User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Labor donated

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

Swedish?

I noticed you mentioned some swedes on your user page. Do you happen to speak Swedish? Carl Emil Pettersson is an unfinished translation and it doesn't have inline citations. I can get the book Kung Kalle av Kurrekurreduttön – en resa i Efraim Långstrumps fotspår through an interlibrary loan and scan pages, but I can't read it to help fix the citations. I'm looking for a Swedish editor to help out. Ryan Vesey 5:49 am, 17 January 2013, Thursday (9 days ago) (UTC+1)

I can look for it in a library and translate what you need. If you need only a short section, then you can email me a scanned page or pdf file, and I can translate it for you. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:03 am, 17 January 2013, Thursday (9 days ago) (UTC+1)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:03 am, 17 January 2013, Thursday (9 days ago) (UTC+1)

Thanks, I've made a request and they're sending it my way. I'm hoping it has an index, which should be understandable in any language, so I can figure out what I need. Ryan Vesey 6:22 pm, 17 January 2013, Thursday (9 days ago) (UTC+1)

From discussions, it actually doesn't appear that Neotarf intends to finish the translation from the Swedish version sv:Carl Emil Pettersson. If you've got extra time and you're up for it, it would be nice if that translation could be finished. Ryan Vesey 9:54 pm, 18 January 2013, Friday (8 days ago) (UTC+1)

The translation would take a few hours, I guess. One problem is that it lacks in-line references, which means that I would have to find the book, read it, and give page numbers for the article's statements. Also, Swedish humanistic scholarship is worse than British lit critters in the eyes of Morris Zapp, which means I would have trouble trusting the book... ;)

Is this a burning issue for you? I trust that you are not writing about the social construction of imperialism and patriarchy in the works of Astrid Lindgren. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:19 pm, 18 January 2013, Friday (8 days ago) (UTC+1)

An editor began a translation in the mainspace, the article was tagged for some errors, then the editor threw a hissy fit and refused to finish the article. My initial offer of getting the book to help with the in-text citations was directed towards the editor; however, he said he didn't have time to fix the article and continue with the dramafest he started about how New Page Patrollers should be omniscient and shouldn't tag crappy articles when the creator is working on them. I was just hoping to make sure the article was fixed up. Ryan Vesey 21:58, 18 January 2013 UTC)

It's not a hissy fit for a writer to leave when harassed.

The ratio of busy-body bothers to writers' discussions has been increasing dramatically in the last months. Why don't people write articles instead of putting their little tags on works in progress, or making polite suggestions? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:19 pm, 18 January 2013, Friday (8 days ago) (UTC+1)

That reminds me a little bit of when I was doing NPP and came across the original version of Meermin slave mutiny. But that one worked out fine - I just took over when the original author didn't want to do more with it, and he ended up really liking it. Pesky (talk) 7:51 am, 19 January 2013, last Saturday (7 days ago) (UTC+1)

DYK for Alfie Fripp

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 9:02 am, 17 January 2013, Thursday (9 days ago) (UTC+1)

11,773 views! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:07 pm, 18 January 2013, Friday (8 days ago) (UTC+1)

Wow! Awesome - well done :D Pesky (talk) 7:48 am, 19 January 2013, last Saturday (7 days ago) (UTC+1)

Nice to see a nice fellow from Dorset mentioned, instead of the Green fellow.... ;)

I had not known that The Great Escape was a British yuletime tradition. Of course, WWII must strike nerves in GB even more than in the US.

