Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Request

Moved from User talk:Elen of the Roads

Hi Elen. I have recently filed an RfC on Kiefer.Wolfowitz. I would prefer it to be a productive RfC - and as such I would like to adhere to one of his requests that you confirm there is a basis for dispute. I am not asking you to endorse or oppose the summary, though you are welcome to, I would just like you to confirm that this not a frivolous RfC. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I've endorsed. I think it's a shame that it's come to this, but I think it might help him to take it seriously. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Elen, my priority was that Kiefer might actually be a willing participant, and make the whole thing actually a worthwhile use of the community's (and my) time. Seems he may not be, in which case the RfC will proceed without him, but at least I've tried. Worm^TT · (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

See my note on his talkpage. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw the note and was very disappointed by it: "it never comes out well for the editor who attempts to ignore the issue". A sitting arbitrator should know better than to use such intimidating language to coerce another editor. Geometry guy 22:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Geometry Guy, I was merely repeating my advice given to Kiefer.Wolfowitz previously, when I advised him to engage with a more informal dispute resolution process. As predicted then, his attempts to ignore/stonewall the issue did not turn out well - look, here we are at a RfC. Kiefer's bizarre argument (made two months ago as well [1]) that he cannot attend to the RfC for two months, but intends to continue to edit freely during that time, are not going to sit well with anyone. It's certainly not a threat from me, as I won't be making any kind of decision relating to the RfC, but in my experience an individual who ignores dispute resolution processes and persists in the problematic behaviour (important point - if the subject chooses not to attend in person, but takes the message away, then of course that may stop further problems) tends to find themselves summarily blocked or banned at WP:ANI. Kiefer needs to see dispute resolution in a different light - he's not dealing with editors who are rabidly against him (Worm and I thought well of him until this blew up in August) and if he engaged with the community, it could probably be all hashed out to every one's benefit. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so it is a second offence then! I can likewise guarantee that not a single Arbcom subcommittee will get done over for 15 bob a week. That's not a threat, but an offer of help and support :)

I do not doubt your sincerely belief that you are advising Kiefer in his best interests, but that does not make coercion acceptable. Furthermore, in your reply, you not only presume to know what is best for Kiefer, but also that you know what may or may not "sit well" with the entire editing community! That diverse community ranges from editors for whom Wikipedia is an online roleplaying game to those who actually come here to contribute significant content. It is the latter kind of editor that has my respect, and if an editor like Kiefer chooses to spend his volunteered leisure time improving articles rather than engaging in playground politics, then that sits very well with me. Any negative consequences of such a choice reflect badly on Wikipedia, not the editor. Geometry guy 18:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, if he decided to ignore the entire proceedings but stuck to editing articles rather than fussing about what other editors have on their userpages and stopped taking the piss out of people's usernames when it clearly annoys them, half of this would go away immediately. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

And the other half? Geometry guy 19:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The other half appears to do with his reaction to political items.... Always a tricky subject for anyone. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

But an important one, and a subject that Wikipedia is ill-equipped to handle. It cannot even handle internal disagreement about whether minors should be admins. That aside, thank you for your concise summary of the editing issues you feel KW needs to address. However, no dispute is entirely one-sided: can you also summarize the issues you believe other editors need to address to restore normal working relations? Geometry guy 20:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe in Worm's case he was genuinely nonplussed that his attempts to resolve things amicably got the reception that they did - Kiefer basically treated him like a junior tick and told him to run along and stop bothering his elders and betters. Worm waited to see if he would stop the behaviour that he perceived as a problem, and raised this when he was of the opinion that he hadn't. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen, you have not answered the question. I am not asking you to sympathize with Worm here. Maybe he was an innocent bystander who got caught up in events, and did the right thing^TM.

