User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Labor donated

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Your ArbGuide

I've just taken the liberty of fixing what I thought was an obvious typo (or word-o) in your Arbitration Guide ... but since it's your guide (plus my nominal COI), I thought I should give you a heads-up and make sure I got it right. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Brad,

Thanks for the help. Like spelling "Timotheus Canens" and "Salvio [not Rudy-Can't-Fair Guiliani]", spelling "Carcharoth" unnerved me...! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Even when my name is mis-spelt, I appear like magic... :-) BTW, the change Brad made was wiped out with this edit. And there is still an 'r' missing in the name (pedantic is my middle name). For a real laugh, look up the show where Stephen Colbert tries to pronounce my user name. Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"Carcharoth, FloNight, Newyorkbrad, and of course ... Wizardman." Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"They are just like the Supreme Court, only their robes are bathrobes. These are lifetime appointments, in that they do this until they get a life."

*LOL* Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

While on the topic of your voting guide, I would like to offer my thanks for taking the time to write it up. Not only do you raise points about several candidates that I hadn't thought about, but I think that we agree pretty much completely on what goes into making an acceptable Arbcom candidate. Trusilver 03:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Trusilver!

I think that e.g. Hersfold is probably a very good arbitrator, although some of his actions in civility enforcement were problematic. I would dislike a committee with a majority of Hersfolds, but he does have an important role to play (as a point of view, representing the initial sentiments of a chunk of editors and) especially as an open, direct, mature, and intelligent member

There are some candidates who may be close to e.g.'s Hersfold's positions, but I am skeptical of whether they share his backbone and sitzfleisch..., and I would like the committee to reflect (imho) the community.

Thanks for your kind words. I knew that I would raise points that nobody else thought of. The big question was whether anybody should think of any of my points...

That a few points were helpful to you is gratifying to me, and makes me think that the effort was worthwhile, despite my struggling with a Beck-worthy sinusitis, etc..

If you sample the page history, you can see that my uncertainty is greatest about some new candidates. I try to be forthright when I have relied on others' evaluations, (no only to pay debts but also) informally to warn of my own uncertainty.

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

More page views than voters

250066 views so far. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC) 15:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Afterwards

Thank you for a pictured impuls for thought. - Independently, I received Peace music on my talk, matching nicely ;) - My short list of personal preferences is also on my talk, since then I added Elen of the Roads, who answered my civility questions, well, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

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.

---

candidate names with coming to my attention as awesome Wikipedians, worthy of Precious, in chronological order:

Pgallert (talk · contribs) 26 February

Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) 29 March

Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) 19 April

Keilana (talk · contribs) 22 April

Carcharoth (talk · contribs) 13 May

David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 14 June

Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) 4 August

Richwales (talk · contribs) 19 October

RegentsPark (talk · contribs) 25 November

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

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.

Thank you very much, Gerda!

I think that your preferences were shared by many in the community, :) and your list explains some of the deviation in the community's voting from my recommendations! ;)

Have a good 2013! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the inclusion in your guide. As said above, before the election was over, Elen of the Roads joined the group ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

ps: the civility questions she answered to my liking are now up for discussion on a broader forum, and the Peace music is on the Main page: Did you know ,,,... that the Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 was broadcast by loudspeakers throughout the city, and to the German forces as psychological warfare? (thank you, Nikkimaria, for better Christmas music than the soft shopping background!) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A comment in your voter guide

Regarding your comment that if a certain candidate is not elected, the arbitrators should invite him to prepare a draft of something: The best way for an editor to propose a draft of a motion or decision, in a pending case, is by opening a section on the workshop page. Often, if something is well-drafted, it will be used in the decision. This is how I got significant drafting experience before I was an arbitrator, and other editors have done it as well. By contrast, when Fred Bauder once copied some proposals I made into a draft decision and gave me special (unsolicited) authorization to edit the page, I was flattered and very appreciative, but the ad hoc arrangement created a little bit of confusion for everyone else. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Brad,

Thank you for the quick response, whose reading I have recommended to my readers:

"Please read the comment of Newyorkbrad, who shared his experience on non-administrator drafting."

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding that very comment, I seriously doubt I'll ever run again, regardless of the results of this election... Eh, I guess we'll never know how good I might have been as a drafter. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Salvio!

I don't think anybody has made any criticism of you, but people have just mentioned that so far you have been very active as a conscientious administrator, not as a politician. When I consider ArbCom, I worry about groupthink and group polarization, which occurs to all committees, and therefore I want to have members who have a history of pulling the emergency chord to avert train wrecks.;) I think that you are qualified, and I would just liked to see you in action.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the questionnaire on civility enforcement

FYI

Just a courtesy note to say I mentioned you by name here (in a nice way). I didn't approve of the survey either but ultimately decided that silence might be riskier. Rivertorch (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy notice. I of course appreciate your appreciation of these edits [1], which are best linked with a diff (for ease of access and permanency).

