User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Labor donated

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

Guitar

David Russell

See 2:35 [1], this guy is one of the most beautiful sounding guitarists ever, in my top 5 list of greatest guitarists.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC).

Yes, he is wonderful. Here's a guy I discovered about 2 years ago. He has some lovely stuff. And he's really into bat boxes!! [2] Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Tell me more! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Back in the early 1980s he used to accompany the marvelous Cornish singer Brenda Wootton on some of her recordings. As you will see from his contact details, and from some of his video postings, he is also very keen on bat protection! He even records them. He's a great guitarist. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps bats and the supermoon explain the recent sublunarity. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact not. We've run a few tests and I'm sorry to tell you that your page is emitting dangerous vortex-warping mind-beams which are causing it to act as a block magnet. There is little that can safely be done at this stage, apart from perhaps moral support or possibly dry-cleaning your ethereal medium. Best wishes. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no bullshit like chakra bullshit.

You're likely correct. I haven't had my chakras (re)balanced in years. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

ah! no wonder... Just try and get this principal Chakra balanced and you'll be fine!! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy these!

Musical discussion with Dr. Blofeld

	Some handcuffs for you
	As you've been a very naughty boy I thought you might enjoy having these slopped on you during your term in solitary confinement in D-Block. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hah!

"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Ask your captors if you're permitted to watch this.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Dr. B. Barney Kessel is always a treat. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Alternative tunings and "Amazing Grace"

Repetitive open tunings

BTW, I changed the Russian 7-string's tuning from a repetitive open-C (inverted as E-G-C-E-G-C-E) to the open-E tuning E-G#-B-E-G#-B-E. It sounds much better, and my daughter and now wife are having more fun strumming. (I scratched F, G, A, B, C, D, E on the neck for a crib sheet.)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Dropped tuning

I tuned my acoustic guitar to C# drop tuning earlier, standard dropped 3 semitones with a "drop D" like base string to play Amazing Grace♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Very nice! I did my best Paul Robeson impression (okay, 2nd best, without the Stalinist pieties) and "Amazing Grace" quieted my daughter, who had had enough Swedish Midsommar. However, Mamma delivered the coup d'boob, which led to both sleeping.

You saw that I'd changed from an inverted open-C to a canonical open-E on the Russian 7-string? It sounds much better. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Fifths

Do you know a reliable source for the 5-string claim? It's plausible.

Thanks for your other edits. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You can check out bill sethares all tunings guide for a description of all-fifths tuning and other tunings. Note that he refers to it as mando-guitar tuning. It has also been called guitello tuning (for 5 strings).

For more detailed mechanics of tuning to all-fifths, d'addario's sting tension chart is useful. It provides formulas and string weights, as well as a table of tensions for varied string gauges.

From their data, one could tune a 7 string guitar to (e' a d G C F' A"#) with moderate (~13 lbs/string) tension using 9, 13, 20(or 22w), 32w, 49, 74, and 115 strings. That leaves room to tune up to g' or down to c' as a starting point. One could also tune a 7 string to (g' c' f A# D# G'# C'#), with about 15 lbs tension, using 8, 12 18(or 20w), 30w, 44, 66, and 100 gauge strings, leaving room to tune up to a' or down to e' as a starting point. 75.150.168.6 (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that such inferences involve original research or synthesis, which has been avoided per Wikipedia policies since I rewrote the articles on regular tunings. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits seem reasonable, and likely fall within the usual bounds of exposition for mathematics articles on Wikipedia. (Non-research mathematics)/"Trivial" computations and inferences are not OR, although such additions can be challenged and then be evaluated as need arises. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

{{dn}} not needed

User:Vegaswikian, please revert your addition of disambiguation-needed tags to the article "Guitar chords". "Sixth intervals" refer especially to minor and major sixths intervals. The point of the phrase "sixth interval" is that both intervals are used, and so there is no disambiguation possible, unless you create a new list of sixth intervals, like my recent List of fifth intervals. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? How is linking to a disambiguation page better then linking to a real article? If you know which article is correct, fix the link. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

re: Council for United Civil Rights Leadership

Malcom X as a reliable source on Martin Luther King, Jr.?

Hi Kiefer.Wolfowitz; I reverted your edits at Council for United Civil Rights Leadership because I do not believe you are correct that these connections are "original research".

On the topic of Malcolm X, he was a star critic of the group, and his response to them specifically in Message to the Grass Roots is well known. See this Google search if you're not convinced. (Edited to add: see particularly here, here, and here.)

