Somebody excited about slide guitar removed "fret" from the caption, despite frets being apparent in Ry Cooder's picture and one-finger major chords being discussed in the cited sources on open tunings. (A discussion of frets, besides following the reliable sources, also is easy for novices to understand.) The fellow made a comment about the open-strings of open tunings (or cross note tunings) on the talk page, perhaps not understanding that open tunings also allow fretting major chords with one-finger barres (not only the open chord). Perhaps a talk page discussion would be best?
Open C tuning. A citation was removed (without explanation) by an IP which has been summarily reverted by anti-vandalism bots before. I would suggest a revert with summary "please do not remove reliable sources that are referenced in the article". Eric fixed this. 19:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We know that Ones and Ones make Twos— Till Demos votes them Three or Nought. We know the Fenris Wolf is loose. We know what Fight has not been fought. We know the Father to the Thought Which argues Babe and Cockatrice Would play together, were they taught. We know that Bonfire on the Ice.
But today's OR, soapboxing, NPA violations, and IDHT at the talk page may be worse than yesterday's shennanigans.
Kudos again to many of the above and to Nick (talk·contribs) for trying to get the talk-page discussion to focus on the reliable sources.
KW 21:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gaiety transforming all that dread
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds ArbCom case to which you were an involved party has closed. Per this remedy, I have implemented the ban levied against you. (Before you ask: Callanecc is not an admin and cannot implement the ban himself) The reproduction of the text of the remedy follows:
3) For numerous violations of Wikipedia's norms and policies, Kiefer.Wolfowitz is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
Further discussions of this case occur at Wikipediocracy, especially in forums devoted to governance ("Down with Ironholds", sic.) and general discussion (Child protection policy).
Appealing to consensus and responding to the concerns of
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
tuning
Thank you for quality articles on tuning and mathematicians, even fictitious ones, for tuned comments to well-wishers, and for striving for serenity when you are "right but others are not ready to listen", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
Thank you, Gerda, for remembering the anniversary of Precious (2012), which closely followed the happiest moment of my life. <3 This year's anniversary was also wonderful. :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz16:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a bad memory, but a good archive, well prepared by the ones who did it before me. Words are a limited way of being in tune, - enjoy music on top of my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Phelps died in January, I believe, and his user page seems to have been deleted at Washington. Perhaps Wayback? (Now, I suppose one must wait 70 years to publish Rainwater's peer review of an article by Orno....) Kiefer.Wolfowitz13:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all. I had wished that Phelps would have been pleased by the Orno/Rainwater duo on April First, and I even unsuccessfully pitched background to Ohio State and Washington U. journalists, in the hopes of attracting readers and also getting an image of the Orno/Rainwater peer review. I know an editor who has a copy, but I don't believe that he can release it to the public now. L'Esprit d'escalier, Charlie Brown---l'esprit d'escalier. Kiefer.Wolfowitz14:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent Russian mathematician told me, "[Kiefer], every functional analyst in the world studied that book [Phelp's Lectures on Choquet theory]", when I was given an copy by one of my mentors. I trust that a German analyst will help expand the article, perhaps consequently leading to improvements in the English version.... :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz16:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's great about the project: that an expert might come along. With that slight hope I moved it, knowing that there is more hidden now than shown, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a pleasure. Now I'm exceedingly busy and happier with non-Wikipedia activities (instead of discussing whether I am edit warring at Wikipediocracy ..., which seemed to have been my main activity here the last months). Kiefer.Wolfowitz19:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Question...
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello Kiefer.Wolfowitz. I have recently become aware of your existence through reading portion of a newsletter from Wikipedia talking about banning users and revealing inappropriate behavior by some of Wikipedia's foundation employees in form of expression of violent and/or misogynistic and threatening thought-crime views (Signpost, iirc?) and wanted to ask you some questions that I've pondered during the periods in which I've actively contributed to articles on topics that were of personal interest to me (none of which involve child predation, for example). I hope you will consider to reply to me if you are permitted to do so while blocked?
Why do you think people invest/waste/spend so much time and energy creating "drama" w/in what is ostensibly considered the Wikipedia "community", rather than simply work on expanding and improving the online encyclopedia by creating new articles on noteworthy subjects and enhancing those articles that already exist? What motivated you personally to engage and interact with drama-centric editors and administrators who were/are focused more on Wikipedia "community" than Wikipedia's content? Would you describe the actions that ultimately resulted in your questionable 'banning' as self-destructive, or principled? Did you self-sabotage b/c you wanted to spend more time with your family and less time w/ Wikipedia, but knew you'd need an external force to shift your focus (b/c otherwise you'd've just continued expending the same time/energy resources on Wikipedia, ongoing)? Finally, how can an editor avoid having any contact with Wikipedia drama-whores but still engage in processes like nominating articles for Featured-article status and responding to objections from reviewers who might be less interested in the actual content than in exercising whatever virtual "power" they think they've accumulated in the world of the online encyclopedia? Thank you for your time. Azx219:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have never used "drama whore", and indeed I have objected to others' use of the insult before. Please don't use it.
To avoid problems, you should tolerate Wikipedia's foremost writer on the Arab Spring (and one of the finest contributors to ITN) being called a Nazi because he included discussion of the Swedish Democrats in an article on Swedish elections, giving due weight according to reliable sources. You should support children becoming administrators on Wikipedia, even children with a history of excessive editing (self-described as "addicted"); you should also support RfA candidates who have no history of contributing to articles on traditional encyclopedia content. You should be silent when ArbCom fails to provide security for its confidential emails (which are then leaked); the principal victim of the leaks should then be harrassed for years by ArbCom, including further publication of confidential information (in violation of user privacy safeguards) and absurd "statistical" analysis with your acquiescence. You should be silent after reading male administrators make comments about "getting a beer and a girl from Aruba" or "courting the WP fraternity", all targeting the same woman. In other words, if you seek peace on Wikipedia, you should suffer the misery of devils and make a whore of your soul by acquiescing to sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish behavior. Kiefer.Wolfowitz20:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to reply to some of my question, which I appreciate. I am sorry if I offended you by using the term "drama whore," which was not intentional (offending, that is) and certainly not meant to imply you had ever used or sanctioned the use of the term. Good luck in all of your future endeavours and thank you for providing so much interesting (if often unpleasant and shocking) information on your talk page. I had no idea as to the depths of the depravity of some members of Wikipedia's "inner circle"! Cheers. Azx205:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your good wishes and supportive comments.