Instead, I am asking for your concise summary of issues that other editors need to address (Demiurge, for example?). If you believe that no other editor has even been at minor fault at any stage and that no other editor has anything to learn from the dispute, then you are at liberty to state that view. Geometry guy 21:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Geometry guy, this RfC has a large component about how Kiefer behaves towards other people who are not the filing parties. I appreciate that there may be an element of 'when did you stop beating your wife here', but if he wasn't obsessing over the age of certain users and making accusations without supporting evidence, then there would be no reason for the filing parties to interact with him over these issues. If he hadn't behaved like such an arrogant sod (just going on what he typed into the edit box - I've no idea what he's actually like as I've never met him) this could have been sorted out long ago. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Blimey Elen, you must be in politics, as you still haven't answered the question. I didn't say "filing parties". In any dispute it takes two to tango, but rather than showing leadership in dispute resolution, you take a one-sided position, make pointless arguments using counterfactuals, and refer to one party as (oh lets be very careful here per WP:NPA "behaving like") an arrogant sod. Still very disappointed, Geometry guy 21:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you have an odd view of what an RfC/U is for..... Mismatch of expectations perhaps. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think RfC/U is a structurally flawed process, and my view of it is far more cynical than you imagine. It sets up an asymmetrical relation between involved parties, putting one user on the defensive, while encouraging others to justify the need for the RfC/U by prosecuting their case vigorously. I have no expectations of such a process and would not recommend anyone who does not have a strong masochistic streak to subject themselves to it.

However, you refer to RfC/U as "dispute resolution" and as something beneficial that KW should be "encouraged to engage with" in his own "best interests". So is an RfC/U for dispute resolution, or dispute escalation? Is it a way to help parties reach mutually understanding and agreement with the help of impartial outside observers, or is it a village stocks for slinging mud at arrogant sods and a tick-box on the road to arbitration? Those who claim to believe in the former should at the very least act like they do. In this respect, I find Worm TT's approach to the RfC more admirable and convincing than your own. Geometry guy 22:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It has the potential to be either. More collegial editors will probably "settle out of court" and avoid things ever getting to this stage, more combative editors will just have a row at this stage, and eventually end up at Arbcom. I'm not sure anyone ever goes away happy, on any side, but sometimes it does defuse a situation, either because the subject changes behaviour/avoids that area/stays away from that person or because the filing party is persuaded that it is not a serious problem really. Sometimes what happens is that the subject brings all their friends, ignores the process, or writes walls of impenetrable text, and the matter goes away for a while, until it blows up and they find themselves banned. Sometimes it is obvious that the filing party is acting in incredibly bad faith, and that blows up in their face. So no, not perfect. But then perfection is only for Allah, or so they say. The rest of us are just human. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for replying more candidly and thoughtfully. Geometry guy 23:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps slightly off-topic here: I couldn't help notice that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics has a notice about the RfCU on KW, even though the dispute involves no mathematics articles or topics. WikiProjects being used as WP:CANVASSing venues is apparently a concern that has been raised for instance in the MfD of Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism, where the Math project was given as a beyond-reproach example of sorts. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is off-topic to the extent that I was brought to the RfC via KWs talk page, not because of any WikiProject notice. My contact with him is primary as a reviewer who occasionally reviews technical content: KW currently has an article at FAC which I extensively and critically reviewed over the weekend. Geometry guy 22:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

He posted one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics (pretty nearly just as unrelated) as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is that he doesn't fall out with the Maths people - and there isn't a location suitable to advertising to where the problem is Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)...and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics. The vast majority of early contributors are related to these three projects. I did consider mentioning it at the time, but the point of the RfC was to see the community's point of view. David Eppstein's comment, whilst acting as a lighting rod, is a very fair comment - we don't want a lynching here and if Kiefer feels more willing to discuss the issues knowing that a lynching isn't the purpose, then I think it will be a positive outcome.

Having said that, Kiefer's latest response doesn't fill me with confidence. I understand he's travelling for a week, so perhaps he'll have more time to address the concerns after that period... Worm^TT · (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I too have noticed that it was mostly editors from those two projects who comment under the view: "I have no opinion on the political disputes described here, but Wolfowitz has performed very valuable service to the encyclopedia bringing mathematical articles [...]". Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism was not notified however, even though a large part of the dispute was on the pages Socialist Party USA. So it does appear that WP:CANVASSing rules were deliberately bent or ignored by KW. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I would not consider it canvassing to put a neutral notice there, if editors from that project were involved. On another note, I have removed the outrageous sentence from his last comment - I know he probably thought it was funny, but it doesn't meet any definition of humorous in these circumstances. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A few responses. First, I should be informed of discussions like this. Second, some of this discussion would be better at the RfC or its talk page.

Third, I do not "obsess about ages", but I am concerned about minors as administrators, and I consistently take the most paternalistic/responsible (your choice) position in discussions about vulnerable persons. Tough that some dislike this position.