I complained that the survey was too long. Statistics Sweden suggests 10 questions on one page is a good size, unless you want severe problems with non-response and cognitive-effects of the survey instrument. About the latter, responding to 10 pages of survey-questions about men abusing women in Sweden or about incivility on Wikipedia results in a different response than asking the same question at the start. Also, Swedes are far more likely to respond to official surveys than Americans or Brits, for example. I suggested that the survey writer (was it Jc37?) read Robert M. Groves's Survey Methodology text, which is used for undergraduate sociologists, for example. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. On an all-volunteer, pseudonymous project like Wikipedia, the people who hold real-world competency in certain areas (like survey writing) aren't necessarily the ones who end up performing the relevant tasks. I think the survey is too long, too, and I believe that some of the questions rely on certain assumptions that they shouldn't, and that they're liable to lead anyone attempting to answer them concisely to gravitate toward simplistic, either/or choices that won't necessarily illuminate the topic very much but may lead to false findings of consensus. Then again, I'm not a professional survey writer! I linked to a stable version rather than a diff because I wanted to show your remarks in context (including what Pesky said in reply to you). Rivertorch (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The Wiki-way is difficult, although perhaps not so challenging as the way of Ghost Dog.

The problem is not the lack of competence, but the insouciance and fatuity about research methodology, which is nearly a requirement for participation in the humanities and many social-studies disciplines and semi-professions.... One needs editors who are curious about finding the truth, rather than indulging in moralistic crusades or reliving glory days as hall monitors.

I would suggest that you not publicly declare that you believe that there are wrong ways to do things and that editors should defer to or seek competence. Such behavior is almost as antithetical to the Wiki-Way as referring to an article you've written as "yours"!

That sounded harsh. I am really a marshmallow teddybear dusted with cayenne pepper. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Better that than a candy-coated habanero! (We have a few of those around here.) I'm not at all sure what you're referring to in your sentence that begins, "I would suggest". Could you clarify? RL beckons, but I'm curious and look forward to reading your reply later. Rivertorch (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Oooohhh! Bear-and-cayenne! Tasty! (But I always suspected you were tasty ...) [Pesky nibbles] Pesky (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about violating my interaction ban with "fatuity", Pesky! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

[Chuckles] Never mind ... just don't do it too often! Hugz. Pesky (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox's so-called "questionnaire" on civility and his ArbCom candidacy: Why guide writers did not comment....

thanks for the laughs

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well, your attempt to slam me has been shut down, but one thing was gained from it, it is abundantly clear that at least when it came to your comments on me you proceeded in a very casual, thoughtless manner and apparently just repeated things you saw others saying without doing any real research. You've done more damage to your reputation as a guide writer than to me. Your claim that the fact that you did not notice because you, like everyone else, is not interested in it is contradicted by the fact that you did in fact comment on the talk page to make some unfounded accusations directed at the author. Kind of odd that you took the time to make such accusations but did not the take the time to figure out who it was you were accusing. As for this alleged lack of interest, again you appear to just parrot what others have said without taking the time to be informed or surely you would have known that over 100 users have posted replies to the questions. I look forward to ignoring the claptrap you call a voter guide again next year, and I am sure I won't be alone now that it is clear how careless you are when researching it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Quite the contrary. At best you were ranked 7th or 8th by some guide writers whom I respect, but nobody suggested you were a strong or even mediocre candidate this year. The majority of guide writers dismissed you quickly, with Kurtis doing perhaps the most thorough review of your unsuitability. None of us discussed your "questionnaire" because it was a waste of time. None of us discussed your having written it because we had already decided our recommendations based on your other behavior. The charge that I was parroting other writers was absurd. Notice my discussion of David Fuchs, for example. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Well now, that is odd. You are now saying nobody discussed it because it was a waste of time, when just a few hours ago you we claiming the reason was that you did not know and now you are very upset to have found this out. Those appear to be contradictory statements. You took a cheap shot at me today that cannot possibly effect the results of the election. I don't know why you woke up today and decided to attack me, but luckily all you have accomplished is to reveal your own bumbling and lack of diligence in this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Listen here, small fry. Read what I wrote about "Bayesian decision problem" on that page, consulting for the next weeks dictionaries and encyclopedias, and come back when you know something. You are just not worth my time in your present state. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC) For others, let me say that my comment was of the "self and mutual criticism" type I made, after reading Sandy Georgia's comments about Keilana. (Tip of the hat also to Rschen, whose guide deserved more attention.) 21:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC) I see, personal attacks. The last refuge of the dishonest when confronted with their own lies. I can't say I see any point to continuing to listen to your pompous bullshit any further myself so I guess we will just call it a day on this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC) These are not personal attacks. You have stated above your regarding as a contradiction the distinction between antecedent and consequent likelihood (prior and posterior probability, in contemporary confusing terminology). Until you understand that distinction, at least in terms of your writing behavior, no te doy a comprender. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Keifer, "listen here small fry" is a personal attack. A little humility goes a long way. good bye. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Look, Mr. Civility for thee but not for me, "Small fry" is literally fish that is too small to fry, and is thrown back so that it will grow and become a "keeper". To become a keeper in a discussion about your contradiction allegation, you need to read the beginning of the article on conditional probability or something similar. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC) The civility issue aside, that's not the correct etymology of small fry. A "fry" as a young fish is unrelated to the term "fry" to cook in hot oil. See definition 3 here. --Jayron32 01:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC) I stand corrected. I should not risk etymology like the father in my Big Fat Greek Wedding. Perhaps there is some truth to the BS charge, also, just like the pompous charge! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Guide submission deadline