My objection to "drama whore" is based on mostly my objection to any use of "drama" as a cliche, which induces fear and stupidity in most WP discussions. Your "whore" metaphor is clumsy, since there seems to be no payment. In contrast, in my paraphrase of the Thomas Paine quote, "whore" describes the soul that accepts short-term peace at the cost of the future good of children.
Regarding your earlier questions: I repeat that I had long planned to essentially stop editing now. I have essentially stopped editing for months in the past, when other activities were more important and time consuming, so I had no need of being blocked to stop editing. (Editors wanting a self block can calmly ask Bishonen or another administrator, after examining their requirements.)
You're very welcome for the good wishes and supportive comments, which are delivered with genuine feeling and hope for the future. I also understand now that you'd planned to wind-down your editing to an essential stop.
And while your paraphrasing of the Paine quote was most effective and appreciated, perhaps in my rehtoricalgambit a non-sexualized, gender-neutral instance of "slut" could've stood-in for "whore", though I admit to being at a loss for a viable replacement for "drama-" in the way I meant it (like "high school drama": the drama between people at highschool, which people seem to create around themselves just to have a bit of action in their lives.The most pointless and/or ridiculous thing on the face of the Earth, and it will get you no where in life. If you're not involved in drama, don't try to be a part of it.).
That is not to say, however, that child predation, misogyny, general harassment, sexual harassment, racism, cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking, or any other serious anti-social behaviors are pointless, manufactured dramas that should be discounted as such, implicitly tolerated (or worse, condoned) and not responded to/combated vigorously.
Speaking of which, what is the appropriate action for a simple editor like me to take when discovering ethnic slurs or instances of overt racism on an article's talk page? It happened last night when I began reading about the MiG-23 fighter that I came across this on the talkpage: "are you jew, 221.36.19.28??? You are trying to deny ALL facts about MIG's success." I don't know who was responsible or when they added that, but I can't imagine it's kosher to simply edit-around such offensive race-baiting or pretend it's not there? Any insight would be helpful as I honestly have not encountered that before. Thanks again for your time and be well! Azx217:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should consider the counter-examples of e.g. dysfunctional families avoiding discussions of alcoholism or child molestation. It is better to deal with problems than pretend they don't exist. (Like Stuart Smalley, Dr. Phil is rather good on these issues.)
You can report an editor making antisemitic attacks at an appropriate noticeboard, and the editor is likely to be indefinitely blocked. But beware! In the RfC/U of Demiurge1000 and Worm That Turned, one of the accusations was that I had removed anti-semitism from neoconservatism. Kiefer.Wolfowitz18:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh gee, by having engaged w/ you and endeavoured to be both friendly and supportive, am I in any danger now of not being responded-to fairly or appropriately (by some administrators or other editors?) if I report the anti-semitism I discovered? I hope not! I certainly don't want to pretend that instances of abuse aren't happening or don't exist, but I won't want to court controversy if I report something. Just want to do my part and try to maintain a non-hostile/non-threatening environment that allows full intellectual expression and self-actualization!! Azx221:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've associated with an identified "enemy of the state." There are always repercussions of some sort for that behavior, at least in the dysfunctional dream world that is Wikipedia. Intothatdarkness14:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: No news is bad news
Jimbo Wales has still failed to acknowledge the email (requested in August) with evidence about off-Wiki adult-child behavior---failing to meet the standard of ArbCom's Roger Davies (talk·contribs), who at least acknowledged receipt (on behalf of the committee).
At least ArbCom acknowledged publicly that it was incompetent to handle the existing Child-Protection policy when it asked Sue Gardner for help. Why does WMF continue to beg for donations when it ignores concerns about child safety?
Kiefer.Wolfowitz10:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Child-protection versus civility enforcement: Rationale for banning KW
Peter Damian wrote his blog about my being banned to highlight the weaknesses of WP:Child Protection, as a weak policy that is often unenforced.
(In my junior-high English, we were often asked to read an essay and to identify a likely purpose for an essay.)
KW)
As a logician, Peter Damian ought to have known better than to be so easily confused between an editor "blocked after raising concerns about child protection" and one "blocked for raising concerns about child protection". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom banned me because I made comments about the behavior of "Dennis", which did not describe any acts prohibited by WP:Child Protection. Nonetheless, Arbcom imputed thoughtcrimes to me, such as allegations of sexual predation that I have never made and that I have repeatedly disavowed.
Does anybody besides Jimbo Wales believe that I was banned because of the diffs given as representing incivility...? (Benchmarking incivility: Have people been banned for "you little shit", "toxic personality", "a net negative to the project", "not a Wikipedian", etc.? Links have been made to the authors, per CC 3.0 BY; diffs available on request)
Without sending it to me, Peter Damian wrote his essay for the obvious goal of highlighting problems of child protection. Obviously, its inclusion of material and its exclusion of other material can be explained by Peter's evident purpose. Kiefer.Wolfowitz10:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True that a lot of the police force here are teenagers or college kids, but children as young as 7 are far too young to edit wikipedia IMO. I know somebody who was a 12 year old on here when he started and he has shown exceptional abilities as a writer for such a young age but he's an exception to the rule. I think Julian Colton was around that age when he started too wasn't he? I think 13 is a reasonable age threshold to edit wikipedia and anybody who declares themselves to be under it shouldn't be allowed to edit here for a large number of reasons. Such a group playing the babysitter shouldn't really need to exist on wikipedia, although I gather that it was started because several people believed it was needed to try to mentor the younger editors. Society is naturally suspicious of adults who spend time with unrelated children even if the group's intentions are purely in good faith. I think you have to be very careful with something like this as it is true that there are sinister characters in this world who use websites like Facebook and Twitter to meet children and somebody could abuse such a system on wikipedia but far less likely. Unless there is compelling evidence of misconduct by anybody in that group though it would be an extremely serious allegation to accuse somebody within the group of it or even imply it. I haven't read exactly what has been said but from what I can see Kiefer has said something which is considered to be over the mark and serious enough to ban him. A sad end to a good editor.♦ Dr. Blofeld
"Several people believed it was needed to try to mentor the younger editors" is distracting speculation without merit. You should review the diffs I've posted previously here and at Wikipediocracy. I made no allegation or innuendo, contrary to the falsehood declared by ArbCom (amusingly citing a bacon-writer as a rhetorical expert). Kiefer.Wolfowitz20:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SG for Robert Phelps
On 12 September 2013, Schon gewusst? was updated with a fact from the translation of the article Robert Phelps, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was: Der Mathematiker Robert Phelps, Professor an der University of Washington, illustrierte mathematische Zusammenhänge mit Bergsteiger-Metaphern. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (quick check).
