User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Labor donated

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

You rang

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Drmies chronicles The Doctor on Star Trek: Voyager and somebody on the Stargate franchise? ...but I was on the other line, a couple of 'em. You're unblocked now, I saw a few days ago; good. I'm sorry you were blocked in the first place. Much discussion has passed me by in the last few weeks since it's been a busy time. In other news, baby Liam can stand for ten Mississippis, and he enjoyed being in the sea this past weekend. All the best Kiefer. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Hi Drmies! Ours has been sliding sideways along sofas, beds, and tables---perhaps under the influence of too many action movies like The Matrix. We are watching to prevent her trying the ledge outside. :) There's also been babbling, biting, the usual yellow little shits, crying when up past the bedtime. I forget whether I'm writing of my baby or of contemporary WP. ;) April is the cruellest month, but May is the fool'est month. This exchange at DB's may interest you, particularly the risk of dislocating a shoulder by patting oneself on the back. (N.B. the quote from Dwight MacDonald, whose book is highly amusing. He has Sir Thopas and Skeat's parody of Chaucer.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC) My shoulder is completely fucked and will require surgery. It's not from patting on the back: I blame the dog, years ago, who used to pull on the leash, and a summer's worth of vacuuming the green pool every day (pictures somewhere in my talk page archive). Thanks Kiefer, Drmies (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Repetitive motion stress disorders concern many editors. I have ... a friend ... with a similar problem, called by the Greeks malakos, I think. The patting on the back was weird because you were involved with the resolution of the userbox problem, by discussion rather than ... baiting. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Drmies? Actually, I love your pictures, especially your "man boobs" (as my niece calls them) or "chiselled pects worthy of Adonis"---much more natural than those of that Simon fellow destroying music. I loved your work as the Doctor on Star Trek:Voyager, really a multicultural model community; you are likely to be pegged for "diversity committee" purgatory the rest of your days, even without your gender-bending interests. Then also your work on the Stargate franchise. And your appearance on season one of Justified (as the Hitler-painting hunter). It took a while before I really recognized you, because you often use a toupee in other roles. I loved your "I will not enable you!" line in Sopranos, and of course I understand now why you were able also to pursue graduate work in literature. Being squeamish and delicate, I avoided watch your recent film, where you gnawed your arm off---to get out of that landslide. But, such devotion to your part! No wonder that your shoulder aches! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC) 11:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks. What I enjoy most is when my wife and I watch me on the Colbert Report. As for your "friend", it's my left arm. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC) In place of a taser or chains Perhaps you need to construct one of these devices. [2] (if that doesn't trigger a paternal response, nothing will) Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Ha! I think that every parent has considered that option. :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Art for Art's sake The Physical Impossibility of Phil Manzanera Playing in the Mind of Someone Listening? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC) That was an interesting article. The more I read about the commercialism and gutter Maoism of contemporary art, the more I am repelled. Today, one hopes that an artist would photoshop a shark rather than kill one for a monstrous artwork. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, in the "olden days" sculptors would be expected to actually sculpt the animal they wished to depict. I guess a modern equivalent might be to produce a hologram, although I suspect a dead specimen might still be required for that. I find Hirst's work superficially interesting, but ultimately derivative and unsatisfying. That particular work, like his monstrous cow and calf, were inspired by the large work of real sculptor Henry Moore parts of which one can walk between. I even prefer Banksy to Hirst... and I don't even work for a local authority cleaning contractor... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC) ((Talk page stalker stalker)) If artists are supposed to reflect the age they live in, then we fully deserve the ironic superficiality provided by that money-grubbing billionaire Hirst. I do have some respect for the guy though, as he prevented a drunken Keith Allen from decking me once. -- Anthony Blunt I neglected to applaud your TPS S link. Oh, the pain of George Smiley and his artist wife. I shall have to re-read The Spy Who Came In From The Cold, with Messrs. Bowie, Eno, and Fripp providing prefigurative pathos. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Correction: The excellent BBC documentary "Five Years" states that the 2nd verse was inspired by the producer's snogging outside the window from which Bowie peaked. Fripp appears as Deux axe machina. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Heh heh. It's all Evanses fault. I recommend A Perfect Spy, a semi-autobiographical tour de france from le Carre. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 20:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you, Your Grace. I have to read more Gaiman, Stephenson, Elmore Leonard, Zelazny, and Martin before returning to le Carre's cheerful tales of buggers, testicle crunching and being machine gunned. I did learn the name of frisea from The Night Manager, which may be the anti-particle to the hateful petulie. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Have to admit the last sentence left me floundering. Perhaps a bogon meats cluon annihilation situation? Zelazny I find impenetrable hippy nonsense, much better are the early Red Dwarf books, the more sci-fi I read, the more I think "you cheeky buggers you've ripped that off from x" -- Hillbillyholiday talk 20:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Remember this? -- Hillbillyholiday talk 21:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Frisea (perhaps misspelled) is a flower used in fragrances. Petulie is the noxious hippie scent, even worse than the Axe body spray that has been documented in at least one case of a teacher being hospitalized from anaphylactic shock. You should read the Amber series, which has a riff on the Three Stooges's "slowly he turned, step by step", etc. "This Immortal" is good, but his best is likely "Lord of Light", from which the first paragraph His followers called him Mahasamatman and said he was a god. He preferred to drop the Maha- and the -atman, however, and called himself Sam. He never claimed to be a god, but then he never claimed not to be a god. rivals the first paragraph of David Lodge's Small World according to horselaughometry. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Couldn't get on with Lord of Light, just dug my spider-covered copy off the shelf, that opening sentence reads like something out of Spinal Tap! I did chuckle, not sure if it was a horse laugh though. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 21:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Ahh, right, my mistake. Was looking above that para, at this bit from the Dhammapada: It is said that fifty-three years after his liberation he returned from the Golden Cloud, to take up once again the gauntlet of Heaven, to oppose the Order of Life and the gods who ordained it so. Gorseinon's finest!!? .. watch out for that Rinka tatoo ....liberal dog-lover "Rinka tatoo".... Isn't that from the goodnight song by The Schnoz? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC) No, it Inka Dinka Don't! lol Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC) "If you are wise you'll listen to me" Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Future RfAs "There's also been babbling, biting, the usual yellow little shits, crying when up past the bedtime." - so when's her RFA then? ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Unless the family converts to Buddhism or Quakerism, our daughter will be unlikely to develop the Cavalier charms predictive of success at RfAs. She probably will be lucky to get most of her smarts from her mother, and that would be an even bigger handicap! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Hehe :-) Do enjoy these days, tough though they may be at times - my wife's getting into it all over again with grandmother duties now, and loving every minute. Very best -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC) As I mentioned previously, my little Angel is almost 10 now - I'm going to have to prep her for RFA before she gets just too old, I think. Like you, though, I worry she may be too smart. Nice to see you back amongst the undeadbanned. Begoon talk 13:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC) After an hour of screaming, I have sometimes considered that it would be easier to be a grandparent! My grandparent friends always look well rested and happy. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Foundation, 2nd foundation, and empire

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Gotta ask, how does Asimov feature on Wikipediocracy? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Frankly, the edit-description "The Foundation was not mentioned" was too dull for me. :) Wikipedia's mission (Pillars I-IV) is similar to the First Foundation. The Blocking Heads are similar to the Mule, although without his Adonis-like physique and sparkling personality. Perhaps Wikipediocracy can reflect hopes for a Second Foundation?  :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC) I thank you, first time today I have laughed, and you did that in it a very good way, I must agree of course on those blocking being like the mule, I believe Maunus mentioned it recently on ANI. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Maunus is honest, and hence doomed. I forget whether I have been blocked for using "unctuous", or whether I edited it away before pressing "save". I did use "those of who were not raised from birth to be catamites" when I was young and full of fire. "Catamite" is a better phrase than "eunuch", by half imho. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC) I disagree with the blocking. Maunus was behaving correctly. He removed his personal attack, showing understanding, before he was blocked. It would have been superfluous to warn him, even, given his having fixed the PA. People at ANI must decide whether WP is in the business of writing an encyclopedia or whether we are hosting Barnie's Friends. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC) I think that decision was made some time ago. Intothatdarkness 20:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

David Russell

See 2:35 [3], 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!! [4] Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 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. 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)