On the relationship between the March, the creation of the CUCRL, and lobbying for the Civil Rights Act, the sources currently presented make the connection. As do numerous histories of the civil rights movement. These claims border on common knowledge. But also see this relatively recent article in the NYT. It's also made quite clear in David Garrow's popular history Bearing the Cross: you can read the relevant pages in the online preview version here.

Please let me know if I have misunderstood something. Peace, groupuscule (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Do what you want. Wikipedia deserves more articles based on Malcom X. I'll check whether the human evolution article is based on the teachings of the Honorable Elijah Muhammed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Haha, I think Stephen Jay Gould might be more so the Malcolm X of evolutionary biology... E. O. Wilson never put out a hit on him, though. groupuscule (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you trying to claim Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, was a critic of evolutionary biology? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought Gould might be an American independent updating of J. B. S. Haldane, with his Marxissant analyses and support of the American New Left, as well as "popular front" (baseball) writings---but perhaps the latter makes him a complementary particle to George Will? However, the good-humored courage in dealing with cancer makes Gould an update of Haldane. (His dislike of flash photography and willingness to leave the stage when flash photographed reminds me of Robert Fripp.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your subtitular question, "Malcom X as a reliable source on Martin Luther King, Jr.?", the issue is of course not whether Malcolm X is a reliable source on King and the CUCRL (no, he's too close to the issue, though his factual claims happen to be largely accurate) but whether his criticism of the CUCRL is noteworthy (yes, it is mentioned frequently and exclusively, with James Baldwin's a distant second). Aloha, groupuscule (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

My foot could easily replace his head up his ....
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your recent editing history at Wikipediocracy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC) We've had enough ridiculous complaints from administrators for this week. Can't you find something better to do, like block yourself, instead of wasting my time? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Wikipediocracy. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Who has taken control of your account? Maybe you really tried to block yourself? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC) BB23, did you really just block KW for removing unsourced contentious material? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC) His widdle pride was hurt.... *LMAO* Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: This is a ridiculous block, which has not been documented properly. Editors are free to remove unsourced material, such as a New York Brad's original research. Accept reason: Your edits on Wikipediocracy doesn't constitute edit warring so I accept to unblock you. But I must admonish you regarding your edit summary made at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipediocracy&diff=prev&oldid=561266813 which I hope I wont see again. →AzaToth 23:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Tack! Har du läst historien om denna artikel (som byggde på "allmänt känt" och var falsk)? Denna artikel handlade om en historiskt viktig organisation med ett rikt intellektuellt liv, som fick stor uppmärksamhet. I motsats härtill är Wikipedia ... Wikipedia, dvs en lekplats för Qvorty & Co. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC) I agree with the unblock (AzaToth typed faster). My comments were going to state that the history is not one of edit warring -- rather, it's one of vigorous editing involving multiple editors, not a war. Seeing the incendiary nature of comments there and here, I suggest staying away from the Wikipediocracy article for a while to avoid additional confrontations. --Orlady (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Seems to me that Bbb23 is clearly unfit to be an administrator. Eric Corbett 00:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) Not that anyone asked my opinion, but none of the other editors came close to the number of reverts Kiefer had (seven on June 22 and June 23, and three on June 23 alone). I believe the most any of the other editors had was two. I also warned Kiefer before I blocked him, and he obviously didn't care about warnings given the messages he left on my talk page. "Vigorous editing" can be avoided by continuing discussions on the talk page without battling in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC) A bot could simply count, is that what you are, a bot? Eric Corbett 00:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Nobody cares about your opinion, Bbb23, because you are behaving incompetently. I dismissed your idiotic warning because it had no basis in policy and was disruptive. Please block yourself for 24 hours for disrupting Wikipedia, unless you truly are a hypocrite rather than just having a temporary leave of your senses. You blocked me i.a. for re-inserting a hyphen into a phrase that needed a hyphen. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Insert generic warning section header {{insert passive-agressive "suggestion" to be more obsequious in tone}} {{insert signature of random admin nosing into others' business}} Other people were doing it, and it looked like fun, so I joined in. Tremblingly submit and obey! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC) The behavior of editors on wikipedia is admins business. If editors are behaving uncivil then they might have to be blocked so it doesn't disrupt the wikipedia. Admins are not nosing in others' business, they are just doing their job. →AzaToth 15:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Or, more accurately: the behavior of editors on wikipedia is serious business, and we must all conduct ourselves with the utmost importance and sobriety at all times. Jokes, amusements, and various merriment are abolished and will not be tolerated. Grrrr! that is to say: dude, that was a joke. Why so serious? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC) AzaToth, you may wish to review the civility pillar and WP:Block. Consider copy editing your "uncivil[ly]", "it [their incivility]", "the wikipedia [Wikipedia]", and the comma splice in "business, [;] they" and then delete this sentence, with my blessings. Do you read Swedish? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent wisdom

from User:Giano at AN or ANI

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.