Thanks very much, Gerda, for your fine work on the article, which is even better in German, having used information from the Jon Borwein piece and this excellent source. (The proposition that he was in the Merchant Marines, at least the category, was unsourced before your fine research and writing---it rested on a verbal statement that Phelps was a non-traditional student who had served in the Merchant Marines, from a reliable source.) :)
Well done! I'd like to think that the article brought some small solace to his (surviving) wife, that the world shall remember his achievements and some part of his personality.
I cannot imagine what the administration at the U Washington mathematics department has been thinking, to fail to appoint an analyst of the stature of Jon Borwein, or of Robert Deville, or of Mordukhovich and keep the legacy of Issac Namioka, Victor Klee, Robert Phelps, etc. thriving. Now the University of Washington continues to remain the world center of variational analysis on the strength of Terry Rockafellar, the Grothendieck of optimization theory, but complacency is not a winning strategy in mathematics or academics. (End rant.)
I'm sorry that you committed so many sins in your past life that you are being tormented so, yesterday and today! I don't know how you have the patience to deal with the BS on semantic values and "friends", the former of which is better left to Tarski.
Regarding Open C tuning: The edit removing the Sethares citation could be a good-faith edit motivated by the MOS's discouragement of citations in the lede. The removal would make more sense in any longer article on open tunings (which now links to the discussion in guitar tunings), if the description of open tunings were to be repeated in the body; the present article, being short, has no such repetition. The removal was from the body of the article, and so seems to be hard to imagine it as good faith, even if one forgets about previous vandalism from that IP. 19:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
(Most of the open tunings articles were stubs before my editing. Somebody could easily lump them together in one open-tuning article. Before being banned, my last article edits expanded on the open tuning section of the guitar tunings)
Regarding Arbcom: I've not appealed or thought of appeals to this ArbCom.
WTT's allegation that I used "grooming" 2 years ago (in the same paragraph were I described his "preening" himself) as an allegation of sexual predation was remarkable, especially since he raised no objection on that ground for two years. I have trouble imagining any man not immediately demanding a retraction (or, as I would, initiating kanly) if he were alleged to be a child predator, but here WTT waited 2 years to discuss that diff and make the allegation. (IRWolfie tried to explain my discussion of WTT's and He Who Must Not Be Named's adopting users, many of whom became hyperactive ANI discussants, to anybody who would listen. I doubt that anybody did.) At least I can forgive the (non-recused) ArbCom members who voted for the finding with the excuse that they were busy and didn't have time to understand what they were doing, along with their other obvious limitations.
There's little basis for an appeal, because the Arbcom finding was so vague and lacked evidence. I suggested to Salvio guiliano a simple topic-ban (link added, 23:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)),
An ignored proposal
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I suggest that what you all want is something like the following:
Wikipedia's child protection policy does not prohibit private contact(s) between individual adults and an unsupervised child (or unsupervised children).
Kiefer.Wolfowitz is indefinitely topic banned from complaining that Demiurge1000 has violated bans on private contacts (unless such contacts are banned by a future version of WP:Child protection).
Kiefer.Wolfowitz is indefinitely topic banned from making any statements that could be taken by a reasonable person as an allegation of pedophilia.
Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 4:00 am, 11 August 2013, Sunday (2 months, 23 days ago) (UTC+2)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
but received no response. (I laughed when I read Risker's description of her philosphy of least ArbCom action in the Andy Mabbett case, a week or so later.)
Similar actions by the last two arbcoms resulted in sitting arbitrators losing their positions. I am gratified that Risker again stated (yesterday) that she would not run, but on the other hand she really should be repudiated by the community and join the JClemens society officially rather than by tacit acknowledgment/retreat.
If the worst ArbCom members lose or resign, I might consider filing an appeal, but the present Arbcom (excepting honorable members who unfortunately recused) deserves contempt, not email.
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Speaking of the honorable members, there's a nice quote of Justice Holmes and Statistics in the survey article on statistics and the law in the 2000 Journal of the American Statistical Association, which has been published as a book by George Casella, et al.:
For the rational study of the law the blackletter man may be the man of the present, but the man of the future is the man of statistics and the master of economics. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (according to Wikiquote) "The Path of the Law" 10 Harvard Law Review 457 (1897)
You and the other sane writers appear exhausted (at least in the last two days) and I don't think that anybody should be encouraged to start or to continue here, unless they work in mathematics or music theory or related areas with standards (and limited interest to incompetent obsessives).
Ah, the old citations in the lead nonsense. I've got a little cat curled up in my arms right now, far more important than anything that happens here. I don't watch ArbCom, so let me know if and when you decide to launch an appeal. EricCorbett23:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: The IP removed a citation from the body of the article on open C tuning, which may be concordant with the editing by that IP that has been reverted by anti-vandalism bots. 19:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
There's no point of thinking about appealing until ArbCom changes, either by membership or by recognition of group polarization. The Stalinist procedures of my ArbCom case, violating the procedures of ArbCom, clarified what the intent was, from the beginning.
I'm sorry but my head hurts so much from trying to read the infobox request for clarification.... I trust NE Ent's judgment on this and related matters, and I am sorry that you do not seem to have been treated with the respect and courtesy that you deserve, especially considering your good works on this project.
As part of the "continuous (sic.) record of abuse" (from memory) that Risker alleged, I actually helped to mediate a minor conflict with your co-party and Eric, rather successfully I think. I continue to wish him well and wish him the good will of the project. Kiefer.Wolfowitz00:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also trust NE Ent's judgment that the whole thing is absurd. He described in a little template what took others two months to not understand. - If your head hurts from the little clarification request, better don't look at the case. I used "kafkaesque", see my talk, and filed it under pride and prejudice II, see my user. I am on vacation, just passing my treats. My next arb voters' guide will be a little more subtle than simply saying Precious or not as last year ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Define "escaped" :) - I remember some on top of my talk, first the one who scuttled, escaped by the grace of arbcom, scuttled again when he thought there was no hope for his ideas to come true, and was then (!) banned by teh community I am no part of. Comment by a wise man: "a rabbit escaped", and thank you, Eric, for the first "oppose" im that case. Ottava Rima is also on our sad list, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to Joe Cinderella's thirdish tuning is from the latest thread on major thirds tuning among jazz guitarists, which features this tribute to yours truly.