My grandmother was interviewed about meeting my grandfather in WWI, when she was a nurse who cared for him after he had almost lost his leg to a German bullet (discussing losing ships on the convoy to England, etc.), we had people calling the house in tears. (Don't get me started on The Zimmerman Telegram and "unrestricted submarine warfare"!) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 1:20 am, 21 January 2013, last Monday (6 days ago) (UTC+1)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - February 2013

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume IV, No. 2 – February 2013 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Featured editorial: Time to make a Sweep by Hahc21. Project News: Several proposals are currently ongoin at the project, including two requests for comment. Good Articles of the Month: See which articles were picked this year of records: 282 articles passed in January! GA Task Forces: Some minor notes this month Member News: Member news Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 12 February 2012

Nothing further to be learnt

As I think I've already said, I'm not hanging around to work with a broken culture. I've found other places that value contributions over drama. By all means get in touch if something ever changes "daniel.judd@gmail.com". But I doubt that I'll be hearing from you. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry about this turn for the worse, following several bizarre ani threads. Let us wish that those hounding you maintain silence rather engage in hortatory about civility and editor retention. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

(indented 21:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC) )

Willard Gibbs

Hi. I'd like to encourage you to take another look at the article on Josiah Willard Gibbs. When I submitted to an FA review some months ago, you raised several concerns, mostly on the coverage of Gibbs's influence on convex analysis. I recently got hold of a copy of Wightman's essay on the subject, which is now cited in the article. I've also tried to make various other improvements and would like, eventually, to resubmit as an FAC. Please take a look if you have a chance. Any input is welcome. - Eb.hoop (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd be delighted. I recently looked at the books on large deviations which I'd recommended, and found no mention of J W Gibbs, alas---although many mentions of Gibbs measures were made.... So take my other recommendations with healthy skepticism! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom notice

I, for one, would be grateful if you would complete your analysis of the 300+ overlapping edits to the articles that both editors had in common. It may well be worth re-reading WP:SOCK, too; based on what I've read so far, I am uncertain what, if any, violation occurred. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

RE

"the mendacity and hypocrisy which Englishmen so commonly regard as virtues."

— Charles Sanders Peirce, CP, paragraph 143, p. 1540

Hi Dirtlawyer,

Too many on Arbcom felt a need to act now, when rather than waiting and having a member or two continue observations---not the same as "doing nothing", WTT, but thanks for trying to moderate the committee's passionate groupthink---or just asking for an explanation by email.

There was a charge that the two had engaged in tag teaming on some policy discussion, the one serious accusation that could be checked, and I found nothing. Of course, no diffs (or even allusion to a definite page) were given.

You can see the allegations flying on the Arbcom page, with no diffs given, and the cowards and hypocrites on ArbCom (and the clerks) again failing to enforce WP:NPA's prohibition on unsubstantiated allegations, when the target is Malleus.

"civility is often unevenly and ineffectively enforced" indeed.

I don't believe that any rational analysis will have any effect, so I shall not waste my time.

(Today, it strikes me that one source of the problem is that upper-class British twits cannot tolerate Malleus being smarter than them and viewing them with the contempt they deserve.)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps your observation is true, and also, perhaps it is one of many such observations (far too many, in my opinion), that ought not to be made among people collaborating to improve an encyclopedia. Twits in your opinion, are, after all, possibly intelligent and productive encyclopedists too. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

We have different roles, and I do not suggest that all or even most editors should write like me, on WP politics or regarding the treatment of Malleus in recent years.

Nonetheless, some behavior deserves scorn. In a discussion of my ArbCom election guide, I noted that I supported NewYorkBrad, despite his having lined up with candidates I rejected, because of his integrity and care in public writing. I would prefer an honest discussion at arbcom and an end to British twits displaying their years of education in dueling with polite-sounding but narcissistic and cowardly insults.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

An apology

After cooling down and reconsidering, I recognize that I probably owe you an apology for edit-warring over on the ArbCom page. So, I apologize. It would have been better to leave it alone, but I guess none of us mere humans are perfect. I'm certainly not. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not perfection but behaving like an adult and controlling yourself.

This is not the first time you've not controlled yourself when the subject is Malleus, is it? Given your history, your "apology" is unconvincing, particularly when its climax is the cop-out "none of us mere humans are perfect" rather than e.g. a statement that you realize that your behavior has hurt valuable editors or the project or has been at best unseemly.