Hive of knuckle-dragging malice

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yo Kenard, you tell it like it be I was not raised to be a coward or equivocator. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC) The same could be said about Volunteer Marek :) Some words of wisdom Hillbillyholiday talk 09:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Please do not abuse edit summaries in this fashion. That goes for AutomaticStrikeout as well. Thanks. — Scott • talk 22:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Your "do not" goes first to AS, who has acknowledged (thank you) his error. AS had left an edit summary suggesting that ... (appropriate caveats and wishy-washy phrases) ... I had inserted a pro-drugs image. How would you have corrected that error, which jeopardizes my security clearance and future employment as a Max von Sydow 3 Days of the Condor Swedish doer of dirty deeds..., e.g., on behalf of the Greek government? How would you? Seriously.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've lost track of how many reverts you have made to this article in the past 24 hours, not to mention WP:OWNership issues. This needs to stop. Now. Otherwise you will probably find yourself at AN/EW. - MrX 14:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Take it to ANI if you want. My quality and NPOV edits speak for themselves, as has my record of seeking consensus on the talk page. Please review WP:Ownership, which you seem to misunderstand. You also need to review WP:Lede, given your moving the (reasonable) primary-source backed information about ownership from the bottom to the Lede.Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 18:57, 25 May 2013 You failed to mention that others had previously criticized Demiurge1000's POV-pushing tendentious edits, and that you just "apologized" for your bad edit(s). You also failed to mention that others had reviewed my edits and thought they were fine. Do you make a habit of such "apologies"? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Now, now, you have to admit at least that you were using your "prowess" to act as a gatekeeper. That, in any case, is hard to forgive...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC) I don't understand your comment. I write articles based on reliable sources. On anything controversial or where I'm not an expert, I give in line citations; in statistics, I mention a reference with a good treatment of the material that I read perhaps years ago. For the Wikipediocracy article, I just copy-edited and tried to make the article interesting, using sources already cited. I discussed things with one fellow, and met him more than half way. I found a better image than the one in the published article. Some rhetorical questions: Where has the talk page failed to support me? Where have I disallowed a reasonable edit? And I get dragged off to WP:AN/EW by somebody who would rather spend time referencing a one-sided complaint, as Bbb23 and Drmies pointed out, than improve the article (by e.g. finding a better image). Alas, similar editors (often administrator nominees) are common these days. (C.f. NewYorkBrad's comment on editing....) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Sorry, it was meant to be a joke, since I found the accusation against you of using "prowess" to be surreal. Of course one uses one's prowess. Is one to hide one's light under a bushel? I just couldn't believe that a report was made against an editor for using prowess while editing. Sorry if my joke was unclear. You're doing fabulous work, prowess and all!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Okay, no problem. :) The frequent accusation that I am writing with a point (linked to WP:Point) rivals the "prowess" accusation's self-parodic absurdity. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC) LOL -- Hillbillyholiday talk 14:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Trots are much more likely to comply with their prescribed treatments and less likely to rant than some editors here. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Oh, we knew it for a fact. Pravda said it; we all read it, before the Stalin-Hitler Pact -- Hillbillyholiday talk 15:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Apologies Kiefer, I want to apologize if I have added more heat than light to the editing flurry at Wikipediocracy. At least two respected admins disagreed with my AN/EW report, which suggests that my judgement was flawed. It was not my intention to create more drama. I hope that we can move past this without any hard feelings. Best wishes - MrX 19:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Corrections needed

"Organization" is imprecise, and fits better a cub-scout den or a Wikipedia administrator-wannabe/"adoption" school. "Corporation" is more precise, and should be reinstated. (This issue has been discussed already, in edit summaries.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jazz guitar may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC) You seem to be an especially incompetent bot. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC) No spanking the bots!!! (En-WP is not Commons.™) —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC) SignBot is a fascist. Let the Butlerian Jihad begin! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Cornel West Democracy Cafe Thing

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Please read this: http://www.thedp.com/article/2012/11/cornel-west-lectures-on-socrates-democracy-and-social-responsibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsoMorpheus (talk • contribs) 04:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks! That was an interesting article. However, student newspapers need not be reliable sources, and in general they are of low quality and useless for due-weight considerations. Moreover, that article has no mention of the Socratic Cafe, so it does not even establish a link. Today the page has a link to an earlier article in the student newspaper that mentions that West should come and give a "one time" cafe, which is utterly trivial. West probably has given pats on the back to thousands of such programs, and we cannot mention them all; there's no reason to mention your favorite Socratic cafe unless you have a reliable source stating that it is an important project of West's. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:00, 19 May 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. Student newspaper What's the reliable source that says the U-Penn student newspaper is an unreliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsoMorpheus (talk • contribs) 23:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Here's an idea: take it to the reliable source noticeboard if you actually think it's "reliable" - see how well that goes over (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

SDUSA and New Politics (McGovern)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Would somebody please revert the redlinking of dab pages with explanations, which at least informs the reader? (This is a unconscious EW-violation of the BRD cycle, by somebody using semi-automatic tools). It might be better to link it to George McGovern's politics. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Now that I see the history, I'll gladly change the link to wherever you want it. How about if I link it to George McGovern for now? -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 10:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC) I think that the existing DAB is still the best, unless some policy is violated, in which case you should do what you think is best. There is no discussion of "New Politics" in the McGovern 1972 Campaign article. In the SDUSA context, the "New Politics" was disliked for its association with an emphasis on professionals, public employees, students, and other "constituencies of conscience" (POV) who supported an immediate withdrawal of US forces from Vietnam (and after the draft ended promptly demobilized, but that is a later story), versus the traditional socialist emphasis on labor unions and a labor-associated political party (with in the US an additional focus on civil rights). Michael Harrington proposed a Marxian "theory" of the new class, as a good thing, in the USA, and he was losing a factional debate inside the US Socialist Party c. 1970-1972. There used to be a link to a 20 page criticism of Harrington from SDUSA people, that explains this in depth, if anybody is interested. (I'm not saying I agree with everything they write, but looking at it will demonstrate that my account here is balanced.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Ok. I've changed the link back to the disambiguation page (piped through the (disambiguation) redirect so that it won't show up as a link that needs to be fixed anymore). -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 17:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey, I thought I'd drop by and say I'm sorry I was a jerk to you before, you are an asset to wikipedia, good luck, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you, very much. I appreciate your comment, particularly since we seem to disagree on small matters. You are doing The Lord's Work against the walking intellectually dead. I gave up on trying to defend statistics, etc., from the students of "research methods in psychology 201", and I marvel at your fortitude in discussing science with Feyerabend quoters. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

June swoon

Watch out for blindmen under the mistletoe.