"I respect the FACT you understand the frailties of WIKI. Your tolerance for my adversarial style of interpersonal communication is quite refreshing. You have my respect and I am now a fan. Finally, someone who his cool as a cucumber. Bravo!" [15]
Comments are welcome in the section below. Outside comments in this section can and should be moved to a section below by other editors. I shall update this guide as information becomes available.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The problem
ArbCom attracts administrators who wish to spend their free hours reading lists of diffs from conflicts, with each side presenting only diffs painting their opponent in a bad light, but who find ANI discussions too short(!).
Thus, past elections have lacked qualified candidates and have offered too many unsuitable candidates.
Administrators Fram (talk·contribs), Bbb23 (talk·contribs), and Bwilkins (talk·contribs) also have backbone. I attribute past disagreements (e.g., blocks) with Fram and Bwilkins partially to my errors and partially to their orneriness---an unfortunate side-effect of blocking scores of nutjobs daily.
(The division into community leaders and writers relies on my faulty memory and snap judgment, and is immaterial to the recruitment process anyhow.)
Departing arbitrators
From this year's ArbCom, Hersfold has already resigned. Risker, AGK, SilkTork, and Kirill Lokshin have accounced that they shall not seek re-election.
Issues
This year, I shall look closely at the candidates' records regarding these contentious issues:
Quality-review processes: Featured & Good Articles, & DYKs
For several quality-review projects, the leaders have been attacked for years by sock-puppets of banned users and, alas, often seem to be criticized en masse by a network of administrators (at least some of whom have left a record of sexist remarks).
Many writers who are not administrators have contempt for the Administrator Noticeboard and have lost confidence with the Arbitration Committee, simply because of the failure of administrators evenly to apply Wikipedia's civility and no-personal-attacks policy. The essay Boomerang, which reminds editors not to file complaints unless they want to be held accountable for their own behavior, is not even a guideline (and certainly not a policy).
In last year's Civility Enforcement case, ArbCom announced that it would hear a wide-ranging case on Civility Enforcement, but instead chose to sanction only Malleus Faturoum, even though there was plenty of evidence against others, particularly those attacking Malleus repeatedly. Nobody was sanctioned for conducting campaigns of abuse.
Besides wasting the community's time and ignoring the evidence submitted about uneven enforcement, this action had the appearance that the proceedings were a bread-and-circuses show, while the real decision was made by the committee in private. Indeed, former arbitrator Iridescent correctly predicted the final votes just by knowing the members of the committee!
Administrators and arbitrators should not be so partisan that they ignore evidence of abuse by their friends and allies and solely target their opponents. Administrators and arbitrators should not be so intellectually lazy or partisan that they do not investigate the context of diffs at ANI or ArbCom, and sanction all guilty parties, particularly abusive administrators.
Similar partisanship ocurred in the case banning me. The community set-up Arbcom as the last step in dispute-resolution, and the community-approved policy requires that all parties to a dispute be discussed. There had been no RfC on Ironholds and myself, so as some arbs noted in considering the case, arbcom did not have a remit to have a case. When the case began, Arbcom arbitrarily prevented me from adding users Worm That Turned and Demiurge1000 as parties and barred me from discussing their behavior, while simultaneously welcoming them to continue their two-year long campaign against me. I was banned from participating from the case after noting Demiurge1000's block for dishonesty and for adding diffs that were later cited by arbcom when it desysopped and nearly banned Ironholds. Other editors have noted that the diffs of incivility and personal attacks by me were made in response to prior incivility and personal attacks by administrators, to which arbcom acquiesced. In particular, Salvio guiliano thrice let stand personal attacks against me by user:Kurtis, each of which were more severe than the "honesty or intelligent" remark cited by Arbcom in its decision to ban me. Arbcom needs to stop practicing "uneven enforcement of civility".
ArbCom needs to prioritize justice.
Privacy
In particular, ArbCom's leaking and (in 2013) publishing personal information of Eric Corbett (talk·contribs).
Disclosure of ALL previous accounts
Proposal withdrawn, following comments by Iridescent
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On the other hand, all candidates should have either of the statements
The following is a complete list of all my current and previous accounts:.....
The following is a complete list of all my current and previous accounts, apart from exactly n accounts (all of which have been disclosed privately to ArbCom, with the last notification of all of them sent on Date_1 and acknowledged on Date_2).
Motivation: In the last election, some previous accounts were posted by an election moderator, after AGK failed to disclose them.
Child protection
ArbCom members have complained to WMF director Sue Gardner that they are unable to enforce the existing child protection policy, which has roughly 20 cases yearly.
In banning me, the current ArbCom ruled, in effect, that adult editors are free to contact vulnerable minors off-Wiki, despite parental objections, because such contacts are not criminal. (Only criminal actions are prohibited by the weak child-protection policy.) At the same time, my discussing such contacts was declared to be a tacit accusation of pedophilia. This year's ArbCom had no warrant chillingly to prohibit discussion of behavior that is compatible with the child-protection policy (but which is prohibited by responsible organizations, like the Girl Scouts).
Avoidance of cowardice
All committees suffer from group polarization, and one hopes that members of this year's Arbcom should recognize several horrible decisions. To reduce the frequency and severity of horrible decisions, committees need persons with backbone and preferably confidence. For example, this year, Worm That Turned
protested against the rest of Arbcom violating the privacy of Eric Corbett and
he also complained to Gardner about child protection.
Last year, I mistakenly endorsed Kww because of his independence. It is possible that this year's guide may again mistake independence for courage.
Recommendations
Support
Ks0stm
Ks0stm has a year more experience of doing good work as an administrator, mostly quietly but sometimes with good will and humor contributing to dispute resolution. The committee has a lot of work to do, and this is an administrator who is reliable and will not waste time. I trust that all other guides shall join me in supporting Ks0stm.
RegentsPark writes articles, mediates content disputes, and is one of the most helpful persons with resolving issues at ANI. RegentsPark has been invaluable in helping to maintain civility and productive editing on articles related to Pakistan and India, one of the toughest proving grounds for administrators.
In her 2012 guide, SandyGeorgia has a good discussion of RegentsPark's virtues on 2012 Wikipedia controversies.