Hello, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Results

Following the voting period, the scrutineers will examine the votes, and will release a tally of the results. The tally will rank candidates by level of support, defined as the number of votes cast in support of the candidate divided by the total number of votes cast for the candidate ("no vote" preferences are not counted). A total of 858 editors cast votes this election, and 824 votes were determined to be valid.

Candidate	Support	No vote	Oppose	Net	Percentage	Result
Newyorkbrad	584	151	89	495	86.78%	Two-year term
NuclearWarfare	454	251	119	335	79.23%	Two-year term
Worm That Turned	446	254	124	322	78.25%	Two-year term
Carcharoth	361	336	127	234	73.98%	Two-year term
Timotheus Canens	347	310	167	180	67.51%	Two-year term
Coren	341	282	201	140	62.92%	Two-year term
Salvio giuliano	302	351	171	131	63.85%	Two-year term
David Fuchs	271	373	180	91	60.09%	Two-year term
RegentsPark	253	394	177	76	58.84%
Elen of the Roads	375	160	289	86	56.48%
Guerillero	234	408	182	52	56.25%
Keilana	245	380	199	46	55.18%
Beeblebrox	294	280	250	44	54.04%
Richwales	189	424	211	-22	47.25%
Pgallert	141	432	251	-110	35.97%
Kww	163	356	305	-142	34.83%
Jc37	165	340	319	-154	34.09%
Jclemens	209	182	433	-224	32.55%
Ks0stm	112	413	299	-187	27.25%
Count Iblis	87	305	432	-345	16.76%
YOLO Swag	45	225	554	-509	7.51%

Ellen deserved more support, but I am pleased that only qualified candidates were elected. Also, the good showing by Guerrillero and Regents Park reflect well on the voters. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Bucolic frolic

Given that it's over 40 years since I was called "Master", I am quite flattered, of course. But yes, it's probably just a crush. And thanks for you calming words. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I always wanted to be a "Baron"...Barons are always (it seems) known for plotting against the higher nobility...I was thinking Baron von MONGO has a nice appeal...MONGO 20:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I had a flashback to the Baron v. Harkonnen, but then I saw that v. stood for Vladimir. Whew! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Your flashback is correct...I don't have a zero-gravity suit but I am just as determined to rule over the known universe!...Baron von MONGO

Haha. I have nothing against barons and I have no beef with anyone who has due respect for nobility. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Martin!

It's natural to comment on the more interesting personalities here. Intelligent articulate personalities with quirks are part of the appeal of Wikipedia for me.... However, in the future, such discussions are best done by email.

Thanks for understanding my intentions. I'm glad that you are working on Dylan Thomas, etc. :)

@Baron von MONGO, I shall now think of you along with Baroness Thatcher! Have a good New Year! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I am very surprised to see you say that, as I was responding publicly to a public comment. A whole discussion in fact, involving "agricultural generalities". But you are quite right - we should have emailed each other. We wouldn't want to "lower the tone" of wikipedia to its "lowest common denominator", would we. Sincere apologies, if my retort has caused offence. My lawyers will only be too pleased to email you after the holiday, haha. Now, if only I can get Ian Rush into that Dylan Thomas article... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to an earlier conversation, in which you and a friend were going back and forth about Malleus, rather than later conversations. It seems to me the extended back and forth conversation would have been better by email or over a beer, even though most of it was written whimsically and with appropriate signs of respect, amid the better-private banter....