AN discussion

Suggested interaction ban

I have started a discussion about you and some others at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive249#Interaction ban proposed. Fram (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your equitable suggestion, which should reduce argy pargy particularly at RfAs. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• KW, I would support the interaction ban, but I believe that it would do little good if either of you have retain fora to carry on commenting on the other. Would you be amenable to not commenting on Demiurge off wiki either? Worm^TT(talk) 13:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  I am glad that you support an interaction ban. I share your concern about any misuse of Wikipedia's IRC. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  My thoughts were not so much regarding IRC, though I had intended to mention it as a concern as part of my support. I'll ask one more time - Should an interaction ban be passed, would you be amenable to not commenting on Demiurge off wiki either? Worm^TT(talk) 14:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  Check your email, please. One concern needs addressing. If that is addressed, then there is not a problem. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at AN
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Interaction ban proposed Warning: Here be Dramah. Hasteur (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I would like to propose an interaction ban between User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz on the one hand, and User:GiantSnowman and User:Demiurge1000 on the other hand. Things like this have been proposed recently in a non-binding manner, e.g. here and here, following a long history of problematic interactions (often involving other users as well, but these three seem to be the more constant factors in this). Earlier problems have lead to blocks (e.g. my block of Kiefer Wolfowitz on 6 May 2013, explained here and discussed over the next few days). Now we have Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mattythewhite 2 and Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Mattythewhite 2, with another rather uncivil discussion between Kiefer Wolfowitz and Giant Snowman, and with Demiurge discussing Kiefer at User talk:Lukeno94, which lead to a rather problematic reply by Kiefer Wolfowitz. Without going into who is to blame, who is right or wrong, or how this all started (it goes back at least two years, probably longer, but I don't want to start discussing old history again; examples can be found in e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence#Evidence presented by Kiefer.Wolfowitz: or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive772#Personal attack and edit warring), I think it is time we put an end to this, preferably without further blocks or too much drama. Therefor, I propose an interaction ban between Demiurge and Giant Snowman on the one hand, and Kiefer Wolfowitz on the other hand; no discussing one another, no linking to statements made by the other, no replying to each other, no nominations of each others articles for deletion, no participation in a GA or FA discussion where the other is one of the main contributors of the article, ... The only allowable interactions would be normal forms of dispute resolution about each other (one may start an RfC or ArbCom case about the other; they shouldn't start discussing in a third-party process though). They would still be allowed to all !vote in discussions like RfA, but without replying to each other or referencing each other's !vote. Fram (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Woah woah woah, Kiefer and I have a difference of opinion (which is pretty much all it is, as far as I am concerned at least) at a RFA talk page and suddenly there's call for an interaction ban between us? Jesus. Let me go further - while Kiefer and I may have had a few disagreements at various noticeboards over the past few months, I for one do not feel the need for an interaction ban. It seems to be making a mountain our of a molehill, finding an issue where there isn't one. We edit in completely different topic areas and our paths rarely cross; when they do, sometimes we disagree and sometimes we don't. I think/hope Kiefer is of a similar opinion. Sometimes things get heated, sometimes they get a bit uncivil, but we both have thick enough skin not to let it bother us. GiantSnowman 13:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC) When this was suggested by Fetchcomms c. my RfC/U, I accepted the proposal, and I remain agreeable to an interaction ban including GiantSnowman, who was baiting me on my talk page recently. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Kiefer, please can you provide diffs to comments of mine that you feel have been 'baiting'? GiantSnowman 13:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)GiantSnowman, this is hardly the first such "difference of opinion" you two have. E.g. from early May, a link I gave above as well; [5], move up a few sections to "personal attacks". And it goes back a long way, I also already gave Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive772#Personal attack and edit warring. Perhaps you don't need an interaction ban, I may be wrong with the whole proposal or by including you, but acting as if this is only about one recent discussion is not really the most convincing way to make your case. Fram (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I don't feel the need to make a case in my defence; and as far as I am aware Kiefer has not requested this interaction ban either. Why have you taken it upon yourself to police our relationship? GiantSnowman 13:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Support. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose this is an overreaction. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  14:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Then how do you propose we defuse or avoid a problematic situation, going back for years, which has lead to blocks, bad blood, and recurring disruption? We can give more and/or longer blocks, but is that really the best way to treat these editors and to improve Wikipedia? Having this interaction ban won't suddenly solve all problems, but isn't it worth a shot? Fram (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC) What problematic situation? How has Kiefer and I's interaction been "going back for years"? Where is the "recurring disruption"? As far as I recall the first interaction we had, positive or negative, was when Kiefer actually supported my RFA back in February 2012! Nothing until the ANI in October 2012 (8 months ago, we both acted poorly) and then a disagreement at his talk page in May, and a further run-in on the talk page of a RFA earlier this week. Using talk pages to discuss matters? My word, indef us both! GiantSnowman 14:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC) The situation has been going back for years. Your involvement with it seems to be more recent and may have been less frequent than it at first appeared (and may have been colored in my meomory by other things like this February 2013 comment by Kiefer Wolfowitz[6]). If others agree with you that I have unfairly included you in this interaction ban, I'll remove you from it and restrict the discussion to a interaction ban between Demiurge and Kiefer Wolfowitz only. But I'll wait for more input first, these kind of things are rather complicated and it is hard to get a correct view of the whole image sometimes. Fram (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Fram, you say "the situation has been going back for years" yet you have not provided any evidence. Note that I am talking exclusively about the proposed IBAN between myself and Kiefer. Do I feel I have been unfairly included? Absolutely. As WormTT says, other users have had more run-ins with Kiefer than I have - yourself included Fram! GiantSnowman 14:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I was asked to come here by Fram as my talkpage was mentioned. I can't really give a vote due to the fact that I get on quite well with GiantSnowman, and find Kiefer infuriating, although Demiurge and Kiefer possibly should have an interaction ban, as that pairing is, to my mind, more problematic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I oppose a formal interaction ban between GiantSnowman and Kiefer.Wolfowitz. I don't see the bad blood, or a long running dispute which would require an interaction ban. Indeed, I believe I have had more unpleasant interactions with KW than GiantSnowman has, so unless we fancy handing them out very liberally I think it's a poor idea. Regarding the other interaction ban, Demiurge1000 and Kiefer.Wolfowitz - I support it in principle, but I don't think it is the solution. The long term bad blood has spread off-wiki, to a certain forum and to IRC. The only way it will work is if both parties genuinely agree to the interaction ban and take it to heart - quitting all discussion of the other. I do not expect this to happen on either side, making the entire sanction redundant. Furthermore, I'm not keen on the formation of the interaction ban - I'd prefer a more simple text. WormTT(talk) 14:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)I no longer support a two way interaction ban even in principle, it will do no good. WormTT(talk) 08:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC) So far, only WTT has raised a concern about an interaction ban between Demiurge1000 and myself, and he supports a ban. Is there consensus for a standard interaction ban between Demiurge1000 and myself? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Patience! The discussion should stay open for at least 24 hours and have some more participants (e.g. giving Demiurge a chance to respond may be a good idea). Fram (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you, most kind! I do understand the annoyance you may feel here; you block one disputant having previously blocked the other, another admin unblocks them without discussing it with you, that disputant then repeats the problematic behaviour, the other disputant then comes to your talk page moaning about it, and so on and so on. Having said that, though, if you do choose to get involved in "policing" particular people (as GS puts it), you shouldn't be too put out when the people being policed keep turning up at your police station's front desk questioning one thing or another. And, more to the point, if Dennis had not overturned your 6th May block without discussing it with you, then the disruption at the RfA would not have happened, nor would KW's comments aimed at The Rambling Man and Luke, nor would my informing Luke of the existence of the earlier RfC/U, nor would KW's questionable comments after that. So, you ask, "how do you propose we defuse or avoid a problematic situation", the answer is that you had it right the first time, and you were over-ruled! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I think we established below that the issue was GiantSnowman's choice of words and he has admitted as much, not KW's participation. Even if someone didn't like his !vote, it should have just been overlooked. To assign all the drama of the last few days with my unblocking of KW some time back stretched credulity to the breaking point. I forgot to add, I do believe that I unblocked you once after Fram blocked you, but you didn't complain about an early unblock there.  ;-) Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 20:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC) The block was set to run until a couple of days from now, I think. If you had not overturned it, the comment would not have been made, and, more to the point, the following problematic behaviour would not have happened either. We're here because you overturned the block in the belief that the behaviour would not repeat; you were wrong. You may feel the !vote should have been overlooked, but others don't agree; it's not at all unreasonable for other editors to reply to a comment that belittles the efforts of an editor just because of their choice of topic area. (This sort of attitude was mentioned right back in 2011 at the RFC/U - KW agreed to try to fix it - has he?) Yes, GS did not make that reply in the right manner, and has apologised for it; but he was certainly not the only one to share that concern. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose. The evidence presented is utterly inadequate to justify imposing an involuntary interaction ban. My comment to Luke was to inform him of the existence of an earlier RFC/U, after he had asked TRM about proposing one; I mentioned parts of the close of that RFC/U (worked out with great care by an independent administrator acceptable to all parties) about issues similar to those that concerned him; informed him of available options; and cautioned him to be aware of the sorts of responses that any of those options might receive from some other editors. This was not in the least combative. (KW's replies, by contrast; [7] [8]). Fram's other links are to (1) the RFC/U which Worm and I prepared in 2011, which was widely agreed to have been helpful in highlighting at least some issues that KW needed to address; and (2) KW's arbcom evidence where he attacked Worm, me, DGG, Elen of the Roads, and Scottywong (if any of those other editors react unwisely to an unusual RfA comment from KW in the future, will they be subject to interaction ban proposals too?). Neither of the other incidents listed, including the RfA madness which Stfg rightly describes as "grotesque" and which is the background to this whole incident, had anything to do with me - I did not comment at either. It's all very well (and indeed true) to theorise that if person X and person Y were blind to each other's existence then there would be less drama, but forcing an interaction ban down the throat of one of them, without any evidence of that person being responsible for disruption (I've never been blocked in any dispute I've had with KW, nor even close I believe), is more likely to cause drama than prevent it. As Stfg says, interaction bans rarely work very well. Leaping to an involuntary one, for the sake of perceived convenience, without evidence justifying it, would be very unwise. I also Oppose the suggested interaction ban between KW and GS. Plenty of other administrators have been described as "dishonest" or "abusive" or similar by KW, and as GS points out, some of them have had confrontations with him more than once. (The Rambling Man is a rather recent addition as far as I can remember, so may not fit in that category.) Why pick on GS? (One over-reaction for which he has apologised, and perhaps a mistaken comment somewhere in the distant past?) Is there a possibility that perhaps it's not all the targets of KW's ire that are at fault, but someone else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC) (redacted comment by User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz) Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Sorry, is this some kind of accusation of grooming Wikipedia editors? "his involvement with youngsters off-Wikipedia".... This needs serious intervention now, as KW's wild accusations have crossed the line. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC) That is a horrendous accusation and needs to be oversighted. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC) It's worse than horrendous, KW should be blocked for accusations of this nature. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC) (redacted comment by User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz) Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I read it that KW is saying that User:Demiurge1000 is taking advantage of the editors inexperience to recruit them into some conflict with others. There is no sexual implication in the comment. John lilburne (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC) What the actual fuck did I just read? Apart from the sheer idiocy of Kiefer assuming that I am in any way affiliated with Demiurge (I am not, and never have been), and the fact I've used the IRC here about 3 times, all when the servers are down, that has to be one of the most disgraceful accusations I've ever seen, regardless of any sexual nature (or lack of) in the comment. Kiefer should be blocked, and blocked for a while, for that comment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Quite. Anyone that empathises with KW's grooming comments needs close inspection. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I will note here that Luke has never attempted to contact me in any way ; and my only contact with Luke has been my one post currently visible on his talk page, the purpose of which I describe in detail above. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I'm also going to note that Lilburne is here after KW canvassed multiple times at an off-wiki forum (including, now, complaining about being indefinitely blocked there), where KW did indeed use the g word, and where he also had some more-than-unpleasant comments to make about Luke. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Oh sweetheart, this page has been on my watchlist for a long long time. I just don't normally comment here unless something really dumb happens. And the only one that has used the word grooming here is The Rambling Man. John lilburne (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose Spirited, emphatic exchanges don't violate any policy. NE Ent 21:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC) GS and KW Does anybody think that GiantSnowman's behavior at this RfA meets the standard of an administrator? Or satisfies the civility and NPA expectations of all editors? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Kiefer, please provide diffs from the RFA of my failings as an Administrator (impossible, I didn't use any tools), as well as examples of my incivility and personal attacks? GiantSnowman 14:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I would like to say, without having a horse in this particular race, that the notion of an Administrator not using tools and therefore not having failed as an Administrator is a non-sequitur. Any Admin involved in any dispute uses judgement, the entire basis on which they were selected as an Admin. Just because tools are left at the door in a dispute does not mean that Admins cannot fail in using judgement and that, in any situation - tools or not - is unacceptable. Leaky Caldron 14:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I concur.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC) It is refreshing to read your responses. Perhaps a word with another administrator with hyperactive behavior at this RfA might be in order? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC) User:Stfg seems to have issue, per his comment at the RfA and I agree. The comment "Pure snobbery" was unnecessarily combative. Once it was explained that Giantsnowman was mistaken in how he interpreted the "Andy Capp" comment, instead of leaving well enough alone, his excuse was "As for AGF, I'm afraid it only goes so far with KW." I think Giantsnowman has lost his objectivity here. I'm normally against interaction bans in general, and have never supported one with an admin involved, but an air gap is likely the best solution. As for using the tools, it doesn't matter here. WP:NOTPERFECT states "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. " It seems you have some animosity towards KW and I think it is clouding your judgement here. I'm not saying it is actionable, but GSM's actions were far from exemplary. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 14:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC) When you put it that way, I admit that some of my comments at the RFA talk page were not my finest and for that I apologise to all involved, especially Kiefer. I should not have described his attitude as "snobbery" and I should have tried harder to AGF. I would like to assure you that I do not have any animosity towards Kiefer; regardless of the outcome of this discussion (and I hope no formal IBAN is implemented, as I do not see the need for one) I will work on what has been raised. GiantSnowman 15:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC) That is a good thing. What you and I must remember is that when we push the limits on civility, most editors are afraid to speak out because of our "admin power". No matter how unimpressive it might be to you and I, others are intimidated by it to different degrees and many are unwilling to speak out. This is why you and I are both held to the higher standard and have to go the extra mile to insure we stay neutral, else we make bystanders feel powerless and unable to speak out. You have to reach back and remember how you felt well as a new user, before getting the bit. Of course, we are human, and we screw up like anyone else, and forgiveness should come just as easily for these kinds of things. Even without the interaction ban, I would still recommend keeping that air gap between the two of you, let time heal some wounds. Even if you don't feel them, I'm pretty sure KW does. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC) My attempt to bury the hatchet with Kiefer was immediately reverted. Make of that what you will. GiantSnowman 15:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC) This is why I think the air gap is needed. From my experience, KW is not one who wants to discuss or engage after an "event", so it isn't about you personally, it would be the same (and has been) in any disagreement. My experience with KW started at my RfA and has been checkered at times, but my experience has been that you just need to step away, as his wounds tend to heal on their own timetable. You and I are probably the opposite of KW in this respect, and would rather quickly bury the hatchet, but we are not universal in this. I recommend overlooking it and moving on. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Dennis, How quickly do adults change personality or behavior? How credible is GS's sudden change, after months of complaints (from me and others)? His "wasn't my best" still falls short of accepting responsibility for his behavior. I have known too many nurses and social workers to engage in enabling behavior. I recently was pleased to accept an apology from another editor, whom I had previously criticized for "copping out"---i.e., that is, falling short of taking responsibility, on 2 occasions. That editor wrote his apology fully, quickly, and on his own volition. Nobody needed to push him to make a minimum apology, and he wrote a very generous and gracious note, indeed. Let him be an example to us all. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I appreciate the attempt, but wouldn't read too much into the reversion. It is KW, after all.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Watch Carlito's Way and consider whether Benny was a hero. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I haven't seen it. Doesn't sound like my cup of tea, but it has decent ratings, so maybe someday.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Sound advice from you both. As stated at the very beginning, interaction between Kiefer and myself is actually minimal as we edit in completely different areas, so letting "time heal all wounds" should not be a problem. Up and Atom! GiantSnowman 15:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Dennis has done a fine job of representing my POV, and I thank him for it. As almost always, I agree with everything he has written in this section. I don't know enough about the background to comment on whether an IBAN is a good idea, except to point out that IBANs don't work very well. They are too easy to game -- actually, they are an invitation to gaming. The current RfA and its talk page are grotesque, and this is a big problem, because when RfAs turn into slugfests like that, it disenfranchises the nice people by chasing them away. People shouldn't have to jump into a fire to have their say on who gets mops. From his comments above, I'm sure GiantSnowman understands this and won't rise to the bait again at RfA (I don't care what happens on their own talk pages). Does Kiefer understand the problem, and does he plan to change anything to help solve it? If not, I think the only way for it to get solved is for the community to impose a solution, unfortunately. --Stfg (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Have you made any other predictions, that would let us evaluate the worth of your surety? We would like to be able to pretend that it was better than your accuracy in recognizing baiting.... Again, talk is cheap. GS has not struck through any of the inappropriate remarks at RfA, which he claims and you endorse to be now beneath him. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I didn't understand a word of that, but never mind. --Stfg (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC) KW blocked Lots of good blocks that can be used to make cool things. I have indefinitely blocked KW for this edit, which goes far beyond the bounds of acceptability, and really should be oversighted, or at least revdel'd (the edit summary is also a personal attack). Indefinite does not mean infinite, and I am not averse to the block being reduced in time (in fact, I will support a fixed length of time, once community consensus arrives at an appropriate length. This entire discussion has been acrimonious, but that is so heinous that someone who is not involved needed to step in. Horologium (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Good block. How many times do we have to play his game before we and/or he figures it out. Go Phightins! 21:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Idiotic. But not surprising. Intothatdarkness 21:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Comment I'm referring to the block. Don't want anyone confused. Intothatdarkness 21:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Good block. Kiefer's repeated ridicule of younger people has grown tiresome. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Looks like a good block to me and that should be over-sighted immediately as it looks to be an attempt to out the other user based on unverifiable opinion or some such ridiculousness. Technical 13 (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC) What part of WP:OS is this covered under? --Guerillero | My Talk 21:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC) The one that is suppose to protect people's sexual preference. The comment and it's edit summary imply that the user it is directed at is a pedophile or at very least homosexual. I honestly do not care if that user is homosexual or not, but declaring that the user is would fall under 1.Removal of non-public personal information, 2. Removal of potentially libelous information, and 5. Removal of vandalism I would suspect... Wouldn't you agree? Technical 13 (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Why are you talking about sexual preferences and pedophiles? John lilburne (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I seem to have read the comment strangely and missed the paedo angle. I agree this should be removed from public view --Guerillero | My Talk 22:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Good block. Too many people have been way too tolerant of this type of incivility from this user. It's disruptive and discourages a collaborative environment. I propose at least a three month block, which will give KW a chance to reflect on how he might contribute here without stirring up drama and attacking other editors. - MrX 21:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC) KW didn't open this thread up. NE Ent 21:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC) How is that relevant? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I don't think it's appropriate to categorize someone dragged to AN as "stirring up drama." NE Ent 22:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC) You had to know that I was not merely referring to today's drama. - MrX 00:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Not sure how it counts as outing. Whilst admittedly it is easily mis-read in the way @The Rambling Man: describes, reading it more carefully I can plausibly believe that Kiefer meant absolutely nothing of the sort, and was simply commenting on the "political" methods allegedly used by Demiurge. Whilst undeniably a personal attack (especially the last bit) it is not block-worthy certainly not indef-block-worthy.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Not commenting on the rest of this, but you're saying that personal attacks are no longer block-worthy? --Rschen7754 21:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC) There's never been a consensus that they were -- see failed proposal Wikipedia:Incivility blocks NE Ent 21:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Please see WP:NPA - especially the first paragraph. --Rschen7754 21:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I'll call your WP:NPA and raise you an arbcom finding. NE Ent 22:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC) That's a red herring - there is a distinction between "blockworthy" and whether the editor actually gets blocked for it. --Rschen7754 22:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Sorry, I meant "indef-block-worthy".--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Fair enough - I'm not exactly sure where I fall on this one. --Rschen7754 21:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC) What do you mean, "'political' method"? What "political method" is being described there? Is there a political method that deals with "recruiting inexperienced young men or boys" and " involvement with youngsters off-Wikipedia" and "behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men" ? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC) The "political method" could come from the rest of the bit you quoted, which reads "to serve as his footsoldiers in his manipulative games." Intothatdarkness 21:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC) What do those games have to do with "boys and young men"? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Their naïvety in being manipulated on WP and on IRC to argue with KW etc. and stoke up bad blood between them.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 08:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC) What does their gender have to do with it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Well, mainly because all the editors named are both relatively young and male. To be honest, when I first read it I saw that as an analogy to the way young men were manipulated (hence the use of "footsoldiers") into going to war in the First World War, but maybe that's just me.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Ah. OK Thanks. I appreciate now understanding where you were coming from with "political". I see the board is in agreement that, whatever it was, it was PA and that would be an over-the-top PA. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I can't see the comment because that's restricted to admins only and I cannot be trusted with such awesome power but it seems like the comment has been taken out of context. I do think the indefinate block is definately not appropriate. This was not a good reason to indef an established user. I also think this little support no support is not necessary. Kumioko (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC) If it's been oversighted then admins (lotsapeople) can't see it; only oversighters (lots less people) can. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC) It was revdeled, but has been restored. I can see it. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Good block. That was extremely out of line. WikiPuppies bark dig 21:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC) What was out of line? John lilburne (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC) KW's comment. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Don't be obtuse. Which comment? John lilburne (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC) The one he was blocked for. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC) If you don't want to be taken for a fool stop acting like one. John lilburne (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC) How am I acting like a fool? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC) John, it's the first link in this section. Ironholds (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I know that, and people are reading far more into it than what was actually said, are they not? John lilburne (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC) How do you interpret "Is he behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men?" AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I'd read it in its context and interpret the above to be asking whether it is appropriate for a seasoned editor to recruit young and inexperienced editors to participate in a drama war against one's opponents. Now the question is whether D is doing that or not. I don't participate on IRC or the other hangouts so don't have an opinion. Though I do have the impression that when young editors appear on the drama boards with fully fledged opinions about editor X or Y. that D is somewhere near at hand. But that is only an impression, I may be wrong. John lilburne (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Overreaction to statement by politically correct Americans reading sexual innuendo into a statement. NE Ent 21:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Take out the Americans, please. I understood what he meant. Intothatdarkness 21:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Color me American but I can't see how that was an appropriate statement. I like KW - he's the last man standing on readable RfA opposes - but this is not acceptable. If cultural differences are behind all this, then an explanation is in order before an unblock. --regentspark (comment) 21:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Colour me British. Colour me 'not impressed by KW'. Ironholds (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Color me unimpressed by the majority of this. Blocking was likely inevitable in any case. Doesn't mean it smells any better. Intothatdarkness 22:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Good block - I understood what he meant as well, he meant to wp:game the system and wp:bait any who would fall prey to his malfeasance.--My76Strat (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Good block. Ironholds (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Good Block. The only goal in that comment was to be as inflammatory as possible. Resolute 22:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I think the use of "young men and boys" rather than the more obvious "young editors" makes it clear that KW's edit was intended to be read as an allegation of something other than interference. I support a block, but I'd make it 24 hours. Prodego talk 22:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC) But he came off a block that lasted for 2 weeks just last month... --Rschen7754 22:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC) If the block is not just for this particular edit, but rather a pattern of incivility, then longer or indef may be justified. I'm not familiar enough to make that judgement, I was just basing my response on the justification given at the top of this section ("for this edit"). Prodego talk 22:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Very good block. The specific wordings he used has VERY negative connotations, and as such, I would not support an unblock until they apologize for the comment, and publicly undertake a commitment NOT to stray down these bounds again. SirFozzie (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC) comment; it's very early days, here, but given the overwhelming consensus I'd strongly suggest nobody unblock unless they want to get thwapped. Ironholds (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Good block, largely per SirFozzie. I find myself agreeing with him on occasion, but I've been dismayed at his aggressive nature lately, and this can't continue, one way or another. --Rschen7754 22:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I'm guessing that your second sentence is discussing KW and not SirFozzie, but you might want to clarify just to be safe. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC) That is correct. --Rschen7754 22:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Good block If this were the sole disruptive incident in his career I'd have said this was over the top, and have favored a more limited block, but given the long history of stirring up trouble for trouble's sake, this seems like the right move. Also, the egregious nature of these comments, carefully crafted to be provocative to the point of offensiveness, and yet deliberately containing enough circumlocution to give him some wiggle-room of deniability shows that he knew exactly the kind of effect he was going for in his comments, and that sort of deliberate manipulation isn't something we need at a place where our primary goal should be the building of knowledge. Any contributions lost from Keifer will be more than made up by other people who now won't be driven away from the project by behavior such as this. --Jayron32 22:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Keep the block and forward to the OS team. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Good block - the blocked for statements appear to be deliberately cruel. Note also, the personal attack apparently was not aimed only at one editor but other named editors, partly on account of alleged personal characteristics (age and gender). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Exceedingly bad block, as per NE Ent. Colour me British, but I'm also exceedingly unimpressed by the behaviour and attitudes of Ironholds. Eric Corbett 22:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Good block - I've seen a lot of nasty personal attacks here on WP, but not at all subtely insinuating that a fellow editor is a child molester takes the cake. Far, far beyond the pale, and totally inexcusable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Sound block. Deliberately inflammatory choice of language, of a sort usually used to describe extremely grave misconduct. Not explicitly calling someone a criminal or moral degenerate doesn't give one a free pass to use terminology so often (and almost exclusively) found in that context. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC) If the use of gender-specific language was not intended to imply any gender-specific immorality, then its use was stupid as well as being uncivil and a personal attack. At this point, my interpretation is that the blocked editor is trying to game the system by claiming that a gender-specific insult was not meant to be gender-specific. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC) He was being a bit of a meanie and should apologize for any untoward implications, but can we please stop with all this "good block" silliness?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Given that the point of this thread is at least partly to get consensus on the block, how is it silliness for those who agree with the block to say so? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  23:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Because the block was silly? Surely nobody in their right mind believes the "an indefinite block isn't infinite" bollocks? Indefinite blocks are used as cudgels to force apologies and repentance for perceived sins, and as such are to be abhored. Eric Corbett 23:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I agree. I'd like to see them prohibited.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Well it is not going to work because I am not apologizing for a thing.--My76Strat (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC) The silliness is with the "good block" phrasing and the whole rush to affirm the random admin action.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Your credibility is diminished by such a statement!--My76Strat (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Good Block -- This user is extremely abusive and the edit in question is without question insulting. Looking over his edit history, he is skilled at talking his way out of blocks, which is rather unfortunate. Please keep him blocked, for the betterment of the project.Lettik (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC) It took someone else implying the sexual angle to get even my internet-polluted brain to read the comment in that fashion. Seems an overreaction to me. Arkon (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Comment from blocking admin: One thing really needs to be addressed, because more than a few people don't seem to get why I dropped the hammer on KW. This whole kerfuffle (the most recent one, not the festering carbuncle which contributes to this whole sordid affair) was started by KW's comments on a specific editor's writing ability at that editor's RFA. Make no mistake--KW is an exceptional writer. In fact, he is far too good a writer for his specific choices of words in the edit for which I blocked him to be mere happenstance. He deliberately chose phraseology and verbiage which would imply that the specific editors whom he named in the post were involved in something more unsavory than simple votestacking. He chose the most inflammatory phrases possible, and worked them into his post in a way which (barely) provided some sort of cover. Were he a less proficient writer, one whose editing history was not littered with incidents of personalizing arguments in a nasty fashion, I might have decided to issue a warning or a limited-duration block. But when the last block issued (for similar incivility) was for a duration of 1 month, and it stood for 18 days before being lifted (with a promise that he wouldn't do it again [9]), I felt that a block was needed, and decided that the community was better suited to determining the duration than a single admin. As I noted above, I didn't intend this to be a permanent block, only one whose length was not yet defined. My personal opinion is that anything more than 2 months is too long, but if the consensus is that he should be unblocked immediately or that he should remain blocked permanently, I will not object. I don't think that either choice is the optimum decision, but of course, YMMV. Horologium (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC) That seems very reasonable and fair to me... I tend to agree that long blocks don't necessarily work well. Based on your comments alone, I would say that 6 weeks would be fair. It is a little more than the 2.5 weeks his block actually lasted out of a 4.5 week block. Technical 13 (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Given that in theory blocks aren't meant to be punitive, I just don't get this block-length argument at all. Why six weeks rather than four or five? What harm was being prevented anyway? Eric Corbett 01:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Blocks may not be punitive, but they can be corrective. They also protect the project from disruption and, in this case, may prevent other editors from leaving the project because they tire of being insulted, mocked, berated, ridiculed and accused of all manner of ill deeds. His last unblock was a failure of process, in my opinion. He talked his way out of the block using the same types of arguments that are advised against, full of equivocation and blame. We have a principle of escalating block lengths for good reasons. If someone can't get some clue after 10 blocks in a year and a half, then I doubt that shorter blocks will have an enduring positive effect for the project. - MrX 02:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC) How can blocks be "corrective" if they're not also punitive? I take it that you're familiar with basic learning theory? I recently became acquainted with a parrot whose behaviour had been "corrected" by having the metal floor of the cage he lived in being electrocuted every time he bit. Is that what's going on here? Eric Corbett 02:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC) First, thanks for letting me know how startled you are. Second, please see Operant conditioning. Correction does not only result from punishment. - MrX 03:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Please don't try taking the piss. Unlike you I have a degree in psychology. Eric Corbett 03:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC) And just remind me, what