---

• Admins, Checkusers (and Arbs too for that matter) have been ignoring all rules and hindering ordinary writing editors for as long as Wikipedia has been invented. Nothing is going to change because most of those who put themselves up for these lofty positions are little more than tin gods with a frustrated lust for power in real life, Wikipedia provides them with the powers and platforms which real life so very wisely denies them. Only Arbs and Admins can change this situation, and they are not going to admit their all too apparent inadequacies by changing anything. Accept that, and Wikipedia becomes a lot easier.  Giano  12:29, 28 June 2013 (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.

Would you like a knighthood?

Dubbed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You can have one if you want. ★★RetroLord★★ Thanks! It's best to focus on the quality of articles, preserving quality and improving quality. Requiring parental consent, to be periodically renewed, for minor "editors" and banning editing by those 13 and younger (regardless of parental consent), would ensure that WP complies with child protection laws in the USA, and would raise the signal/noise ratio. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC) cries* ★★RetroLord★★ 03:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Oh, I'm so sorry. Have I just "driven away" another "new editor"—the latest addition to the long list of editors driven away from encyclopedia-building according to the latest administrator wannabe. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Knighthood granted. ★★RetroLord★★ 05:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

RfA questions

For posterity ...:

4. Question from Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Do 248 responses of "Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad" set a good tone for the evaluation of RfA candidates. Why or why not?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

C.A. Peñarol GA Reassessment

I wanted to let you know I revised the article and copy-pasted the text to Word so as to check any typos and spanish words that could have remained. I corrected every mistake I saw. I reckon its prose is good enough to be GA, though I think those mistakes had to be corrected. I have also taken away unnecessary flag icons. I've replied saying this same thing, in Talk:C.A. Peñarol/GA2, but just wanted to make sure to inform you.—Nuno93 (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind notice, Nuno93. :)

You and other editors obviously put a lot of work into the article, which does display a lot of references.

Your strategy of using the grammar and spell checker of Microsoft Office's Word is a good idea, which I should also use. All of us have trouble catching duplicates (e.g., "the the", especially at ends of lines). :)

May I make a suggestion for the medium-term, please? Consider reading George Orwell or Dwight MacDonald or Voltaire or Schopenhauer or other other great prose-stylists for at least six months, under whose influence you should revise one paragraph at a time in whatever article interests you.

Then it might be useful to read a guide to English usage---like Fowler's or Strunk & White---and try applying each heuristic to your favorite article. For example, rewrite every sentence in the active voice, paragraph by paragraph, and then revise each for continuity of flow. (For example, for continuity of flow, the passive voice is often useful for linking old information to new information.)

The language maven William Safire wrote a column about his grand-daughter's writing and the fault-finding of Microsoft Word's grammar checker, which you might enjoy reading. Beyond mathematicians, general writers could consider reading George Piranian's "Write it Better" and Paul Halmos's "Say it Gooder".

Kind regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Friendly advice

If you are actually accomplishing something, I find it pretty easy to tolerate poking people a bit with a sharp stick. Poking just for the sake of poking, however, it isn't productive. I don't claim to know your motives (for anything) but I just fail to see what good with come of that discussion. Putting my admin bit to the side and speaking solely as a fellow editor with a love of all things guitar, you might consider dropping the stick. Nothing good will come by continuing it, you know this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Dennis,

TRM has not retracted his NPA violations, yet he continues to pontificate at RfA in his role as a bureaucrat. Perhaps he does good elsewhere, much as the Borgia Popes had their good sides...? The simple solution would be for TRM to write "I'll go and remove any falsehoods I wrote in ignorance, and I'll try not to make false accusations in the future".

Instead, he is stone-walling, leaving lies standing.

Until you deal with TRM's WP:NPA violations, please don't bother offering even cliche-laden political advice.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Kiefer, you know as well as anyone that I have approached TRM at WP:BN, and I approached him at that very discussion before approaching you, so to most people it would seem obvious I haven't carved out a "side" and just trying to keep the peace. If that isn't obvious to you, then the flaw is your own. Sorry that you see my sincere expression as political or cliche-laden. Obviously, my assistance is unwanted, so I will just unwatch and move on. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

For how can you compete,
Being honour bred, with one
Who, were it proved he lies,
Were neither shamed in his own
Nor in his neighbours’ eyes?