Richwales is running on two pillars, civility and NPOV. Raising NPOV, which is supported by all, is a distraction, just like in 2012. My 2012 guide explains why his candidacy was inadequate, respectfully. This year I shall be blunter, because Richwales's statement fails to show any greater self-awareness or acknowledgment of the concerns of those who opposed him: His statement ignores
the difficulty of protecting quality articles from tendentious editors, often illiterates and ideologues.
this year's Arbcom, particularly its acquiesence to
misogynistic statements, often deployed to put women in their place on Wikimedia.
misuse of IRC by Wikipedia administrators and WMF staff.
If elected, Richwales could push a schoolboy understanding of civility (focusing on naughty words, rather than on overall behavior) ahead of the other pillars, which concern the encyclopedic aspects of Wikipedia.
had many concerns about "hat collecting" (forging path to power through dispute resolution projects and positions on other projects, rather than writing articles) and inconsistencies. He failed to declare his alternative accounts last election, but was able to remain eligible after a moderator took the initiative to declare some on his behalf. After the last election, he previously announced (as Rschen has confirmed) that he would not run again; recently he reversed himself and declared that he was about to run. There are just too much variation in his performance---most notably his off-hand comment that Eric Corbett (talk·contribs) was "a net negative to the project", which (at best) served no good purpose and which wasted a lot of time.
My banning case had a similar pattern of wild inconsistency. First, Anthony declared himself to have a conflict because of his simultaneous role as an administrator of Wikipedia's IRC channel. Second, he said he would participate because the case would consider the administrator IRC channel, not the general one. Third, Anthony participated in the case, which did cite (non-administrative) IRC chats by Ironholds, precisely his previously declared conflict of interest. Granted that individually any of these three positions could be considered as plausible, rapidly bouncing from position to position without explanation wasted a lot of time and looked (at best) thoughtless.
It seems to me that AGK would better serve the project by writing some articles and helping to resolve disputes without using his tools, i.e. emulating e.g. Drmies. (Like Richwales, AGK is a much better candidate than some of those running in the last elections, e.g., YOLO SWAG, KWW, Beeblebrox, Panyd, etc.)
Ignore any analysis that focuses on candidates' responses to the standard questions (ugh!) and so slights candidates' years of behavior (both action, with its risks of error, and cowardly failures to act). On the other hand, read Rschen's comments, which are much better than his bean counting: For example, in 2012 Rschen was the first writer to highlight the problems with Featured-Article review.
2013
Other 2013 guides
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. Guides to other guides are ineligible.
This guide shall be updated as candidates present themselves and as other guides appear.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Abilities: Role-playing game
2012 edition
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comments on this guide: For the public
Please comment here on the guide, if you wish. Do not comment on the guide in the above section.
Updated: I may alter or delete sections from the above guide. Therefore, you may wish to quote from this document or provide a permalink diff to this document when commenting. (Alas, I lack the time to provide this service for you.) 11:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I am more upset about some arbitrators' treatment of Elen of the Roads, their former colleague, than I am about my Red Badge of Courage.
Why not lift the spirit with Satchmo, such as the Swedish recording of "Mack the Knife", a great song by Kurt Weil and Bertolt Brecht (partially supported by Tom Kahn!).
Die Lösung
The Solution
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni
Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands
In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen
Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk
Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Und es nur durch verdoppelte Arbeit
zurückerobern könne. Wäre es da
Nicht doch einfacher, die Regierung
Löste das Volk auf und
Wählte ein anderes?[1]
After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers' UnionArbcom
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the peoplewriters
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
I'll need to figure out what ArbCom is. I have trifocal lenses in my fancy new glasses, but they don't yet allow me to look up that high. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I met Boing once, a couple of years ago, and my impression of him is that he would be far too sensible to accept that poisoned chalice. EricCorbett00:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only just spotted my name mentioned here. Yep, we did indeed meet up over a few pints that time, Eric - it was a pleasure to meet you. (And you're right about that chalice. I wouldn't be any good at it anyway, as you need to have the patience to put up with endless whining) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion with Iridescent
Do I hear my name?
(putting my long comment in a section of its own to avoid swamping those above)
I'm long, long gone; while I still very occasionally comment on Wikipedia (generally when someone pings me or something happens to draw something to my notice), these are the sum-total of my mainspace edits in the last six months. I'm to all practical purposes a banned editor, given that any return would draw down a firestorm of nutcases from all sides of the lunatic fringe, which would make beavering away in a quiet corner impossible, while I have no interest in getting involved in the rearranging-of-deckchairs drama side of things. (I see you've managed to get yourself banned in my absence. I'm not even going to try to make sense of this mess, although I'll note in passing that "knickers in a twist" has nothing to do with "a sexist reference to women's underwear"—it's a reference to the baggy shorts worn in rugby league and the effects of their being grabbed and twisted upon the male anatomy, and is an absolutely standard phrase in the north of England.)
I try to avoid commenting publicly on Wikipedia's internal matters, except in a few instances like the infobox case where I was specifically asked, or in a very few cases like Eric Corbett's block or the farce documented at Talk:London in the 1960s, which directly or indirectly relate to something I did when I was active. I know from experience that there's little that's more irritating than characters from the past who have little or no involvement with the present-day Wikipedia turning up to harangue about how they would have done whatever it was you've just done differently back in their day; I have no desire to become another Larry Sanger or Kelly Martin, and I imagine I speak for Elen on that as well.
Even if I were still active on Wikipedia, there's no way I would ever consider running for Arbcom again, and my advice to anyone considering running themselves has always been not to. Through no fault of those involved the current system is irretreivably broken; the vacuum in Wikipedia's governance structure means Arbcom ends up dealing with all kinds of crap it was never set up to handle, and doesn't have either the mechanisms or authority to enforce the decisions it makes. (My proposed solution remains the same—a smaller Arbcom to make judgements only, not policy decisions, a second committee with a completely different membership with the authority to issue a binding and explicitly policy-forming closure to any RFC with more than—say—20 participants, paid staff at the WMF to handle the privacy and legal stuff that currently gets dumped on Arbcom because nobody else wants to do it (if Wikimedia UK alone can afford to pay each of these people a higher wage than a teacher or police officer earns, I'm sure Sue could find some cash down the back of the sofa for a couple of extra part-timers on the legal team), and a change to the Terms of Service by which all editors explicitly agree to abide by decisions of the two committees. This has no chance whatsoever of ever happening.)