Malleus doesn't hold grudges, but he deserved a bit of a break from asides, even before today's latest snafu(s).

On MF's page, Giano badmouthed Methodists. There are several interesting books on the Welsh background in rebellions, from the 1300 hundreds onwards, including peasants' revolts, the English civil war, Methodism (originally Tory), Labour, etc.

Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

et prout vultis ut faciant vobis homines et vos facite illis similiter...from the now elevated from peasantry Sir Baron von --MONGO 23:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Goodness me, KW, as if we Welsh chapel lads ever drink beer! Yes, it can be unnerving to see oneself being discussed by a group of friends on another editor's Talk Page. I have found that one remedy is not to watch that Talk Page. We had been discussing the use of the terms "etymology" and "toponymy", I had to admit I rather agreed with Malleus. But you're right, he certainly doesn't bear a grudge - once he's insulted someone, he just moves on. I later discovered that, because I'm Welsh, I'm "a sheep-shagger". So it seems we are trading stereotypes here. Perhaps I'm the only editor who is reminded of a certain caricature in a popular British/Irish sitcom who has an urge to swear at everyone uncontrollably.

I have long been interested in the links between politics and non-conformism. Here's an old article by Eric Hobsbawm that recently re-surfaced and in which you might be interested [2], its called "Methodism and the Threat of Revolution in Britain". Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. I shall have to read it with care. It certainly looked interesting. I remember liking Hobsbawm's NLR essay on Labour and its debt to smaller towns (an "Isaac Deutcher" (yuck!) lecture).

Hobsbawm and Thompson were the two most interesting former members of the Historians' Group of the British Communist Party. I liked particularly Hobsbawm's books on protorevolutionaries, Primitive Rebels and Bandits, which try to provide a background towards the study of rural insurgencies in China and Cuba/Colombia. A jazz enthusiast has often recommended Hobsbawm's jazz writings, but I've not even had time to read Stanley Crouch, whose Notes from a Hanging Judge is a great collection. (I can recommend Elmore Leonard's Bandits also.) His epochal histories seem popular in Sweden, but I've not read them.

Thompson was the only good kind of Communist, an ex-Communist. His Making of the English Working Class had some nasty things to say about Methodism, at least of its first 100 years. Thompson and H. L. Mencken were probably significant sources for the late great Christopher Hitchens; I prefer ex-Trots to ex-Stalinists, usually. ;) Thompson's Customs in Common is a great collection; one of its essays is a major source for Wife Selling, a significant pain in the ass to Malleus and company. ;) I think that its chapter on Rough Music probably has been read by Robert Fripp, who is writing a book with that title, if my memory is correct.

A few years ago it turned out that Christopher Hill was planning to sabotage British defenses to help Stalin's BF, Hitler, in early WWII.... There is a nice contrast between Hill's WWII activities and those of C. A. Patrides, who was often put down by Hill.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

As ever, KW, you are a true font of erudite knowledge and connection. Tell me - has subliminal Wikipedia re-mapped your neural pathways? (a constant source of concern and anxiety to my freethinking self). I am very surprised not to see E. P. Thompson linked in that article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

re: hat template

Keifer,

I've already checked Template:Hidden_archive_top. It shows that it is to be used by uninvolved editors or administrators. I'm not an admin, but I am uninvolved. So no foul there. Thanks for the note, however,  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  18:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You missed e.g. the keyword "discussion". The template is for closing discussions, not for silencing somebody with whom you disagree. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah , I see what you're getting at. Actually I didn't stop the discussion, only an incivil portion of it. And, "silence someone I disagree with" isn't accurate. I have no dog in this fight, I'm merely enforcing civility, but I understand your viewpoint and will leave it be.

 KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  19:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Kosh,

Go to a water faucet and get yourself a glass of cold water, and let me know when you are ready for the next instruction. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

• News and notes: Arbitrator election: stewards release the results

• WikiProject report: WikiProjekt Computerspiel: Covering Computer Games in Germany

• Discussion report: Concise Wikipedia; section headings for navboxes

• Op-ed: Finding truth in Sandy Hook

• Featured content: Wikipedia's cute ass

• Technology report: MediaWiki groups and why you might want to start snuggling newbie editors

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

— ΛΧΣ²¹ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

— ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Nadolig hapus

Martinevans123^{Santas Grotto} wishes you and yours

"Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"

---

May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace ....