— William Butler Yeats, To A Friend Whose Work Has Come To Nothing

Dennis,

I thank you for being impartial and principled.

I would prefer that problems are resolved rather than denied. I would prefer that lies and injustices are challenged, even if "peace" be disturbed.

In this case, TRM's malicious and unwarranted accusations of my sockpuppetry and of my having driven-away editors remain as falsehoods standing on Wikipedia, monuments to the failure of administrators normally so full of do-good advice on civility—New York Brad, BWilkins, Brown-Dent, et alia—to require (or even ask) that a fellow administrator abide by WP:NPA, and strike falsehoods.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"Scion of the Wolfowitz family"

Comment on AN/I Discussion

Dear Kiefer Wolfowitz: Thank you for responding as you did, in a very gentle manner, in this AN/I discussion If it is not against Wikipedia rules, I would very much like to invite your father to speak with me on the telephone. My phone number can easily be found on the Internet and I would welcome the opportunity to have a discussion with him. Thank you again, Factor-ies (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, shucks.

Gentleness is second nature to yours truly, 09:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC) KW

Manufacturing?

I thought Toyota manufactured the scion. What is the Wolfowitz connection? – S. Rich (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC) (Note, this comment was intended as a friendly remark, referring to another TP edit that KW had made. It has nothing to do with the section above.)01:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please consult a dictionary. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

RE: Demiwit

Sorry I don't really read the talk page as often since that big yellow banner is no longer shown when you get messages. But in regards to yours, I'd ignore it. People here would rather resort to ad hominem attacks than debate and, more importantly, add content. Not worth fretting about their attempts to turn this to the stereotypical local council. (not to say I disavow local government, sometimes its very good.)(Lihaas (talk) 09:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)).

Yup. (I am not allowed to discuss the right honourable editor on Wikipedia.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Come on Baby, Light My Fire!

It seems that User:KWW has forgotten to leave a block notice, with diff(s) and an explanation of why he thinks Ironholds / OKeyes (WMF)'s IRC suggestion of burning me alive (on Wikipedia's IRC channel)

#wikipedia-en-admins on 26 June:

01:15 < Ironholds> TParis: oh, sod off. Kiefer needs his rubdown.

01:15 < TParis> Well, you grab the oil, I'll meet you there.

01:17 < Ironholds> only if I'm allowed to bring a lighter.

is hunkey dorey, particularly for WMF employee and Wikipedia administrator Oliver Keyes. Does WMF Director Sue Gardner know about Ironholds's use of WMF's Wikipedia channels (IRC)? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You are perfectly capable of appealing a block without a templated message, Kiefer. Given that this is your seventh block this year, you've got practice. If the log is accurate, Ironholds made a tasteless joke on IRC. You, however, made direct threats on Wikipedia. Neither behaviour is good, but only one appears blockable. If somebody with the ability to investigate the accuracy of the IRC log chooses to block Ironholds over it, I won't protest.—Kww(talk) 00:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to admire yourself in your mirror.

Perhaps somebody who speaks English could help you understand the semantics of "X is welcome to Y". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Kww mischaracterized my edit (quoted at Wikipediocracy) as "making a direct threat", which just is another indication of his limited English. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm the logs are accurate, but the where not made in a public channel on freenode (was made in #wikipedia-en-admins, a.k.a. the evil admin cabal channel). I'm not tempted to unblock, as the remark made by Kiefer is way much worse than the private discussion on freenode. _→AzaToth 00:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please reflect on my previous comment. I don't think you understand what I wrote. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of 3-month block

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.

---

Kiefer

Is that a good block, if that IRC log is accurate? Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If I presume the IRC log is accurate, Kiefer's response is still over the top. At worst, the IRC log is a tasteless joke between two people about a third whom they dislike. Kiefer's is a direct physical threat combined with a direct insult.—Kww(talk) 23:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, but could it not be argued that Kiefer's reply is merely a threat of violence in reply to one? Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It could certainly be argued. He can try to persuade the community that that's the case, but I don't buy it.—Kww(talk) 00:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer's is a direct physical threat combined with a direct insult - gee, the way I see it, Kiefer's response was a fully normal response, though a bit of a tasteless joke, to what appears to be either a) threats of physical violence and insults, or possibly b) two sneaky admins conniving in how to get Kiefer in trouble. Have you had contact with them?