While my saying this will make Eric choke on his cornflakes, if you're looking at encouraging former Arbs to run you could do a lot worse than Jclemens. I disagree with him on virtually everything, but in my experience he will actually discuss things with other people rather than engaging in "do you know who I am?" posturing or pseudo-intellectual games,* has a consistent position but not so consistent that it becomes dogmatic, and is willing to explain his thoughts to anyone who asks and to entertain the possibility that he may be wrong. If you're looking for someone to pass judgement on people, I'd take someone who passes harsh judgements but listens to both sides and tries to be fair, over someone who talks like they're everybody's best pal but doesn't have the guts to take action against someone who's genuinely causing a problem.
*Arbcom, ANI and all the rest would all be greatly improved were a rule implemented that any use of Latin when not discussing Ancient Rome or Papal encyclicals be treated as grounds for a non-negotiable 24-hour block. Certain people—you know who you are—seem to take a particular pride in using obscure legal jargon and incomprehensible Latin terms, often to editors who are relatively young or don't have English as their first language. To my mind, this misuse of language to belittle people from other educatonal backgrounds is far more "uncivil" than the occasional "fuck off". See also people who throw TLAs into conversations with new users and then patronise them for not understanding what them mean. ("Why did you revert my changes?" "WP follows VNT and I am a SME and used AWB to BRD, but CCC so you may want to get a 3O before taking it to ANEW. If you breach 3RR I will take you to ANI.")
As a more general musing on Arbcom, I think it would be healthy for all concerned were NYB, Roger Davies and Risker to take at least a year off. If the system is really so broken that it will fall apart without three specific people to hold it together, then it's hopelessly broken and it's better that it be allowed to fail quickly; if it's robust enough to function without them, then it's probably healthy to get by without them for a while as there's a risk of them drifting into "founding father" status where people start to feel uncomfortable questioning their judgement even if they say something that's clearly wrong (cf Jimmy Wales).
In answer both to your comments about abusive administrators and to Carcharoth's question on my talkpage, I don't believe "abusive admins" as such are the problem, but I believe they're a symptom of a structural flaw in the current Wikipedia model. Wikipedia's systemic problems stem much more from the fact that people can engage in abusive behaviours if they have a group of friends to protect them, and that some people have come to regard themselves as indispensable and feel that "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it" parses as "do whatever the hell you feel like provided someone's got your back". Certainly a lot of these people are admins, but that's because a lot of people who've been on Wikipedia for long enough to become part of the furniture are admins, not because admins are inherently worse than non-admins. Some of the most egregious examples (the endless block-unblock-reblock cycle around civility, the atrocious conduct on both sides regarding infoboxes, the constant stream of low-level abuse people who edit Indian articles put up with, WP:QAI's shenanigans at Featured Articles, the disturbing number of people who think that the higher their ranking on WBFAN the more right they have to ignore even fundamental core policies, and many many more) either don't involve admins or don't involve admins acting in their admin capacity, but can be traced back to someone or other having an "I have so many friends, nobody will ever take any action against me" mindset. If Wikipedia had a functioning policy-making process an awful lot of this could be avoided (see two paragraphs up); I doubt (for instance) that Eric would object to Wikipedia having a formal "no swearing unless it's demonstrably necessary" rule provided it was unambiguous and applied evenly. I lost my temper at Worm over Eric's block not necause it was necessarily wrong, but because it looked at the time to be clearly uneven—at the time, the block notification in full read "Enough is enough. I'm changing this to indef. Every single edit since you've been blocked yesterday has been unacceptable. I will be blocking this talk page and moving this conversation to the administrators noticeboard to discuss further.", which is less explanation than is given to an IP blocked for posting penis-enlargement spam. (As I'm sure even Eric would concur, there is a legitimate argument to be made for banning him from Wikipedia, but "Enough is enough, you're banned forever" is certainly not it.)
On "disclosure of prevous accounts", cut some slack provided there's no intention to deceive. A lot of people with easily mis-spelled usernames register a lot of doppelganger accounts to prevent confusion (from someone else innocently choosing a similar name), but won't necessarily keep a list. You presumably wouldn't want to be treated as some kind of crazed sockmaster just because you happened to register User:Keifer Wolfwitz in 2007 to prevent anyone else using it. – iridescent10:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the length and depth of your reply. :)
Recruiting candidates for Arbcom
I sympathize with your decision not to run---and of course I sympathize with the decision of Risker, AGK, and Roger Davies, despite our disagreements. (Like Salvio, Roger and Anthony have been only polite and professional in limited private & public correspondence, at least in my ArbCom case.)
I won't embarrass you by thanking you in detail for the pleasure and information I've gained from reading your infrequent postings over the last two years, but I am sure that others will agree that we are grateful for and enlightened by your contributions.
I would have listed Geometry guy (talk·contribs) as a desirable candidate, also, but he must be flourishing off-Wiki in the last year. There are other administrators, notably David Eppstein (talk·contribs), who could contribute as an arbitrator, but who are better off writing articles and creating illustrations, with occasional meritorious service as an administrator.
I agree with your assessment of JClemens, which is similar to my endorsement of him in 2011: He is exceptionally able to reconsider a previous statement of his (which may itself have spurred reflection) and change his mind, not because of a wish to vote with the majority. Even opposing him in 2012, I tried to acknowledge his contributions to health articles.
Semantics of "knickers in a twist"
My parsing of the "knickers in a twist" seems then to have contributed another counterexample to the principle of compositionality. On the other hand, with using words with multiple meanings, writers often select consonant words to strengthen the intended meaning (as I did when combining "grooming" and "preening" when discussing WTT's organizing two years ago). Shockingly, this may be the third time that I was wrong and Newyorkbrad was right...!
I shall examine Carcharoth's comment and reply further later.
My banning decision used the phrase "violations of policy and norms", which was used yesterday in a banning of an administrator and check-user for misuse of tools and off-Wiki publication of personal information (perhaps associated with tool use). This was a gross injustice to me, since I have many times succeeded in closing discussions having to do with the personal lives of administrators---beginning with Beeblebrox, Bishonen, and another "B" (whose name escapes me) BWilkins, etc. When others discussed a person perhaps associated with the "Dennis101" account, I tried to get the discussion back on track with the statement "regardless of the real-life identity of" Dennis101... A screenshot of this comment was sent to Arbcom by Dennis101. (I did note that the Dennis101 user name was associated with a discordant personality at other websites, but I never discussed that person's identity.)