Fourth, the articles related to American socialism were in terrible states when I found them, although they had been worse 5 years ago, and so the relevant projects were immediately suspect as dysfunctional/nonfunctional. Those projects have been useless when I have asked for help related to e.g. Tom Kahn; our brothers and sisters at the LGBT project provided useful feedback for it. I have no reason to expect that an RfC notice at the non--high-functional projects would generate feedback, let alone competent feedback.

Finally, even here, at an ArbCom member's talk page, and at an RfC, "Have mörser, will travel" violates WP:AGF with impunity. At least, he has been ignored (at the RfC 07:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would agree that this discussion would be better at the RfC talkpage. I can move the whole shebang over there if you wish. As to why you weren't informed of the discussion, I suggest you ask Geometry Guy, as he is the one asking the questions. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That is very disingenuous. I did not start this thread, nor am I responsible for the portion of it questioning KW's good faith and accusing him of canvassing. Geometry guy 23:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec, reply to KW) Quite. And let me add a couple of observations of my own.

• It is absurd to refer to KW placing a neutral note on WikiProjects where he as contributed as a WP:CANVASS violation. A neutrally-worded notice to a non-partisan audience is not canvassing. If RfC/U is for dispute resolution, not dispute escalation, then inviting comments from other editors familiar with the user's editing should be helpful, not harmful.
• It is an offensive AGF violation to state "Apparently, Kiefer.Wolfowitz has earned the respect of other editors in non-controversial areas, and thought to capitalize on that in this dispute". Is this dispute resolution or dispute escalation?
• "The trouble is that he doesn't fall out with the Maths people". The trouble??!! I'm aghast at the attitude: "okay, so lets try and find some people he does fall out with"! Dispute resolution, or escalation?
• Members of the maths WikiProject have generally responded very responsibly to the notification, not commenting beyond their experience, and in one case providing a rather critical view of KW which KW himself has acknowledged as fair and may learn from. That's dispute resolution. Geometry guy 23:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "It is an offensive AGF violation to state 'Apparently, User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz has earned the respect of other editors in non-controversial areas, and thought to capitalize on that in this dispute'". WP:CANVASS also says The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions. Clearly asking only groups who have a good opinion of his work is a breach of that. User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz replied: The articles related to American socialism were in terrible states when I found them, although they had been worse 5 years ago, and so the relevant projects were immediately suspect as dysfunctional/nonfunctional. Those projects have been useless when I have asked for help related to e.g. Tom Kahn; in contrast, our brothers and sisters at the LGBT project provided useful feedback for it." ¶ The articles on cannon (FA!) and gunpowder promoted various WP:FRINGE theories before I edited them in late 2011, and still need some work in that respect. Does that make WP:MILHIST worthless and dysfunctional? Consequently, should I never ask for their opinion on anything? I suppose I could fancy myself as a Wikipedia:WikiProject Gunpowder of one, and thus supremely entitled to scoff at everyone else, just like KW could be the overlord of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Democratic Socialism in the USA. His seemingly unmatched expertise entitles him to canvass only experts in Mathematics/Economics/Statistics whenever he has a dispute surrounding his editing of a political party article. ¶ Anyway, after having read WP:DIVA, I scoff at any further involvement of myself in this dispute "resolution"; clearly it won't produce any desirable changes in behavior, but only result in further in-group solidarity and out-group resentment. [Feel free to copy this to the RfC talk page]. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Moerser, writing like this only reduces your credibility. You should try to find counter-examples to statements before pressing the submit button, particularly when you willfully violate WP:AGF despite complaints.

For example, in the last days, one of the few articles I contributed to was Socialist Party of America, where I suggested that the editor I reverted please contact User:Orange Mike, who is an honest and knowledgeable person who strongly disliked ("I was not impressed") my initial edits on SDUSA. (I have recommended that people contact Orange Mike before this RfC/U.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

To all - I really think that this conversation should be on the talkpage of the RfC. Should I move it over? Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong view. The canvassing part, at least, could usefully be copied over. Geometry guy 23:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• I think that it should be moved to the talk page of the RfC. However, "Have Moeser, Will Travel" should consider deleting remarks that can be viewed as non-constructive.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• I'm horribly busy today, so I doubt I'll be able comment much anywhere, but I wanted to say that I agree that it should be moved to the RfC talk page - as it is a discussion of the RfC, and anyone participating should also be aware. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of RfC topics

I thought it'd be easier to follow some threaded discussion on specific topics here, since the RfC has become something of a wall of text. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Top section

I see there has been a lot of focus on the first few lines of the RfC, the topics that the RfC was not covering. I feel this was a mistake on my part - the intention was to give the RfC focus, to ensure that the areas at the top were mentioned quickly but not gone in depth - thereby stopping the areas being brought up over and over again ad nauseum. In other words, I was specifically trying to ensure the RfC did not become a lynching (and I'd like to mention that so far, it appears to have worked - none of the issues mentioned at the top have detracted from the RfC).