Gan ddumuno iechyd a hapusrwydd i chi yn 2013. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Diolch yn fawr, KW. Yr wyf yn dymuno yr un peth i chi! Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

יש לי פין גדול. (I try to use that sentence once a year. Use it or lose it.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Haha. So worth using Google translate for that one. Only once http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz&action=edit&section=19a year? you surprise me. But thanks for the tip, as it were. "Digrif gan bob aderyn ei lais ei hun."

Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

My room-mate told me that it meant, "Hello, I'm from the Midwest..., " or at least that was my cover story.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

rofl, haha, that's very good. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas amigo. Hey who'd have thought Joe Pascuale and Dennis Bergkamp were so scary at jazz? P.S. you'll have to start editing now Malleus has retired!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I cannot fill Malleus's editing shoes. Perhaps, in some small way, I help to fill the void in his much needed proctological predictor? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

A personal favourite: [3]. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The musicianship in this is incredible, world class, particularly the pianist at 3:00!!.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld

Quite agree. Seems he's Romanian, haha! Reminds me a lot of Stan Tracey. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dr. B.!

Andreas Oberg always throws me off, since he looks like a photo negative of Al Di Meola. ;) I wish he would butch it up more in style of dress or playing. (I suppose that I don't know enough music to appreciate what serious jazz-musicians do. I am glad that I now distinguish and identify the rhythm and lead guitars, much more than before (where I understood the difference between first and third clarinet.... I am trying to focus on getting better and uniform tone in my acoustic playing, qualities that are not associated with tattooed guitarists in guitar ads. Now I'm beginning to think that the ability to hear the common major keys)

Does Oberg ever play angry or unleash power? I want some Lou Reed, Neil Young, or 21st Century Schizoid Man power chords!

I have been trying to watch and think about that excellent video link you sent me before, about building chords in fourths. I am irritated by the error in Diophantine approximation with 12-tone equal temperaments with the major third. Ibanez has a partial 24-TET guitar for Arab music, but 24-TET doesn't improve the approximation.

I am wondering whether Robert Fripp builds chords in fifths in his new standard tuning, after reading an interview when he claimed that NST is better for chords: I should check his scores for Guitar Craft themes, or run through an audio file with the Tuner package for R (statistical computing), which can apparently classify keys. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Wishing you a very merry Christmas and a prosperous new year! FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Ensuring that nobody will raise a concern about sexual harassment at Wikipedia: A Jul-time story

Don't comment in this section, please. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The Sven thing?

Can't you just let it drop now, dude? It must be pretty obvious that absolutely nothing constructive is going to come out of it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I should think that a number of administrators should want to say that a more mellow approach would have been appropriate. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, if they do, they're perfectly capable of reopening it and saying so themselves. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

A close template is not to be used to silence discussion. Why are you so afraid to do something else, and why do you feel a need to flex an archive template, especially a combined archive and collapse cover-up template (But that cover-up was by Bbb23 20:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC))? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You really are just being provocative and disruptive now, so I'll just leave you with this small gift and will bid you goodnight. (And I really would urge you to do yourself a favor and not get yourself blocked over this) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, my advice came too late. But goodnight all the same. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I've re-closed. GiantSnowman 17:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate your striking your asinine "fighting head on" from AN. The problem is an abuse of the close template when there are outstanding issues and editors only checking in irregularly. Why not leave the discussion open? Who is adding heresies that must be stopped beforehand? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I am able to read page histories. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Bully for you. I've reclosed for the last time - if I have to do it again I will block you, understand? You are becoming disruptive. GiantSnowman 18:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary. You are threatening to block me rather than engage in discussion. Huff and puff all you want.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing at AN. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

GiantSnowman 18:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are using your block button rather than discussion. I asked the question, why you need to close immediately? If you close a discussion, you put the template that the discussion should not be reopened. Therefore Boing's earlier explanation was bullshit, and you haven't given one. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean "again", I've never blocked you before. You continued to edit disruptively while a discussion was ongoing. GiantSnowman 18:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Read what I wrote, please, before and after your block. Think about "before and after" if you want to understand "again". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

A couple of things. First, I endorse the block. Your behavior has been stubborn and disruptive. You even tried to spill it over onto my talk page, and I reverted your attempt. Second, if you want to discuss the broader issue of the interrelationship between IRC and RfAs, why not raise it after the current RfA is over, and as an overall policy issue rather than referencing a particular editor?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23,

You don't understand the policy WP:Disruptive editing.

You had already had a discussion on your talk page, which I joined. If you enjoy drama you can imagine you were doing something interesting in reverting my note.

I am not discussing IRC and RfAs, so you have other misunderstandings.