Please try to confirm or deny whether Arbcom habitually uses the diffless vague phrase "violations of policy and norms" specifically as an accusation of "doxing"?
It is particularly irksome for me to be accused of norm-violations by a committee that has never contributed to any article related to convexity or functional analysis! ;)
Disclosure of accounts
Having considered your comments, I struck my suggested disclosure statement, which would be far more useful as a standard question at RfAs.
http://www.metpolicecareers.co.uk/newconstable/pay_and_benefits.html, "All new police constables in the MPS will receive a basic starting salary of £22,221 per annum rising to £36,885. All new constables will commence service at the start of the scale and will progress according to relevant Home Office guidelines and police regulations. In addition to basic salary all Metropolitan Police officers receive London weighting and allowances currently amounting to approximately £6,615 per annum." Without going into details - but WMUK offered salaries were in the recruitment ads - and excluding the CE, very few bobbies in London indeed will be on less than WMUK people, many of whom are part-time also. I can't be bothered to work out London teachers' salaries. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In order:
I don't know enough about the current state of affairs to make recommendations; my experience generally ends two years ago, which is an eternity in Wikipedia years.
The principle of compositionality isn't violated; "knickers" refers to both a male and female garment, which is why women's underwear in BrEng is "women's knickers" not just "knickers". ("A short-legged (orig. knee-length), freq. loose-fitting, pair of pants worn by women and children as an undergarment. In extended use, the shorts worn by boxers, footballers, etc." if you want OED chapter-and-verse.) The word has drifted out of use as most sports have switched from knickers to tight-fitting lightweight shorts, but in those sports where baggy, heavy-duty knee-length shorts are still worn (fencing, for example) "knickers" is still in common use.
"Violations of policy and norms" isn't ideal phrasing, but I can see there would be circumstances when it would be legitimate. (The final days of Jack Merridew, when he was operating dozens of accounts but argued that he wasn't technically sockpuppeting because he was only ever using one of them at any given time, might be a good example.) This may be a cultural thing; IIRC you're from Europe where society isn't based on the common law. Common-law countries (which include the US, UK, Canada, Australia and NZ and thus most of en-wiki's users) have the concept of Breach of the peace as a key concept of their society—that someone can be arrested for doing something likely to cause a major nuisance, even though they haven't broken any law. (This isn't an arcane legal concept, it's the basis of public order under the common law; hand out candy to passing strangers, go to sleep in a doorway or wander around looking drunk in any US/UK/Aussie town and sooner or later the local sheriff/cop will turn up to move you on even though you're not breaking any statute, and will throw you in a cell if you don't comply.) In this context, the concept "this user hasn't technically broken any rules, but the reasonable person would consider them as causing enough of a nuisance that blocking them would be to the general benefit of the community" wouldn't raise an eyebrow; the argument is over whether the degree of disruption warranted taking action, not whether the concept of "policy and norms" is legitimate. ("Norm" in this context refers to Norm (social), not Normed vector space, and is indeed the correct term. But I suspect you already knew that.)
I was quite surprised to see that you have me listed as support in your guide...not sure why, I just wasn't really expecting it. I'm quite honored and thank you for your kind words. =) Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)23:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Kahn
File:Tom Kahn.jpgTom Kahn, visionary leader and organizational wizard who helped to shape the the civil rights movement, student movemement of the 1960s, and who even managed to help Poland's Solidarity.
Thanks for that. The initial arpeggios look soooo difficult :-]. If you're interested in arpeggio studies I'd strong recommend buying this. You get a printable PDF and you'd be amazed at the arpeggios he plays over certain chords! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Blofeld (talk • contribs) 11:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lowest five-strings are reasonable, but the high G is a killer and it doesn't reuse the finger from the E string, I'll agree. Any prescribed fingerings were done only to force the notes on the right string, when Lilypond refused to submit to my restrain open strings <- true and min_fret <- (n:n>0) assignments. Kiefer.Wolfowitz11:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again to your Dr. Blofeld and to you, Hyacinth, for more altruistic editing. :)
In the tuning articles, the threshold of being a reliable source has been having been cited by an academic or having been published by a reputable publisher (perhaps in music). My 1.2 pages do not meet that that threshold, and I would prefer that it be moved from the references to the external-links section, if possible, to humble myself and to maintain the threshold high enough that we are not citing blogs and jazz-guitar fora (especially for contentious material). Kiefer.Wolfowitz15:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On Commons, I clarified that the 5-6 string triads are shown for mnemonics rather than playing literally, and that 3 consecutive strings should be selected for playing. (The highest triad-fingering only shares the root with the previous two inversions; otherwise, consecutive inversions share two notes.
On WMF's Commons, Hyacinth rightly noted that an svg file would be better. GNU Lilypond easily produces svg images.
Justin is a good place to start if you want to get into jazz, but his lessons are too basic for me now! Of late I've been creating exotic tritone substiutions, say something like F# minor 7 flat 5, B7 alt, E major 7, replacing the B7 with something like F 9 sharp 11 and constructing arpeggios to play over the chords for that chord descending top E flat, B, A, F, E flat, B A, F. The B instead of B flat is the sharp 11 or lydian 4th of the F lydian augmented scale, the fourth mode of C melodic minor. F# diminished arpeggios over D 7 flat 9 and B flat augmented over g minor 7 (giving a G minor major 7 sound) I've been learning of late! Someday I might be as melodically advanced as Allan Holdsworth!♦ Dr. Blofeld22:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding them in very good places. The image was nicely placed, and my sheet is okay in the further reading.
However, it would be better in external links, because it is not a reliable source (although its contents are trivial musically and mathematically, and so likely covered by our license to explain trivialities---until somebody objects.)
Look at Wikipediocracy and the waste of time by people trying to push their original research---WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS be damned! I want to be consistent in respecting WP:V and WP:RS, so we don't get people writing rants about the nerve of Fripp calling his tuning "new standard" or about any tuning but Spanish being an abomination....
Speaking of abominations: I heard a guitarist who has played with Johnny Marr discuss being in Seattle at the time of the elections. Washington voters approved of two ballot initiatives, legalizing marijuana and gay marriage, which made some Biblical literalists happy: In the book of Leviticus, it says that if two men lie together, then ... they must get stoned! (References to Leviticus or the Bible don't work as well in Europe as the US.)