Regardless. This needs to be reviewed at ANI. And I this must be like the twentieth time in recent history where I am simply amazed that you are allowed anywhere the block button Kww, or the other admin tools for that matter. Too bad we don't desysop for outright and obvious stupidity.Volunteer Marek 00:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw no reason that such an obvious block required community discussion, Marek. It never ceases to amaze me how little self-control people here have when it comes to communication.—Kww(talk) 00:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the fact that you "saw no reason" is exactly part of the problem here. It never ceases to amaze me how little self-control or even reflection some admins have when strutting around with their block button. Pretty clear indication they shouldn't have them in the first place.Volunteer Marek 00:31, 5 July 2013 (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.

I have unblocked. Yes, Kiefer Wolfowitz's comment was unacceptable on its own, and repetition of this or similar comments, even when provoked, should result in new blocks. But considering the circumstances, with a functionary making an extremely inappropriate "joke" (if one can call it that) on a channel where Kiefer Wolfowitz has no means to respond, a "tit-for-tat" response, while very ill-considered, is also understandable. The fact that thus far, Kiefer Wolfowitz has received a 3 month block while User:Ironholds hasn't even received a warning (even if his remark was technically, wiki-lawyerishly off-wiki, it is still a location where he acts in function, not some off-wiki personal discussion), is a guarantee that this block will not have the desired effect at all, and will only increase the feelings of unequal treatment of admins (or other functionaries) vs. non-admins.

Kiefer Wolfowitz, please, if something like this happens again, don't lash out, just go to some noticeboard and make a calm and civil complaint there. That will at least have a chance that the result will be the reverse of what happened now. Fram (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

I wrote a brief note on your talk page, Fram, the contents of which I won't repeat here.

Editors with more interest in IRC regularly report (at Wikipediocracy) similar inanities by the same editors, most of which I ignore, even when I happen to read the synopses. Life is too short.

There are even more problems at IRC which the WMF needs to address. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Some admins seem to be employing the "Las Vegas method" when it comes to use of the block button - a giant roullete wheel where the ball can bounce into any of the "block duration" slots. Black for TalkPage access, red for none. Or am I being hopelessly naive and simplistic here? Maybe it's a prolonged game of blackjack with several sets of crooked decks? Whatever, sometimes consistency seems to be sadly a little lacking, and it's hard to know how to react? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Prudence has been in short supply, the last days, for most parties. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed... "Lennon said later that "She'd been locked in for three weeks and was trying to reach God quicker than anyone else." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

:Fram,

Would you please consider fixing ScottyWong's indefinite block of Eric? Scotty's past history with Malleus and WP policy against requesting blocks suggest that he should not be the one to indefinitely block Eric.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Floquenbeam, bless his soul, restored the remaining 29 days. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom filing notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Offsite comments and personal attacks and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You

Are open, honest, refreshingly direct, very funny, and crucially, consistent. They are trying to grind you down. Stick to your guns. Ceoil (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! When I was recently blocked for i.a. welcoming a gentle editor to pick up his teeth, I thought of your being blocked for threatening to jump through a computer screen, a la Tron. I've always liked that chivalric bit from The Crying Game, and the "It's in my nature" ending....

Well, I'll have to do until writers form a WikiProject Go fuck yourself!

(C.f., the Undersecretary for GFY)

Warm regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still amazed I got away with that, revealing my special internet/screen powers. Could happen any day now, if the wrong person put a 'the' in the wrong place. I'm a force to be reckoned with. Tremble fools. PS Block record or not, I'd still prefer to be the one that told it straight, and not behind a back. Ceoil (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that fall under a task force of WP:WikiProject Pornography? WP:WikiProject Pornography/Masturbation work group. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Kiefer, I don't particularly want to join the IRC/Arsten discussion just to ask you a couple of questions, so coming here seemed easier and more direct. Do you have anything to back up your assertions that the median age of editors is 17 and that "many editors have neurological or social disabilities"? The second asssertion is a bit vaguer (what does "many" mean and how do we define neurological and social disabilities), but I'd still like to know what you base the claims on. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think 17 years old was from a survey of WP users, which was described in the weekly newszine.

"Many" was purposely vague. Regarding neurological disorders, many editors have identified themselves as suffering from Aspberger's syndrome, autism, and bipolar (manic depression) disorders; presumably others also suffer from (adult) ad(h)d.