However, I can see that from a different point of view, it appears I was showing KW in an unfair light and that was not my intention. I wholeheartedly apologise for giving that impression Worm^TT · (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Mocking of usernames

This is a particular bugbear of mine, not something I believe Demiurge1000 has ever commented on. However, I doubt I'm the only person who has an issue with Kiefer bastardising usernames, as Strange Passerby specifically struck it. Even throughout this RfC, Keifer referred to Demiurge1000 as "DemiUrge1000". Now, "Half a desire" is quite a different meaning to Demiurge, something Kiefer himself linked to - clearly understanding the difference. This combined with comments Kiefer has made comparing me directly with a worm show significant incivility, be it intentional or not. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that KW has been doing in this very RfC the stuff he had been asked to stop doing, the RfC clearly has zero chance of neutering the obnoxious aspects of his behaviors. Like I observed above, this RfC is a giant waste of time if resolution is what is expected. Ignoring his puns seems the only option; the alternative being what happened to the guy with the sonnets, which is clearly overkill in KW's case for now. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Moerser,

Please go away, as you said you would. It is cruel to raise my hopes and then dash them by returning and delivering a "neuter" remark, which is weird and pointless even for you.

Why do you think that anybody cares what you think?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Worm and Demiurge,

Your latest research from WikiProject Kiefer.Wolfowitz is even more exciting than previous research reports, but it still remains ridiculous.

I spell Demiurge as DemiUrge because that is how I pronounce the word, and I find it easier to read this capitalization. Returning to that first course in programming, where "indexing errors" are discussed, there is a general principal to capitalize words in this pattern (which apparently is based on some experimental results about readability of programs). I typically capitalize the words incorporated in weird, multi-syllable names, and no other user has cared.

Is this a madhouse?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's tone things down a little. Worm, and at least one other person, didn't like the fact that you repeatedly use usernames as a way to mock people. Not talking about a few instances (as was the case with my rather harsh comments on a certain person's rather arrogant choice of username), but about half a dozen or more instances. What was the aim of it? To keep on doing it until someone over-reacted? Or what? Either way, I've never complained about it myself (much less whined about it, as you said on the RfC), and if it makes it easier for you - for whatever reason - to use my username in a strange variant of camelcaps, then I have no objection to that.

As regards mörser (sorry to truncate the username, is this OK?), they have a viewpoint about the RfC that actually coincides with the viewpoint of one or two other people. I don't think there's a good reason to say they shouldn't comment, and in fact they have added some opinions that are quite useful. I do hope they would be more optimistic, though :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

My username. No, seriously?

Supposedly this guy inspired some of the original philosophy

KW has presented his interpretation of what my username means (with the added nicety of "blasphemous egomaniac") so a little clarification is needed. (Save yourself 100 seconds if you aren't interested.)

Demiurge is a Greek word meaning worker or craftsman (with its origins being closer to a more lowly form of "civil servant"). In the Wikipedia sense, it pretty much means wikignome - because that's what I was mostly doing when I created this account; just reading things and making small corrections whenever I saw a need for them.

Now, one of the things I was reading and gnoming at the time was in fact our article Demiurge, which is a philosophical concept of "an artisan-like figure" (says the article), which although it was later adopted by some obscurer sects of Christianity, has never really signified The Creator in the sense that the western Christian tradition views God. In fact, many of the sects considered the Demiurge to be an evil, neutral, or just disinterested entity, and the benevolent God to be entirely separate. I've never known any theists have the least concern over my username.

The username User:Demiurge was already taken (and I'm quite sure that editor was not a blasphemous egomaniac either), so I was stuck with the silly numbers on the end. And I've often considered a rename to something better, especially since being called "Demi" can lead to some confusion about my gender, but that's something else that's never quite reached the top of my list of priorities. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I find this a pretty minor issue to be concerned about, but not because I don't understand.