I didn't have to get banned. A future ArbCom can easily change the ban to a topic ban (and standard interaction ban), while continuing to ignore child-protection concerns ignored by the WP:child protection but addressed by the bans on private adult-minor contacts of responsible organizations.
My ordeal has highlighted sensible-adult concerns regarding children and misogyny on Wikipedia, having been covered in the Christian Science Monitor, so perhaps my Arbcom case was in the best interests of all concerned, particularly children and women editors.
Thank you Dr. B! :) I should note that Keith just posted his tutorial publicly, after I had made my previous request for help. Otherwise, I should have asked for help on both topics at once. Kiefer.Wolfowitz18:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ArbCom Election RfC requires that candidates be in good standing.
Your and Rich's wish that guide writers be in good standing should be discussed in the community discussion following this election (and of course in the RfC before the 2014 ArbCom Election).
I think the policies on banning sort of cover guides and anything else a banned editor might want to create. Doubtful that we'd need a special policy on voter guides. That's just my take. Let's see what happens at ANI though. equazcion→23:27, 11 Nov 2013 (UTC)
I was never much of a letter-of-the-law kinda guy. Don't try to start a fight with me. I don't care enough for it to work. equazcion→23:32, 11 Nov 2013 (UTC)
Could you explain why the RfC (and numerous other policies) adopted a policy of requiring that candidates be in good standing? Wouldn't that also be covered in the banning policy?
Nothing will happen at AN/I, it rarely does. So Richwales is pissed that KW doesn't rate him, so what? Neither do I as it happens, but I can't be bothered to produce a voters guide. EricCorbett23:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care how Kiefer.Wolfowitz rates Richwales though, and I'm the one who brought it to ANI. I think a voter guide is too project-related for a banned user. It being excused for being in userspace seems like lawyering (I'm not sure that anything not having to do with the ban is supposed to be done in a banned user's userspace?). Again though, just my take. I'll let someone else quote a policy if there is one. equazcion→23:44, 11 Nov 2013 (UTC)
I'm unaware of which policy, if any, contains wording that covers this situation. That is 100% correct. I leave that stuff to the lawyers. equazcion→23:51, 11 Nov 2013 (UTC)
The community runs Arbitration Committee elections and does so by its RfCs, which occur following discussion of the immediately preceding election and at the RfC before the election. The election rules require that candidates be in good standing; they do not require that guide writers be in good standing (not even in good standing with the Arbitration Committee).
Richwales has explicitly written that he has a conflict of interest because my guide discusses limitations of his candidacy. In the past, for example in the case of Pennywhale, the Arbitration Committee has allowed banned editors freedom on their talk pages, including criticism of ArbCom decisions.
Secondly, Nikkimaria (talk·contribs) was entitled to add my guide to the election template, per the RfC rules, which again do not require that guide writers be in good standing. (C.f., WP:I don't like it.)
Finally, this is the second time in a month that John Cline (talk·contribs) (formerly My76Strat (talk·contribs)) has left messages on this talk page, despite having been requested many times previously to stop. Would an administrator please remind him of the talk-page policy?
My daughter has a 38.9 C fever because of teething, and I doubt I have time to respond further.
I remember seeing something (somewhere) that the thank link is disabled for blocked users, which would explain what the issue is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Unless otherwise specified, a ban is a site ban. An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances. The only exception is that editors with talk page access may appeal in accordance with the provisions below.
Seems rather high-handed to me. Why couldn't you have waited until the ArbCom case was closed? What's the point of it anyway? Ottava Rima and I have recently collaborated on Wikimedia for instance in the building of "The Inchcape Rock", so what do you hope to achieve? EricCorbett21:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Season's greetings from Santa and her little helpers
Best wishes
Belated happy christmas and best for the new year
Wishing you all the best for 2014, dont hurry back though man is my advice. You might like this,[18] or not. But you have certainly softened me to many bands I might not have given a toss about before, so tks for those links. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Madagascar?
Kiefer, I assure you I have not watched that movie. :) I can't stand (most) Disney stuff, and I use "Disney" as a generic term which I won't, at this time, define any further. I will cop to having taken the girls to see Frozen and That Movie About the Girl with the Really Long Hair Locked in the Tower (that last one in 3D, even--kind of cool!), but that's in part to fulfill a marital obligation. Hope you and yours are well, and I hope that ArbCom won't slap me on the wrist for this message. Respond in Dutch smoke signals: I'll be looking toward Scandinavia during the Superb owl halftime show. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And for the sake of serendipity, see the edits (and summaries) I made to Henry Kaiser (musician)--no kidding. BTW, I don't know how to get out of Ceoil's box--I'm sure he doesn't want me in it, but I can't figure out what's wrong in that template coding. I wish you could fix it. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Father speaking here: Liam got a little straw sun hat (or it looks like a straw hat, made out of artificial straw). I want to say he looks like KC (from the Sunshine band) but memory is playing tricks on me; I can't find a picture of him with a straw hat. Was it one of the guys from Ten CC? How time flies. Best, Drmies (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JSTOR Survey (and an update)
Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!
It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:
As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Azx2:, his block prevents him from editing his talk page or from sending email, though if you really wanted to get in touch you could email him instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Azx2:, However as the user behind this account is in all probability an old school 4channer, I really wouldn't recommend you bother. He (not she) has no doubt got an unblocked WP account that is actively editing by now anyway. Pedro : Chat 22:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ehrm, @Pedro:, I'm sorry but I don't believe I've had the pleasure of making your acquaintance, so I must confess to being surprised and made to feel somewhat uncomfortable by this ostensibly serious allegation against user:Kiefer.Wolfowitz that you so casually toss out. Is that, in fact, what you're doing? Accusing him of contravening the sanctions imposed on him by maintaining "an unblocked WP account that is actively editing by now anyway"? I think it's important that we clarify this, because I have no interest in being party to the trafficking of rumor or innuendo, or an unfair attack against someone who is prevented from replying here - especially when it originates with an Administrator. But nor do I wish to misinterpret your comment, which I acknowledge may be an attempt at humor based on references w/ which I'm not familiar. Thank you for the courtesy of your reply. Azx202:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Banned user maintaining ArbCom election guide. Thank you. equazcion → 23:21, 11 Nov 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
gmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Lucia
Cappuccino
Pepparkakor
Lussekatter
Nisse med julklapp
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 979-0-9016791-7-7. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 8#979-0-9016791-7-7 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