I don't have time to respond for the next hours. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

No rush. When you have time, if you could identify the newszine and maybe the date? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I looked briefly and found a survey that had a census with only 30% response. It found 13% of editors were aged 13-18. The census threw out responses by children 12 and under (and adults 82 and older), without stating the numbers thrown out. (It also confused editors with accounts.) I updated my remarks. Thanks for the question. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it and, particularly, thanks for the source of the survey (which led me to a Wikimedia table online). You've probably read the report more carefully than I have, but I couldn't find the 30% response figure in there. It's also important to bear in mind that the survey was taken across all Wikipedias, not just the English one. Anyway, it looks like the biggest group, based on how they sectored it, is the 40+ crowd, but the average age is 32. Based on my own virtual observations, which don't count for much, that sounds about right here. And my observations sometimes include how old someone says they are, but the rest of the time are based purely on what editors say and how they say it. Anyway, I often say more than others want to hear, so I'll stop. It was nice having a friendly chat with you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I typically am a friendly fellow, and even in my wrath at your block I mentioned that you were normally a good administrator. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your statement

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello Kiefer. As you might know, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement as soon as you can. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 21:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC) I reduced my statement below 500 words. Thanks for your message, reminding me of my duty. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC) No problem. Since Hahc has recused from the case now consider his post issued by me. That's why he had reverted his removal of it. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC) You've seen that I removed the humorous section and shortened the rest? You were told to hide the section on IRC canvassing in the discussion of my ANI discussion? Did Worm That Turn participate in the "instructions" or did he recuse? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC) The specific instructions were to "please hat and collapse the section entitled "IRC's corruption:A liability" and retitle it to "IRC". Please also warn Kiefer that he has gone well past the word limit." Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Answer the question, which I repeat: did WTT recuse? Who authorized it? Was it a committee instruction? Why are you clerking despite already having participated as a community member? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC) The instruction was given by an individual Committee member who has not recused, as is standard practice. No Arbitrator, including myself, has objected. WTT has not commented in any related thread. NW (Talk) 22:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC) I am still clerking because clerks are allowed to participate in arbitration cases as members of the community (with some exceptions). See WP:AC/C#Recusal for more information. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Hey KW. Just to be clear, I've been away from Wikipedia for the weekend, I've given no private instructions to clerks on the matter at all. I am recused on the incident in question, just as I am recused on any Arbcom requests related to you, I'm sure I stated that a long time ago. Because I've not participated, the committee couldn't say if I'd recused or not. I have commented on the more general issue of IRC, you can see my comment at the the case page. I hope that answers your questions with respect to myself. WormTT(talk) 10:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Salvio's statement on the page.

I don't want to add more text, given the previous complaints. I plan to see which members of the WMF Board have accounts on English Wikipedia, and also alert them of the IRC discussion, as I did with Wales and Gardner. I am uncertain about the liability of Arbcom members in cases of misfeasance or malfeasance. My experience of non-profit boards in other states leads me to believe that individual board members are individually liable in such cases. I would not want to be liable for failing to implement the steps of the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts on child protection, with years of notices that there were problems on Wikipedia. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with US law in this field, so this is not a particularly educated response, but anyway here goes. ArbCom has no *direct* control over IRC; as far as I'm concerned, I think we may sanction people on-wiki owing to their conduct on IRC, but, even assuming ArbCom as a body agrees with me, we still lack the ability to ban people from the channel or to close the channel (assuming for the sake of the argument that we would ever decide to close it). So I don't think we could be held accountable for what goes on in there.

Then again, I feel I'm the wrong person to discuss the issue, because I have already made abundantly clear to my fellow arbs that I will never get involved in child protection issues because of liability concerns and general qualms (we are a bunch of dedicated people who try to do what's best for the encyclopaedia, but we lack both proper training and resources to deal with such investigations). My only involvement in the topic area has been to push for the foundation to take over. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your writing and the substance of your statement, here, on top of your clear and principled statement at the case.

ArbCom, even in declining the case, could state

"We repeat our concern about child protection, which is a problem even with our existing policy and our lack of time and training to handle such cases ourselves. Moreover, we are disturbed by on-Wiki and off-Wiki behavior consistent with profiles of child predators that is allowed by current Wikipedia/WMF policy. Such behavior, even if innocent, must immediately stop. We urge the community and WMF to adopt child-protection policies similar to those of the Scouts. Such policies would allow the WMF to remove editors contacting minors against their parents' wishes and informing minors of visits to their towns.