Deeds, not words.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC) 17:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Just as a heads-up, there is no need to copy and paste talk page comments and use them as the edit summary. A simple "add comment" will suffice.--Launchballer 14:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I write to communicate my thoughts, even in edit summaries.

Your suggested "Add comment" has the appearance of dissembling. (See my quotation from Peirce above or, better, from the Westminster Catechism on my user page, for guidance.)

I'll volunteer that in edit summaries I should remember to abbreviate or otherwise camouflage names of editors. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 15:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drmies (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Scary chord inversions

see 0:50-1:10. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

OK

You didn't give me a chance to respond, but yeah I shouldn't have called anybody "assholes", even indirectly and when pressed. I lost my temper, and I'm sorry for that, and certainly sorry if I hurt your feelings, and I'll try not to do that in future. I don't know what a demitwin is, sorry. I'm unwatching this page so no response required, you can contact me on my talk page in the unlikely event that you want to continue this conversation. Carry on. Herostratus (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

RE "I don't know what a demitwin is"

You and Demiurge1000 have strikingly similar interests, styles, etc.---but perhaps less similar than twins sharing between one and two brains.

Let us wish that both of you stop trolling.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent events

You're doing great. Ceoil (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ceoil.

A bit of statistical/scientific literacy goes a long way.

I hope others will develop allergic reactions to claims that a proposition is near certain when somebody has merely shown that the proposition is plausible under one hypothesis, without considering other hypothesis, and trying to test the hypotheses using fresh evidence. (This is the usual thesis or paper in sociology or applied fields, I'm afraid.) I didn't raise the question of fresh evidence or making predictions at ArbCom.

Well, some day, members of ArbCom need to learn that rushing decisions is the cause of the biggest mistakes, and that committees are especially liable to make bad decisions.

The infobox headaches really have gone on way too long, also.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It took two read throughs, but I eventually got what you were saying. Is this at all analogous

• Prosecuting attorney: So how sure are you that the blood found at the scene belongs to the defendent?
• Expert witness: (incautiously) There is a one in a million likelihood that the DNA is not his.
• Defence counsel: So that means that there are a minimum of 55 people in the UK with this DNA?
• Expert witness: (wishing he hadn't started this conversation) Yes, but only one of them is in the dock.

Unfortunately, the Checkuser tool doesn't really offer the opportunity to try the sort of statistical analysis you are describing, particularly with ISPs that assign from a large pool of IPs, as you may not pick up any other users to compare.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm tired and struggling with the art of eating now, and cannot reply apart from stating that your analogy is apt. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer, I wasnt referring specifically to the post Elen mentions, but more that before that you were doing a lot of debunking in general, level headed it seemed, and with a light tough, so just, that. Ceoil (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

RfA

Hey Kiefer, I'm not sure RfA voting is the best place to make that particular point - most people over there aren't going to get it. Maybe you could present a different rationale (if you have one) that is specific to that editor, or just continue the discussion at the noticeboard instead? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria!

You are probably right. Afterall, I did hear that angel on my shoulder suggesting that my resonse might not be a good idea. I have to go to an experiment now, in case we've messed up something; if nobody's needs a baboon's liver transplant, I should be back by 1, and be able to write something more appropriate. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Having discharged my Malinowskian shamanic role of reducing anxiety, I returned and see that others have commented on the appropriateness of my remark, and at least one provided a suitable annotation. I trust that the closing bureaucrat shall give my remark the weight it deserves in this failing RfA. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You've been around long enough to know that making WP:POINTY comments in a RfA are not welcomed. Whatever drama exists elsewhere is poor justification for such childish antics. - MrX 21:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Your comments there, Keifer, are very similar to those you moan about so often on this site. You should consider my comment in a cold light please. And whilst you probably want to define MrX's "childish antics" as likely transgressing WP:NPA please ...... don't. It doesn't - as it's descriptive, and accurate. And also, just a personal request, don't respond with a "Hi Pedro!...." and then refactor the whole thing under a different header. Reconsider please, with a decent oppose. Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  22:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Questions

Hi Kiefer. You appear to be trying to debunk checkuser all together and using disruption to make a point about it. I don't use checkuser often, I've only had the tool for a short while, however I can tell you that the technical evidence linking George to Malleus is practically unquestionable - there were far more links than occasionally using the same IP address which you hinted at. It was certain behavioural evidence that convinced me that they were not the same person.