Usernames are one of the few forms of self-expression available to anonymous editors, yet we manipulate and abbreviate our own and other editors' usernames all the time. I tried for years to explain that I preferred abbreviations such as "Gguy", "G-guy", "G'guy" and "G guy" to "GG", because I am a person and not a horse. Yet editors persisted in abbreviating my username to "GG". I felt entitled to be irritated by this because it meant either they were deliberately trying to wind me up, or they just didn't care enough to treat me more respectfully. I never really got irritated however, and after spending some time away from Wikipedia, I came to the conclusion that advertising my preference was WP:BEANS, and that among all the things that are wrong with Wikipedia, editors calling me "GG" is so utterly trivial that I really don't care.

Among others, Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Worm^TT have both referred to me as "GG" on my userpage recently. I never invited either of them (or indeed anyone) to use this abbreviation, but they both did. However, if it bothered me at all now, I would immediately conclude that I had lost my sense of perspective, and would log out at once to spend my leisure time on something other than Wikipedia. Geometry guy 23:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. DU (which KW only adopted recently, I think) and DemiUrge (again, he only started using this recently?) are not a big issue. As I've said above, "Demi" (not used by KW, as far as I know) is a misunderstanding of who I am, but it's a misunderstanding that is my own fault, and used in good faith.

Misunderstandings that are used to taunt, are not quite the same thing. If something were used once in anger, I would totally understand - people get angry sometimes, they say things in anger. When it's used over and over and over again, one has to wonder what the aim is. Whether the aim is to provoke a reaction.

I should stress that the person "concerned about" my username is KW (he thinks some people might see my username as me being a "blasphemous egomaniac"). If even a few people think that my username is disruptive - even slightly - then I'll change it. But thus far, those people don't exist. I don't like these attempts to provoke problems where no problems exist. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Kiefer.Wolfowitz would be good enough to offer an olive branch and voluntarily retire the use of insulting variations on editors' names such as "DemiWit"? That would allow us to put this issue to rest, I think. 28bytes (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi 28bytes,

First, I have not used "DemiWit" for some months, even in responding to this human Ouroboros.

Let me make explicit what was has been implicit in months of behavior: I agree that I should not have written DemiWit. However, 28bytes, would you examine the predecessor message(s) in those exchanges from Demiurge and agree that he crossed the incivility/AGF/NPA rules also, and perhaps even first. (My memory is that he always did, but memories "can be deceptive".)

Ciao,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I do think that some of the "predecessor messages" you refer to were, at best, unhelpful and unnecessarily provocative. 28bytes (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

KW, I must say that I use camel case every day work, programming in Java. This is the first time I've heard it used in the middle of a word because of it's pronunciation, rather than when two words are concatenated. However, I'm probably making more of an issue of this than it needs to be. If you will agree to be more aware regarding usernames in the future, then I will certainly agree that whole matter is resolved.

Also, Geometry Guy, I called you GG as other people had already done so on the page - my apologies, I'll keep that in mind for the future Worm^TT · (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Request regarding KW's comments

Hi Kiefer - I've been trying to read through your comments on the main page and I'm having a little difficulty due to the flow of the layout. Would you consider removing (or hiding) the copy/paste from the previous dispute resolution - since the vast majority of points were not raised here as they'd already either been resolved or were not worth mentioning. You are of course welcome to leave your response however you like, but I thought I'd ask anyway. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

On Tuesday or Wednesday I shall more time.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I appreciate that. I'll keep my participation to a minimum until that point. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I really lack the time and inclination to read your RfC, and most of my edits respond to outside views. It seems useful to remind outside viewers that I did respond to your previous draft RfC (at which time you quit) and that your previous draft RfC was even worse than this; outside readers should understand the personal attacks that you have been making, usually in passive-aggressive paraphrase ("KW uses copyright violation tagging to advance his political agenda. Note to self: I should check whether this is true, after posting this on Wikipedia." Alas, you never did get around to withdrawing your personal attack, did you?).

You seem to have been surprised at the reaction of the community, given that you mentioned a "lambasting" on a talk page, and are still complaining that I said that you didn't know what you were doing---which I said not to insult you but to try to make you think. I would bet that you have zero experience in debates, zero experience in politics, and probably negligible interest in politics---for, otherwise, why would you go after me with the insipid passive-aggressive manner that Robert Dole used in his last debate with Bill Clinton. You should go watch Liam Neeson's performance in Taken and consider yourself lucky that I have downgraded your category from promising youngster to only not worth my time.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)