A similar statement on IRC could be made, perhaps using suggestions I made. `

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer, I'm sure I'm reading "we are disturbed by on-Wiki and off-Wiki behavior consistent with profiles of child predators that is allowed by current Wikipedia/WMF policy" wrong, but if you have any information about accounts engaging such activity occurring you should immediately send such information to the committee, rather than just try and get the child protection policy strengthened. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 11:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

According to current policy, adults may not solicit information. However, if a minor may have volunteered the information of their location, email, IMs, etc., there does not seem to be a clear requirement that the adult (1) send a copy of the hazardous communication (with identifying information redacted) to arbcom/oversight (which is required by the Scout policy), (2) warn the child not to send such information, with a warning that a repeat of this behavior would result in a blocking. Thus, child protection policy does not prohibit actions like I described, as far as I can see.

The existing policy and common sense should combine to prohibit such actions, but common sense is in short supply.

WMF should audit the emails of the user and the children involved, and see whether its policies (weak as they are) have been violated.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom regularly delete edits that include identifying information of likely minor editors and have on occasion blocked said editors who persisted in posting their personal details (in addition to blocking accounts that could be engaged in grooming.) What you are describing and excoriating us for not doing is regularly practiced. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote. The policy does not directly prohibit a minor sending contact or residence information to an adult via email. There does not seem to be a policy prohibiting an adult from using such information, even on wiki, as I have described. Please direct WMF to audit the emailsto see whether the information was volunteered or solicited, following up with emails to the most concerning children and a random sample of the other emails to children. (WMF has recipients but not content of emails. See hatted discussion below. 23:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC))

Please change the policy to remove an apparent policy loophole which would allow adults to contact minors privately, in the case where the minor volunteered the contact information. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Email via WMF
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What would make you think the WMF has access to people's email accounts? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC) I intended "email sent by the account throughWikipedia/WMF". A gentle, non-alarming request for permission to examine related emails and IMs of minors (those flagged for suspicious approaches and a reasonable random sample of the others) sent to the minors' parents via the minor should also be made. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC) I assume you are aware of recent concerns about your community-development staff and IRC. Let us leave aside those concerns. Apart from your department, there are still problems with sexual banter in children in IRC discussions like this. Such discussions are common enough that any reasonable person should be concerned about further problems with chatrooms and email contacts as well as WMF-affiliated events (meet ups, Wikimania). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC) I assure you, the WMF keeps no copies of the emails that are sent through Wikimail. We couldn't audit those if we wanted to. I know that you are aware that the WMF exercises no authority to police servers owned by another company, so we are not in a position to police freenode. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC) WMF logs the dates and recipients of emails, which suffices to send requests to the parties. WMF's CIA/NSA liason can help with the examination of the information. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC) LOL - I suppose it would do no good to assure you that we have no such liaison to CIA or NSA? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

IRC: Corruption and liability

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.

---

Canvassing blocks

Administrator Nick reported that "on IRC ... administrators (are) being harassed over the refusal to revision delete KW's initial comment ... and there has been various attempts to influence various people to vote for an indefinite block. Nobody has named the administrators who were organizing this campaign. Worse, no administrator declared that they had read about my blocking discussion at IRC. Nobody has asserted that this stealth canvassing was isolated.

• To provide transparency and accountability, chat rooms should be prohibited.

• Administrators found canvassing should be desysopped; administrators participating in chats with canvassing and other unethical behavior should be admonished (and desysopped after a repeated failure to report unethical behavior).

How surprising that all of ArbCom want this section hidden.

Child safety

For Wikipedia editors, the percentage of 12-17 year olds was guesstimated to be 13%; regardless of age, many editors have neurological disorders or social impairments.

Despite the high participation of vulnerable editors, WMF and English Wikipedia lack serious standards for child-protection; in particular, neither complies with the minimum requirements of the United States Child Online Privacy and Protection Act (COPPA) and the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which ban participation at social-networking sites by children under 13 and require parental approval for other children. Neither organization meets the benchmark set by the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts.

• WMF and Wikipedia's should require training and adherence to internet-safety rules by its staff and volunteer leadership (participants in educational programs, Tea House, "Adoption Schools", IRC access, etc.). In particular, leadership roles should be limited to adults (or possibly include children 13 and over who have received permission from their parents) who have completed and agreed to adhere to safety guidelines. In particular, on IRC, private chats are grossly inappropriate when many participants are minors; such contacts violate the 2-adults present rule of Boy/Girl Scouts.

ArbCom has already communicated to Sue Gardner its concern about being overwhelmed with c. 20 cases of child protection each year. And these are cases more severe than cases that have been ignored, because of the toothless child-protection policy of Wikipedia:

1. An editor tells a boy when he will visit his town.
2. An editor tells a boy how to get around his parents' efforts to stop him emailing, and continues emailing and IMing the boy, despite the boy's objections.