Your disruptive behaviour and assumptions are unfair on the committee and the RfA candidates who have no part in the case. I am willing to answer any questions I can without violating privacy. Please stop jumping to conclusions, there's enough mess here without you spreading false gossip. Worm^TT(talk) 21:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Worm. As a more longstanding user of the tool, I have to say that it can never by itself confirm that two editors are the same person, and an experienced CU will not give a confirmed result based only on the tool output. I know for a fact that there are two editors who edit on my IP, same equipment exactly, never edit at the same time, very suspicious - or would be if they ever edited the same article. They are of course two completely different people, and their editing is very dissimilar. I can point you at a company in Scandinavia, and another in the US, where multiple staff members all edit off the same IP. The starting point has to be similarity of edits, because it is only this that justifies the use of the tool. And for my part, I would also want some evidence of a policy breach, such as block evasion, tag teaming, votestacking or such before examining longstanding editors. The tool is really limited - most of the linking of editors is based on similarity of editing, and while this is frequently very obvious, it can come down to a bit of a black art/gut feeling, which people don't always like to admit. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to let Coren know about that. Here's an extract from an email I received from him on the day I was informed of this allegation: "The *least* you could do while we are discussing the matter is to stop operating your sock!" Doesn't seem to be much wiggle room there. He went on to claim that the checkuser evidence proved that George and I were using the same computer, which is an outright lie in anyone's book, and obviously only intended to intimidate. Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I once watched while Hersfold, over the course of a few minutes, apparently edited using everything from a Viglen 286 to an Ipad, by spoofing his useragent. The only thing that seems difficult to spoof is a htc running Android. Of course checkuser can't prove you are using the same machine. It's all about probabilities, which is why Keifer was right in what he said. There are some very unusual UAs, and there are some US providers where you can practically get a street address off the IP, but if all you've got is two VirginMedia users on Windows 7 using Internet Exploder, forget it. The most you can say is they are on the same router, which in my daughter's case means they are one of a dozen housemates and friends who can't even agree on whose turn it is to empty the dustbin. With rare exceptions, my view of the CU tool is that it can exclude a suspect (one is in Poland, the other in Tasmania), and it can round you up some more suspects, but without some evidence of similarity in editing, it can't say that two users are socks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't actually done anything to look at whether you or this George chap might be the same person. The only thing I would say is that in my limited experience, it is easier for someone who is generally nice and easy going to turn on a bit of nasty, that for someone with a poor tolerance of fools, a short fuse and a sharp turn of phrase to consistently play the easygoing nice guy. Make of it what you will. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

George is a much nicer person than I would ever want to be; make of that what you will. UA spoofers are so common nowadays I'm surprised anyone pays much attention to user agent evidence. Malleus Fatuorum 01:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we're on the same wavelength then. And any claim that two editors are using the same computer must be based on UA, because that's the only evidence available. Sometimes you can see some events occurring in parallel that might lead you to suspect it's the same piece of kit - but we're back to probabilities here. Unless one of the CUs has a magic spy ray or something. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Coren and a few others assumed guilt right from the start, and with that frame of reference it's easy to cherry pick evidence to bolster your case. My fundamental objection to all of this is that there was no policy-based reason for running a checkuser in the first place, and it was done secretly. How many other times have I been checkusered in the past few weeks in an attempt to find this secret admin account that Demiurge1000 is so convinced I have? Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You have been checkusered 23 times by 9 different people between 23/1 and 25/2. You do not appear to have ever been checkusered previously. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)