The point of contention is whether an editor can use the close template to stop further discussion. You should review the directions for use of that template. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Golly, the block was supported by Wehwalt, who just suggested "grabbing a beer and a woman" from a country where a woman was disappeared (and presumed murdered)

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.

---

Come on Ed, let's grab a Heineken and an Aruban girl each and get out of here. Oh, Sandy? I unwatchlisted TFA/R, not Nixon ... I rewatchlisted it, before you start calculating .... WOOHOO ARUBA!--Wehwalt (talk) 9:33 pm, 13 December 2012, Thursday (11 days ago) (UTC+1)

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.

and who thinks that "cocksucker" is an everyday pleasantry. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Without comment on this current disagreement, I will say that it doesn't matter what a template's directions say is or isn't appropriate use, since they aren't policy. Sometimes I will close a discussion to prevent further drama when the issue is essentially settled and any new discussion will just be a rehashing of old comments. Policy supports doing so by non-admin or admin for these purposes as there is no bar to doing so that I'm aware of. Sometimes, it is better to just let things go once the outcome is certain. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

  Perhaps you can remove the misleading directions to avoid reopening a closed discussion, or better, since AN/I is not yet ready for Vatican II, add some scary language warning commoners not to question the authority of administrators?

  You are insinuating that I was continuing to discuss a topic on which consensus had been reached. In fact, I had not continued that discussion. The point of contention was the misuse of the template. (In fact, I had tried to moderate some comments, with success, and focus attention on outstanding issues, with less success, but pearls before swine....)

  Editor SM had suggested that persons may come forward with accounts of their experiences, and had noted 5 emails being sent. Wouldn't the open discussion at AN be the best place on Wikipedia for them? Perhaps you can add a suggestion that anybody concerned about sexual harassment on Wikipedia (or in regards to Wikipedia sponsored fora) may contact _____? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

  I wasn't trying to insinuate, which is why I was limiting to the one point about hatting/arch'ing in general. I haven't dug into every detail deep enough to take a stand here. As far as who should be contacted in the event of sexual harassment, User:SarahStierch would be the best admin to ask for what resources we have to deal with that, as she works with women's issues more than anyone else I know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

  Hi Dennis! Thanks for replying. Your statement "Sometimes, it is better to just let things go once the outcome is certain" suggests that I was not letting things go. I was blocked for reverting a premature close of a discussion, which used a template with misleading language, apparently. Please strike that statement or revise it if your intention is different. Or provide diffs. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

  It was still a general comment, why we sometimes archive, to just get people to just let it go once the outcome is certain, but I've struck it as a courtesy as I don't want to antagonize the situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

  The point is that Sven had dropped the whole thing, agreed that what he said was inappropriate, and is apparently not pursuing the matter on-wiki - see his comments in the first hatted section at the RfA talk, and his comments on his own talk to Kiefer expressing his disapproval of Kiefer's reopening this issue. At that point, absolutely nothing was going to come from continuing the discussion. Nobody was going to act against Sven's question, as he had accepted its removal, and conversely nobody was going to act to support Sven's question.

  At that point, it was over and it was time to move on. But Kiefer belligerently tried carrying on the fight on behalf of Sven after Sven had expressly asked for it to be dropped, edit-warring against two admins who were trying to reduce drama by closing it (a move now supported by four admins in total). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

  Boing,

  You are clueless tonight, but nor more so than the 3 other administrators at AN.

  1. I did not pursue whatever Sven had dropped. I opposed the closing of discussion on all related topics, which included the heavy-handed treatment of Sven, which he had described as intimidation, or a similar word.
  2. You obviously did not bother to learn about the history of Wehwalt and SandyGeorgia on that article. You and other administrators have not had the decency to do a thing about Wehwalt's nasty misogynistic attack---worse, you have apologized for it.

  Thus, nobody serious cares about your bullshit about "disruption", which was reverting the improper use of the close template. Why don't you and the other administrators get together and work out your stories ahead of time. I was blocked for reverting an administrator's close-template. If you want to allege that the block was for disruption, in general, than you or Snowman or both are a liar.