Such editors' on-Wiki actions violate the child-protection codes of the Scouts and other responsible organizations, but not WMF and Wikipedia. What happens on WMF/Wikipedia's IRC, particularly in WMF/WP IRC chat-rooms?

Do ArbCom members agree to pay for civil and criminal legal-costs related to IRC from their own pockets, and so agree to refuse WMF funds or legal council?

AUSC

If my memory is correct, all the AUSC "community members" (and even runner-up TParis) are regular IRC participants, and I have trouble recalling any time where AUSC members tried to raise standards. Indeed Guerrillo's response to Tim Riley's question about using bots to mass-create articles was worse than Slughorn's answer to Tom Riddle's question about Horcruxes.

IRC has a disproportionate influence on ArbCom.

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.

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

• Op-ed: It's time to stop pretending the English-language Wikinews is a viable project

• WikiProject report: Not Jimbo: WikiProject Wales

• Traffic report: Inflated view counts here, there, and everywhere

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation Board appoints world expert in women's issues, global south

• Dispatches: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look?

• Featured content: The week of the birds

• Discussion report: Featured article process governance, signature templates, and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

So far, this looks as irregular as your harassment of Eric Corbett/Malleus Fatuorum; I won't condescend to dignify another case of ArbCom running amok with my participation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comments on the Evidence talk page

Kiefer, there is no need for comments like this, it is an allegation against a non-party and so is not permitted on case pages. If you continue to breach the requirments listed in the notice I will restrict your participation in the case and/or you may be blocked. If you comply with the conditions listed in the notice there won't be a problem. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Callanecc,

You are letting stand a BLP violation against Sarah Palin made by Kurtis, who btw confused Palin's role with McCain's (in my comparison).

Glad that you have your priorities straight.

Have you asked Nuclear Winter why he has not recused, despite having nominated Keyes ( Ironholds / Okeyes (WMF) ) for his last failed RfA?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Assuming I'm looking at the same thing you are, I'm not 100% convinced that it is a much a clear cut BLP violation as you say it is. Kurtis is using that (which with one reading could be seen as personal opinion and summation) to advance his evidence. If you feel that there is a clear cut BLP violation post a section on the evidence talk page or email the clerks mailing list stating exactly what you think is a BLP violation and why.

Regarding User:NuclearWarfare, that is a question for him or failing that for the Committee at large, not for me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"advance his evidence", are you joking? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

No I'm not, Kurtis is using that to make the point in the next sentence. In any case it's not my job to analyse evidence. If you have an issue with the BLP do what I said above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being irritated by Kurtis's being confused by my example of John McCain's choice of Palin as making him less qualified to be President, according Colin Powell. That is, a bad choice reflected poorly on McCain. That Kurtis twisted things around and added gratuitous insults against Sarah Palin should be no surprise, given what we see from Wikipedia's "community" staff and ArbCom's support of Qworty. This is a misogynist place. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

IRC is off wiki, but then...

...why is it linked to from Wikipedia space and participation used for RFA worthiness? More Kirk, less Spock.

And actually the "seekret" admin IRC (not linked any more because of past scandals, but very frequented) is even spookier than giving something sanction.

TCO (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, and not that you give a shit what I think. But, I think you are busting IH's chops too much. I would just bury the hatchet and put him on your ignore list (this forum has one, right?)

He's got some strange behaviors at times, but he's not that different from you or me in some ways. Writes content. Let's it lose verbally. And it was actually pretty deft to think of the lighter remark that fast.

Just make sure you are not playing the victim too hard. People do that a lot here.

TCO (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi @TCO:

Did you see the quote about using a pen to put a hole in the windpipe of a woman to prolong the suffering of her murder?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And I didn't take it seriously. I have no wish to protect him and have sparred with him, so if I were just a Wiki game player who wants to manipulate the moderation system to get foes vanquished would just be happy someone was getting fucket at Arbcom (or even losing his job). And I knew you would not agree with me...but it's my Bayesian gestalt. Feel free to preserve your opinion on the remarks, I know you are pretty different than me. Just make sure some time to step back and think meta. (You can still feel same on IH, just want the split-second self-reflection in addition [this is not an x-y equation, it's more like third semester calc with z's and w's). 21:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be a total meddling diplomat and post on both of y'all's pages that I think you should each apologize (directly and unreservedly), that you should avoid each other, and that you each write good stuff. TCO (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)