  Regardless of your lying or bullshitting, which you can clarify elsewhere, Boeing, you are so reckless with the truth [4] [5] that you are banished from this page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kiefer, I think we've generally been on good terms, and I hope we will be able to remain that way. I'm sorry to see that your Christmas eve has turned out this way. I only have a few minutes before I leave for a celebration myself, but I want to quickly comment on something: I'm very unhappy to see your attack on Wehwalt. I think you're completely misinterpreting his comment. "[grabbing] an Aruban girl" doesn't seem to me to imply "[murdering] an Aruban girl" at all. Since Wehwalt has vacationed in Aruba in the past and has seen the women there I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that he found them attractive enough to grab a beer with. That seems to me to be the most likely intent of his statement, particularly since the girl who was murdered was not Aruban. To assume the most nefarious possible meaning seems very wrong to me. In the interest of holiday cheer, would you please assume good faith on Wehwalt's part? Thanks and merry Christmas, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It does not imply that he wanted to murder an Aruban girl. He was rubbing Sandy's face in shit, to show that he can treat her like shit. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not the first time I've dealt with well-meaning men (i.e. you and perhaps Snowman or Boing, at least on another night) who are clueless about sexism. You might look at the previous discussions on "crying into her table cloth", "have balls", etc. One of the reasons I trust Sven is that he saw the light after a few hours, and another honorable man saw the light that "crying into her table cloth and courting the Wikipedia fraternity" were problematic somewhat later.

Perhaps I have more experience in these matters, and it should be obvious why one does not leave the appearance of a rush to hush up an allegation, even if it is an understanding.

It's also the case that Pesky is right that I have trouble dealing with you all. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the entire context of it, but one random comment I have is this: Sandy and Wehwalt have been going at it for the last several months now. That's why ArbCom really should have taken that case I filed, but alas... --Rschen7754 00:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You are right about a lot of things, Rschen. Wehwalt is the primary author of the article about the murdered young woman, murdered in Aruba. There was no accident about the Aruba allusion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Aruba discussion more Aruba

Does anybody see the irony in being blocked by a giant snowman at Christmas time. Hahaaaa!!! Enjoy Christmas Kiefer!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (I know I'm "banished", but I have no choice - I'm obliged to inform you. If you comment here with a Helpme template, I'm sure someone will copy it across to ANI for you) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you heard of "I didn't hear that"? Do you need it linked?

I have contested your and other administrators leaving an appearance of rushing to close and cover up an allegation of sexual harassment, with some commenting that the treatment of Sven looked over the top. This is an extremely unhealthy appearance, in any organization, and especially one with 100 thousand or more editors, particularly where there has been lip service about the treatment of women and new editors.

I have repeatedly clarified that I know nothing about the case. I have linked free logic and used the word alleged, and yet you and others keep repeating the big lie that I am pushing an allegation of sexual harassment.

You make me so tired. Maybe somebody else can explain this distinction to you and your ilk. I give up. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kiefer, this is probably a good time to drop this one. Seriously, I know how it appears from your end, but it's probably best if you let it go. Otherwise - meh - usual drama. Merry Xmas. Black Kite (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how they can fail to see such caveats as in this edit at AN. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Not the point, as ever it shall be in this cesspit. The point is not giving others an excuse to silence you, which it could be argued you were doing. Black Kite (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

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.

---

Can we try to tone down the rhetoric, please? I'd like to assume that it could be a misunderstanding or a one-time incident, whether at a meeting or at IRC. The concern would be repeated behavior. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 4:46 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)

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.

Kiefer, I've just removed your ability to edit this talk page for the duration of your current block (eg, until 18:26, 26 December 2012) for the above series of personal attacks. Nick-D (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Despite the fact we were having a constructive discussion above? I fucking give up. Black Kite (talk) 01:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Censorship still sucks

I protest the termination of Kiefer.Wolfowitz's ability to edit this page over the above. I see nothing there that merits such draconian action. If you don't like what he has to say, don't read it. This is his talk page and he should have the right to speak. Shutting down talk page access is a thuggish bully-boy tactic. Carrite (talk)

I respect Kiefer's ability to back up what he writes. I also respect that he is a careful reader and writer. But per Carrite, brutish bullying trumps all at WP. (To claim that the difference between calling attention to inappropriate/undesirable comments, and a sexual harrassment charge, are the same, with one being just a "weasel word" variation of the other, is absurd and throws the idea that language means anything out the window [and if we are going to do that, then why not revert to prehistoric time?: stop all written communication, replace with grunts, go around knocking each other silly with clubs]. Lack of care in reading and writing is no different from dispensing with language altogether, the result is the same, power and abuse of power takes over.) I saw somewhere an editor (Admin?) also play with language suggesting Kiefer had "gone over the edge" or some-such euphemism for psychologic instability, and am wondering how that kind of unqualified insult passes the NPA test? Overall it's become clear there's a grand dumbing-down at WP (didn't you know thinking is old-fashioned now? you do'nah have to do that when you can simply template something nifty like WP:BOOMERANG, which is a lot less trouble and painful than thinking too!) in pursuit of ill-defined "civility". This mixed with Admin push-button power is simply pushing intelligent folk out the door. The place needs to "grow the fuck up" and learn to recognize who are the sincere encyclopedia builders versus who are here for their own egos including position and/or exercising power over others. (I'm not the first to observe that many power-flexing Admins carry a unconcealed contempt for creative content contributors. I'm sure jealousy wouldn't enter into it at all, no. Nor would exercising superiority via an arresting block or Talk page gag provide any self-satisfaction either, of course not. Because all our admins are perfect professionals and don't possess any such personal shortcomings. Which is why when an editor is blocked, he or she will remain blocked unless he or she fesses up that he or she understands how he or she screwed up, since our Admins never do.) Seriously, is this gradeschool, or what?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	From the frozen wasteland of Nebraska, USA! MONGO 12:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks MONGO! You, Elen, and David/WTT, and also Tim/Carrite are reminders of the power of reconciliation and charity. I should remember you all, as a constellation shining light in this dark season. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Damage report

I can edit. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

But you got blocked by a snowman at Christmas!!! [6]♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

• News and notes: Debates on Meta sparking along—grants, new entities, and conflicts of interest

• WikiProject report: A Song of Ice and Fire

• Featured content: Battlecruiser operational

• Technology report: Efforts to "normalise" Toolserver relations stepped up

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer, a lot of people went to bat for you to ensure this block ended peacefully. Coming out swinging once it was over is an insult to those who support you. You KNOW there are correct ways to complain about blocks, but attacks are not the way - ever (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's have some diffs, so we know what you are alleging. The ANI policy is to alert persons of discussions, so that we have the right to respond. What was I disrupting, other than your campaign of intimidation?

Kiefer, I am on IRC right now.--v/r - TP 22:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I really do not want to spend much time on this. This is absurd, and it is really not worth your time. Also, it is late, and my baby girl needs me.

I think Kaldari should come here and say, "Kiefer.Wolfowitz should not have written 'young men clueless about sexism', but you all have behaved contrary to the policies of every organization I know. You have really fucked up, and you all need to back away, and think about what kind of message you are sending." Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to take time away from your little girl, and I don't know Kaldari or what Xe'll say, but Kiefer, if you didn't want to spend much time on this then why engage on the retaliation and ask for 36 hours to do it? I feel you honestly feel your concern is valid and you should be afforded appropriate oppertunities for recourse, but the posts on ANI just now were not going to accomplish that goal. You're a smart guy and I think that strategic silence would've been a useful tool in your arsenal. If you are getting off for the night, then this is what I'll do for you: If you give me your word that you will not engage in the retaliation anymore and you'll focus on resolving the sexism issue specifically (using something like the diffs below) then I'll unblock you now.--v/r - TP 22:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Sketch of a report

I release this early to the community, since I cannot edit any other page, and it has diffs.

I would appreciate somebody alerting Jimbo Wales and Kaldari about these events. I assume both have experience with organizational policies on how to treat somebody raising a concern about possible sexual harassment. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

How not to respond to a concern about possible sexual harassment: A case-study in uneven civility-enforcement administrators abuse

Responding to discussion

1. At a recent RfA, Sven raised a concern about off-Wiki behavior. His comment was removed, and he was threated by a gang of administrators with a block.
   1. In the pile-on threat to block Sven, Boing piled-on thirdly.
2. Sven expressed bewildermant on how to proceed, in terms of fairness concerns to all and compliance with policy.
3. Boing's first comment to me at AN:
   1. Denounced Sven for making an allegation and providing no evidence.
   2. Suppose you ran for RfA and I posted a serious allegation in the form of a question saying "A couple of years ago, you were caught molesting children - do you agree not to do it any more?" Would you think that was a fair question? Of course not, because for one thing it would be a lie - and the point is that without any supporting evidence whatsoever, Sven's allegation is indistinguishable from a lie (I'm not saying Sven's allegation *is* a lie, just that it is indistinguishable from one)." (emboldening added.)

   The important fact is that Boing is repeatedly using "lie"-terminology against Sven.

4. Boing sought to teach the logic of science to me---"if false would be easily refutable by witnesses of the events at Wikipedia's IRC" - that's an example of a logic error of the form "If it has not been refuted, then it must be true" . [KW is speechless]
5. BWilkins wrote, "the community has already said [sic. that what happens on IRC is no business on RFA (or on Wikipedia), your sole opportunity is to shut it."] (emboldening added)
6. [Sven noted counter-examples to BWilkins's falsehood (claiming community consensus)].