harm has KW caused to the project? One might even argue that disrupting RfA is of some benefit to the project, in that it might make some dinosaurs rethink their position on that ridiculous and dishonest process. Eric Corbett 02:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC) All the time that is wasted on these notice boards and talk pages dealing with bad behavior would be better spent collaborating to improve articles, tools, bots, help pages, and helping new users. Do you really think that treating our fellow editors like shit is helpful to the project? How many editors simply walk away from the project in disgust because of an insulting edit summary? I don't think that disrupting RfAs make them better. I think open discussion, compelling arguments and seeking common ground are a good start though. - MrX 03:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC) How much of any of that stuff do you do? Eric Corbett 03:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC) What KW's behavior does is to drive away editors who would rather not be called paedophiles for disagreeing with him. As I noted above, the world is filled with people who will replace his potential future contributions, but won't be abuse fellow editors in the manner he has done here. --Jayron32 04:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Which only goes to demonstrate that you're a malevolent idiot. Eric Corbett 04:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I love you too. --Jayron32 04:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Good block. Per Jayron. KW does not seem to have learned from previous blocks and apparently has no intention of improving his attitude within the collaborate spirit of this project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Good block- Agree with most of the above. KW's seemed to spend a lot of time griefing and insulting people, punctuated by bouts of ultra-defensive hysterical screaming. This sneaky accusation of pedophilia is the last straw. Reyk YO! 05:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Good block - I called for it, and to be perfectly honest, that edit should be oversighted. Utterly disgusting behaviour, a massive smear against myself and several editors (regardless of any sexual nature) and just the latest in a long line of bollocks from that user. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC) In my opinion since it's been repeated in whole or in part so many times, oversighting it is moot. --Rschen7754 07:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I find it implausible, given the context, that the choice of words was anything other than intentional and there isn't an option to casually "strike the offending phrase" when it comes to such a blatant personal attack. I also don't find any reasonable excuse in dismissing it as a matter of "political correctness" or cultural differences... "Young boys" is not a synonym for "new editors." user:j (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Good block per Jayron 32's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Good block clearly was meant to be inflammatory. -DJSasso (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Bad block. While KW's comment could definitely have been worded better, it doesn't have to be interpreted in a sexual way. Inflammatory, yes. Worthy of an indefinite-block? No. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Understandable, but incorrect block. I quite realise that I am in the minority here, but there's a much bigger issue than KW's behaviour here, much as he appears to be trying to earn himself an indef block by testing the boundaries. Black Kite (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC) The much bigger issue is? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I think the original title of this section (before KW got himself blocked) will provide you with the answers you need, as will my comment below. Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC) They don't indicate big issues, so no. But perhaps your directions were misunderstood.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Bad block which should be overturned. Dirty minds think dirty. Optimom (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Good block. Let's call it what it is - an obvious attempt to smear an editor as a paedophile, which is quite honestly disgusting. But since he's from Wikipediocracy, I can't really say I'm surprised, that's just the way they operate over there. Prioryman (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC) If you're gonna block KW for this perceived personal attack then obviously Prioryman's above personal attack (But since he's from Wikipediocracy, I can't really say I'm surprised, that's just the way they operate over there.) and assholish slander qualifies as well? So where is his block? Fucking hypocrites. THIS is exactly why most people who edit Wikipedia think "opportunistic cowardly scum" when they see the word "admin".Volunteer Marek 07:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC) "Most people who edit Wikipedia" or more people from Wikipediocracy? Regardless, it's unclear how insulting a website fulfils the personal aspect of NPA Jebus989✰ 09:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC) He's obviously not just insulting a website but also insulting Kiefer. But ok, fine. I'll keep that in mind. Next time I want to let some schmucko have it and let them know what I really think I'll just refer to some place or nebulous thing they're vaguely associated with. Most admins are still hypocrites and cowards. Why would anyone want to become one at this point is beyond me. Just the stench associated with it alone should drive most decent people away.Volunteer Marek 16:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Bad block People are reading more into this comment than appears to be there, if one assumes good faith that is, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Assuming good faith, as in assuming that the poster actually meant a personal attack, and that is what was written? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC) What is written is an accusation saying that Demiurge1000 is doing some politicking and manipulating people to his own ends on wikipedia. Personally I have no idea whether that is true or not and I doubt most of the others chipping in do either, but calling that egregious personal attack worthy of an indefinite block (whether or not it is true) is nonsensical. Blocking someone out of hand for making a claim that is conceivably true, rather than asking him to substantiate or retract it does not make sense, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC) What is written is what was quoted above about someone and the personal charcteristics of other someones and being up to bad things in relation to them. Those are personal attacks on multiple people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC) What do we do when someone makes a personal attack? We ask them to retract it. What did people do in this instance? An indefinite block out of hand. Kiefer subsequently asked for the statement to be striked. When are indefinite blocks for personal attacks justified? According to Wikipedia:NPA#Consequences_of_personal_attacks: "Death threats and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning. Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning, and a request to refactor." Are you comparing this comment to the severity of a death threat? Are you claiming that this comment "severely disrupts the project"? If someone had simply requested a refactor or a reconsideration the issues could have been resolved. He offered to strike his comment and thus it does not seem very likely that the editor will continue with this personal attack, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC) What do we do when someone makes personal attacks? Sometimes we block them. Yes, it severely disrupts the project when people are attacked on the basis of personal charateristics. The comment for most people crosses the line. Are you saying, well gosh, people who make personal attacks based on the personal charcteristics of others should never get blocked? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC) The unsupported claim that Kiefer made is that Demiurge1000 recruits inexperienced editors and uses them to further his own agenda on wiki. That has nothing to do with personal characteristics. I can not answer the question of whether "people who make personal attacks based on the personal characteristics of others should never get blocked?" as we appear to disagree on what a personal characteristic is exactly. In general I now think (I have changed my position with time, like all people) that a block without prior discussion is always unwarranted except for the case of death threats or other similarly serious issues. I also have the advantage of being in line with policy (as I quoted) in this regard, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC) The personal charcteristics are age and gender. No one disagrees on that. And yes such attacks are often read as serious disruption. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC) [citation needed], IRWolfie- (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC) WP:NPA says that such age and gender remarks may lead to blocks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Remarks about age and gender? sorry you've lost me again. I see no personal attack against people of a specific age and gender in that diff. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC) "recruiting inexperienced young men or boys" and " involvement with youngsters off-Wikipedia" and "behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men[?]" and some named, one of whom certainly does not lack experience on the Pedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC) The people happen to be young, because he appears to be giving an example of inexperienced people. Young people are more susceptible to manipulation, I don't think that is particularly controversial. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Not controversial? Perhaps if you reread this page and those "young men and boy" comments, you will agree that it is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC) While I havehad some pleasant, even amusing conversations with Keifer I have also been the subject of his attacks and condescention. When he is challenged, even if you point out evidence of a mistake, he will simply try to "unsay" what he said or try to suggest you are too stupid to understand him rather than own up to his own mistakes. That is what he did when he attacked me, and it is what he is doing right now. For someone who makes such a pretentious show at having skill with words it ddefies reason to think the innuendo in that remark was anything but very deliberate. And this suggests he has been doing it for a very long time and that blocks of short duration have no effect in curbing the problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Core problems addressed? Guys, are you sure these proposed interaction bans and recent blocks are addressing the core problem, or just the symptoms? Are there any behavioral problems by the three parties involved that need to be addressed besides imposing interaction bans? Is there any merit to the allegations being leveled by the parties against each other? Don't know? Then why don't you administrators do your jobs, investigate this situation total, and come to a conclusion instead of just trying to put a band aid over it. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Because that would involve a little bit of work? Eric Corbett 22:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I have to admit that I have some real reservations on this. Admittedly I don't have time to research it all, but looking at the link provided by the blocking admin. ... could someone PLEASE tell me how "sex" was introduced into this topic? I'm not seeing it in the link provided by the block log. As much as I'm all in favor of "political correctness" .. I think some folks are really reaching on this. Could ya'all go back and revisit what was typed and rethink this please? — Ched :  ?  02:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that there is a zero tolerance policy when you put sex, men, and boys into a sentence. If that had happened Kiefer would already be banned and locked. So obviously there's no solid allegation that it did. The first person to mention "sex" at all was John lilburne, a supporter of Kiefer, when he said "There is no sexual implication in the comment" at 20:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC). That may have started a diversion, but it started there! My comment after an edit conflict was it was gaming and baiting, and it was. I hope that helps with your question.--My76Strat (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC) My statement was in response to The Rambling Man cherry picking a phrase from KWs post and preceding it with 'grooming', then adding "worse than horrendous" and Darkness Shines calling for oversight. take this advice skip don't try to invoke me in your perverted reading sessions - OK. John lilburne (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC) (EC)::Ched's comments aside, I think Cla68 was getting at the elephant in the room, that the substance of his comments is being overlooked in favour of jumping on the fact he made them & what they could be interpreted to mean etc. Ignoring the speculation on what KW was implying, if what he was referring to is accurate, it needs to be addressed *somewhere*. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC) And what was the "substance of his comments"? They had no substance beyond the offensive suggestions as far as I can see. Paul B (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC Well thats rather the point, you (and others) find what you think he was suggesting offensive, and are ignoring what (he says) he was saying. Which while probably inappropriate should not be totally ignored. Although if the consensus here is 'KW is blocked, lets forget all about it' fine. Need a big rug to hide that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC) He isn't saying anything with any content at all. It's all smoke and mirrors. "Ooh, I wonder what they're getting up to...". But it's palpably designed to be suggestive and offensive, and that is, in practice, threatening behaviour, because if frightens editors off disagreeing with him, as Luke has already pointed out. Paul B (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Only someone completely obtuse can miss the "grooming" implications of KW's comments, and it is ridiculous beyond words to act as though they were in any way innocent. The fact that he deliberately phrased them to be as derogatory as possible while leaving himself a "get out" makes the matter worse, not better. A simple naive outburst would be easier to forgive. It was one of the most obnxious examples of bullying I've ever seen, even from Mr Wolfowitz. Paul B (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC) What "grooming" implications are you talking about? Eh? John lilburne (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Clearly we have people here who are not familiar with either espionage or police tradecraft or language. "Grooming" in that context is often used in the context of preparing an informant or source, especially if it's a false flag recruitment. What we actually have is a horde who sees a nice provocation they can use to get rid of an editor they disagree with or dislike. That's it. Nothing more to see. If the whole "driving people off" thing (which has been tossed out by some people) was applied across the board, there are quite a few people who would no longer be here, including some of those who are calling for KW's head. So just drop the hypocritical ranting and get on with it. Intothatdarkness 13:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC) What we have are laughable pretences to innocence, which are bad enough from Mr. W himself. But now we have disingenuousness piling up in layers. Your first sentence seems to derive from a fantasy world. You have a long familiarity with "espionage" do you? Is the Green Cow Flying Tonight? Paul B (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Simply pointing out that there are other uses for the term. Just because you haven't heard of that doesn't make it fantasy. But then again shame on me for trying to discuss with the mob. Carry on. I'm sure there are plenty of pitchforks and torches to go around. Intothatdarkness 14:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Of course I've heard of them, perhaps you will be showing me a helpful picture of a horse-grooming combs next. Apparently you are the one ignorant of the fact that the word "grooming" was not used in the post in question (though it was used by KW in another post with the same obvious insinuation). What the post did say, transparently piled up language to generate suggestions of sexual misconduct. This point has been made repeatedly with by many editors. I expect you know it yourselfe. Further furrowed-browed professions of mystification will serve no purpose. Paul B (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC) According to many here this headline is intended to have us believe that some young fellow is about to be molested by his father. And presumably this fellow is about to be asked to get his kit off for the bankers. John lilburne (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC) That's obviously wrong, and it still doesn't explain KW's obsession with/tacit allegation of "[his] involvement with youngsters off-Wikipedia". Not something we need here. Obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC) A fundamental breakdown I want to follow on from comments made to User:Ched above. The above threaded discussion has gone completely awry of the WMF's zero tolerance policy. Just as Kiefer would be banned if he had cast aspersions of pedophilia, it is as intolerable to make accusations against Kiefer that he did make such statements, if he didn't. I've seen a lot of very direct allegations that somewhere along the line, need to be corrected. I supported the block because I observed the disruptive behavior. And I observed that Kiefer did not cross that line into violations of "child protection" policy and zero tolerance. So how do we reconcile this?--My76Strat (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I would hope by recognizing that KW likely didn't intend the aspersion. Folk with artistic temperaments often combine the ability to produce beautiful work with a tendency for thoughtless outbursts when they get emotional. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Although having never interacted with KW, I've read a lot of his contribs to various boards and he does have a tendency to get somewhat excessive in some comments. Colour me British/Australian/whatever but writing it the way he did was distinctly suspicious, given the climate of the world these days. Just the use of "young men and boys" would have many people sucking through their teeth and asking what he was alluding to. "New editors" would have put what he meant beyond doubt, but he didn't use it. And it especially didn't help when John Lilburne cast his "sexual" comment into the fray. Blackmane (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Personally, I have little doubt that KW intended the aspersion. Likewise, I have little doubt that his phrasing was specifically chosen to be inflammatory for this exact reason, while trying to create enough wiggle room for his supporters to try and weasel him out of the block. Resolute 16:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Also, possibly he meant a multilayered aspersion in the double or triple entendre manner. It's a risk one runs when in casting aspersions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Reconcile? Probably has to do with narrowly construing a perma-ban policy but skating the edges is still bad form -- it can still be hurtful and it can still be damaging (plus in view of some reasonable observers one may have gone over the edge). Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Block duration for KW The blocking admin has asked us to comment specifically on the appropriate duration to see where consensus lies so I will start that process below and hope others will comment as well. 2 weeks block Considering the rationale provided below I have stricken my suggestion of 2 weeks in favor of maintaining the indefinite block.--My76Strat (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indef, with the understanding that this is not necessarily infinite. Reyk YO! 07:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 2 weeks block, + a 3 year topic ban from RFA. The comment was so provocative it clearly demanded a block. If he manipulatively intended the innuendo, it warrants a permaban. But it seems much more likely it was driven by thoughtless passion, not intent to bait. KW has an inflexible but very strong sense of right and wrong, and that's why he often kicks off. It's only when KW is in a calm frame of mind that he's a brilliant writer. On the other hand, can't agree with comments above that the world is filled with folk who'd be just as good at building the encyclopaedia. In reality KW would be close to irreplaceable. Not 1 in a 100 have the scholarship to write like KW. And only a tiny fraction have the fortitude for sustained editing. Even as a big fan of KW, I admit his RFA contributions often seem to be inflammatory and even nonsensical. So lets try a solution that gets us the best of both worlds. Please lets not lose him from the rest of the encyclopaedia, where he's a huge net positive. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 2 week block sounds fine.--Salix (talk): 07:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC) As the possibility of future disruption is high a two way interaction ban with Demiurge1000 and a topic ban from RfA also seem appropriate. I'm still not convinced he has cooled down enough yet, so a least a week to let the anger dissipate.--Salix (talk): 08:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 2 week block iff KW agrees to be more cooperative with others from now on. Otherwise, count this as an indefinite block vote. --Rschen7754 07:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Modifying this to indefinite as I doubt we will get satisfactory assurances that this will not happen again. --Rschen7754 19:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 3.143328932323 month block! Where the hey are you guys coming up with this crap? Can I get access to the relevant numerical table? There's really only three possible rationales here: 1. You're someone who wants Kiefer to edit Wikipedia. So you say "time served" and let's get on with it. 2. You're someone who doesn't want Kiefer to edit Wikipedia to ever again so you either come right out and say it with the "indef" (wrong, but honest, ok) or you bullshit with this "three month block" or whatever crap which you think makes you look like a reasonable person. It doesn't. You're just the bigger creep. 3. You're a sadistic asshole (and there's a lot of you here) who likes to watch people "suffer on the internet", you're the PvP game player, you treat Wikipedia like some freakin' MMPORG, so you make demands for him to humiliate himself and dangle the promise of an unblock only to snatch it away. Look you monkeys. Either his comment was not actionable, so unblock, or it was bad and he retracted so unblock, or you're just engaging in a lot of unseemly schadenfreude. There are soooooo many people who have commented in this discussion that should be simply ashamed of themselves. This is the fucking Wikipedia community these days and that's why Wikipedia is circling the drain. Volunteer Marek 03:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Some might also view your first option of the three, as ending up having the effect of milking a few more "good edits" out of KW, only for him to be blocked again (with another dramafest) when he repeats the behaviour a few weeks or months down the line, as happens every time. Do you genuinely believe that is in his own interests, quite apart from the interests of the encyclopedia? Do you think he enjoys it or something? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC) I'm reminded that this isn't the first time that KW has used the word "grooming" in this manner. Pretty much every accusation KW has levelled at Demiurge1000, can be levelled at me - indeed he has in the past. A large number of the editors I have adopted were below the age of majority and the adoption program naturally attracts younger editors with the mentality of a teaching model for learning how to edit. In the same manner, the adoption process attracts those editors who naturally enjoy teaching. I've worked with Demiurge in the past and have never once found his behaviour towards these editors to be untoward or manipulative, and therefore find the accusations reprehensible. Therefore, I support an indefinite block from the encyclopedia until such time that KW shows understanding that these sort of accusations are unacceptable. I also agree with FeydHuxtable that an RfA topic ban would be a good idea. WormTT(talk) 08:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I have only actually seen him abusive on talk pages, but on article space he's one of the best editors we have. Two week block is plenty; it's a long topic ban I want to see - at least until he writes a featured article from scratch, or fixed length like a year or so. Perhaps our standard offer may apply?--Launchballer 09:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC) (ec) Support extended RfA topic ban as he is very disruptive there. I'll take no view on block duration. --Stfg (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Keep indefinite for now but allow unblock appeal at 2 weeks, which should probably be accepted unless KW acts out of line during his appeal. I also support an indefinite RfA topic ban from a cost-benefit standpoint: the risk of losing or significantly alienating a user is higher than the value of KW's opinion at RfA. I would like to reiterate that he is an excellent content contributor, but he should know when he's stepped beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Concurring again with another admin's comments, I think Worm sums it up well. Indef is the only solution here, because KW never takes his blocks seriously and regularly seems to find himself in the midst of drama - sometimes where his intervention may not necessarily have been needed and used as an opportunity to take more swipes at other users. The new discussion (which isn't the first one) probably won't advance either the situation, or change the consensus(es) reached here at AN - it will only prolong the drama. If nothing else happens but a topic ban from RfA, not only will the 'RfA Deformers' appreciate his absence from that area, but also a few future candidates of the right calibre may be more willing to come forward. There's also the fact that it's finally time to put an end to the traditional immunity from sanctions for good content contributors.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 1 month block, with appeal allowed after two weeks and indefinite topic ban of RfA excluding !votes (i.e. allowed to vote, but not to take part in threaded discussion). Whilst I can plausibly believe that the "implications" of the comment were not intended, it was still an unacceptable comment and personal attack.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Unfortunately, KW's comments off-wiki make absolutely clear what implications he intended. He posted to a discussion of this incident saying "If an editor were a sexual predator, what areas of Wikipedia would be most appealing?" (emphasis added). He offered involvement in Wikipedia:Teahouse as his first suggestion. Classy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC) That's an obviously deliberate misrepresentation of what he actually said, and goes a long way to support the idea that you are the one who should be blocked from interacting with him. I believe that he has already agreed to an interaction ban between the two of of you? And to perfectly honest I'd also be prepared to agree to a similar interaction ban, as I find you to be an exceedingly obnoxious and offensive prick I'd prefer never have to deal with again. Eric Corbett 00:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC) What he actually said is what I've actually quoted. Not much room for misunderstanding there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Kiefer @ Wikipediocracy: "It's bizarre that people think that I was talking about sexual grooming.", " I'm indefinitely blocked for imaginary crimes by persons who apparently think that a grown man can have inappropriate relations with a boy or young man (minor) only if the relation is sexual. My stated concerns are about emotional manipulation and political recruitment, as shown by Demiurge1000's on-Wiki and Wikipedia-IRC behavior." If people wish to see the above quote in context they should read the entire thread, not take a single quote out of context, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Do not underestimate Kiefer. This sequence of events was utterly predictable, intentional and carefully crafted by Kiefer himself to generate this exact response. Kiefer carefully contorted his words to fool the minds eye so he could later point out we foolish we all are for misinterpreting them. Not all of us were fooled. He intentionally created disruption using the English language as a weapon, although not as cleverly as he thought, and he has been hoist by his own petard. More than anyone else I have given him every benefit of the doubt, often to the chagrin of others, but this attempt was so tediously obvious, so arrogant that it removes all doubt as to its intent. Whether you call it WP:POINTy, "suicide by admin" or simply self-destructive the result is the same. What Kiefer needs is an epiphany. Unfortunately, I know of no fixed period of time can ensure that happens. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 11:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC) From my understanding, he actually was blocked for 2.5 weeks out of his last 1 month block. I think enforcing anything less than 1 month is rewarding him for bad behavior. I also agree with the blocker that anything more than two months would be too much because on the whole, as I understand it, he is typically a good editor. So, I'll stick to my original suggestion above of six weeks, but I'll add the option to appeal after a month. After reading the above discussions I also feel that some kind of topic ban on RfA and probably RfB discussions is probably in order. I would think that three months would be reasonable at this time. Technical 13 (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Zero seconds block. Shouldn't have been blocked in the first place. The fact that mediocre writers here are seriously considering blocking KW for months (and thus depriving Wikipedia of his significant contributions) just because he used the words "Young boys" is laughable. --5.144.173.122 (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC) (Open proxy now blocked; has made no contribs other than here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)) All options are wrong. On the one hand, KW is agreed to be an excellent editor in mainspace. On the other hand, KW has a long history of personal attacks and incivility, and it is unrealistic to think that he will learn from this block when he has not learned from previous blocks, and the diatribe that led to this block was malicious, clearly meant to have sexual implications (why else did he refer only to male editors as pawns) but to be capable of being denied as a sexual insult. All options are wrong, because there isn't a mechanism for banning him from talk pages and keeping him in mainspace (and an agreed community ban from talk pages will be violated and we will be right back here again). Robert McClenon (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Three Months - An indefinite block (unless he is also site-banned, which no one has suggested) just provides an opportunity for him to request unblock. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite, per Worm That Turned. As an aside, I find this kind of discussion utterly fragmenting and frankly a guarantee of no useful outcome to a blocking discussion. By saying "pick a number between 1 second and infinity" we pretty much ensure that it's impossible to get consensus on a time. Ironholds (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Support indefinite per Worm That Turned and Kudpung. Kiefer has unfortunately had issues with several policies, especially with his history of incivility and personal attacks. To quote the immortal words of Wehwalt, "There are too many people here that think contributions excuse conduct, and that clever language, so desired in articles, is to be applauded on talk pages even if insulting regardless of the effect on the recipient. That is wrong." Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite per my reasoning a few sections back; user has a history of tendentious behavior which has not gone away despite other attempts at less drastic measures. As a second choice, if this block is to be of a limited duration, then it should go along with an indefinite topic ban from RFA and all RFA-related discussions anywhere on Wikipedia, given that RFA seems to be the locus of the disruption. If KW is a good content contributor and we want to keep him around for that reason, then it makes sense to limit his participation from those areas that cause problems, but still allow him to help the encyclopedia. Still, my first choice is an indefinite ban given that he's demonstrated that he's not willing to change the way he interacts with others given prior opportunities to do so. --Jayron32 14:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite as the disruption has been piling up for long enough. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  14:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite, the comment is among the worst I've seen in my time here and shows that the user is not fit to be editing here. Snowolf How can I help? 14:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite Long enough history to justify it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Month at most - I think a month is the max. Lets remember that KW was not the only one that was an issue here and the problem included at least one admin, who as far as I can tell, hasn't been affected. So if you want to block KW that's fine but someone needs to also address tha other problem children in this debacle including the admin that was clearly baiting KW her and on his talk page. If you just going to block the editor, then your just being hypocritical. I also think this long wall of backpatting and editors voting for and against the block is nonsense. An indef block is clearly innapropriate but who cares right. Its just an editor. And people say I am crazy saying there is no us and them mentality. Its clearly visible right here in this very long discussion. And you people say I am unworthy for adminship. Many of you need to take a long hard look in the mirror. Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I think it's worth pointing out that KW was blocked for the edit in which he made unsavoury implications about Demiurge, not because of the prior slanging match with GS. It's already been pointed out that GS's behaviour wasn't great and I don't think anyone is disputing that, but it's not worthy of a block anymore than KW's comments in that argument were worthy of a block. It was his comments here that got KW into this position. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I agree the comment wasn't appropriate. I couldn't see it but someone sent it to me via Email. After reading it in context with the conversation though I think it was taken out of context and although not appropriate, wasn't IMO as bad as is being made out to be. I think there are some folks who are using this as an excuse to block KW. As such and since no one else bothered to do the right damn thing I left a note on GS's talk page myself. Of course I am just a lowly editor and not worthy to scold an amdin but I did it anyway because no one here had the moral courage to call him out on his clearly innappropriate behavior because their too busy jumping on the indef block KW bandwagon here. Kumioko (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Kumioko - you say (at my talk page) "I think your actions were especially bad", but what exactly have I done that is worthy of your comments? Saying one of his comments was "pure snobbery"? I've already apologised for that comment and my general attitude towards Kiefer at this RFA talk page, so I have no idea what good you think it will do any of us by raising it all again. PS you'll note I have deliberately stayed away from all the fresh drama here, so many thanks for dragging me back in so ungraciously. Your implication that my actions/comments got Kiefer blocked, or that I have baited him in any way in order to get him blocked are false and offensive and I would appreciate you revisiting/retracting them. GiantSnowman 15:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)That's fair enough. GS has already indicated that he's going to reflect on this and I'm sure he'll take your criticism constructively. As for KW... Not sure who made the comment above. There's no signature but to clarify. You acted innapropriately (as did other users) causing Fram to feel like an interaction ban was needed. Then before anythign can really be said about your activity in the mess, KW makes some inappropriate comments and gets blocked distracting the heat away from you. So, I made a comment on your talk page calling attention to the problem and calling you out on it. And you want me to apologize for scolding you? I do not feel that I need to apologize for telling you to act more like a trustworthy admin and less like a punk kid trying to get another editor in trouble. An apology just ain't gonna happen, because I am not the one who did something wrong even if you don't like the way I said it. Kumioko (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC) It was Basalisk. You 'called me out' on something I had been already called out on over 24 hours previously. I apologized. You trying to shit-stir or whatever has served zero purpose whatsoever other than making me feel a bit worse and yourself a bit better. Kudos. GiantSnowman 18:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I think the length of time is fairly arbitrary, as fixed-period blocks have proven to be pretty much ineffective in the past. I agree with Dennis in that what KW really needs is an epiphany. I think the most constructive thing we can decide at this board is on a) the interaction ban discussed above and b) a topic ban for Kiefer relating to RfA. I'm not sure what wording would be best, but perhaps a restriction to simple, one-sentence !votes would be appropriate. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC) A 2 week block would be appropriate only if this was the first incident. It's not. It's the latest in a long line of abusive behaviour from Kiefer. The last block was a month long - why should this be shorter? This user is not going to change their ways any time soon, and they're clearly going to try and worm out of the block with a dodgy unblock request or couple anyway. Based on the user's history, it can only be an indefinite block. Anything shorter isn't going to cut the ice. Again, it's utterly irrelevant whether there were any sexual connotations or not: it's a gross personal attack and one of a long history of them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC) There seems to be some confusion in your mind: the mantra is "indefinite != infinite", so why are you apparently suggesting that indefinite is longer than a month? And if there were no sexual connotations, which there weren't, in what way was KW's comment a "gross personal attack"? Eric Corbett 15:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC) There is no confusion in my mind. The block needs to be indefinite, because it needs to last until Kiefer is convincing enough about any changes to their actions - which is going to be a heck of a long time. As to it being a gross personal attack - it casts completely bullshit aspersions about the motives and actions of several editors, in a way that was designed to be as highly controversial as possible (remember, we're dealing with someone who claims to be a scholar here) and anything that flies this close to suggesting pedophilia (whether it actually crossed the line or not) is just wrong. And it's not just this attack, it's the hundreds that the user has sent out during their time here. There were enough PAs or close-to-PAs during the RfA thread alone. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite. There is obviously broad consensus that the tact and direction of KW's comment was decidedly inflammatory and intended to push readers in a specific direction. For as much as people like John and Eric try to argue there was no malicious implication in his statement, the very fact that so many saw it that way underminds their argument, and KW is not so stupid as to not be aware that people were going to think that. Consequently, until KW acknowledges this and agrees that the casting of such aspersions is significantly beyond the pale, he should remain blocked. In my view, the length is up to KW, and it is his decision whether to be unblocked today, tomorrow or never. Resolute 16:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite: If this were a clueless newbie with an otherwise clean record, not familar with how things are done here on WP, I might be inclined to let it go with a slap on the wrist. But KW is not a newbie, and he has a long history of being disruptive. Nor can it be argued that he did not know how this comment would be taken here on WP. Sorry, but whatever benefit might be gained by giving him some more rope is very unlikely to offset the harm that he will do to the project. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that this leopard just ain't going to change his spots. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Two weeks max and then impose a 2-way interaction ban with Demiurge1000. Whilst this was an understandable block, I don't think it was a good one. It is ludicrous to say "well, if you say something like that, of course it's going to be taken in a certain way". How about taking it exactly as it's written? No, it wasn't wise, but it certainly wasn't worth an indef. Black Kite (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC) That's less than his previous block for personal attacks. Which makes it utterly pointless. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Preventative, not punitive. Sometimes a large amount of editors (or, it appears, pretty much everyone) forgets that. Black Kite (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I don't see much point in kicking people off Wikipedia or banning them from RfA. I'd say - give KW the opportunity to apologize and clearly state that he'll be more careful with his words down the road and, once he's done that, unblock him. If he doesn't do that, then too bad. --regentspark (comment) 19:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Time served If we're going to start blocking people based on how badly their statements may be read or their intent inferred by those who either can't or won't understand either plain English or the principle of charity then we're going to have to block everyone who invokes WP:DICK in response to someone else's actions. I offer myself as a test case by hereby noting that I am justifying my argument against those who would keep KW blocked by invoking WP:DICK.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite - For reasons best articulated by Jayron32 two sections up, Dennis Brown in this section and several others commenters. KW has repeatedly and flagrantly disregarded our core standards of civility, in spite of multiple blocks, warnings, and attempts to coach him about how to interact with the rest of us mere mortals. Initially, I thought that a longish block might be appropriate, but after reviewing more of his interaction history and the way he craftily wiggles out of the hot seat whenever he's called to account, it's clear to me that a GAME is afoot. Dennis absolutely nailed it. While he may be a good editor, his ultimate goal seems to be to go out in a blaze of glory, leaving as many bodies in his wake as possible, and then kvetching about it at that other website. I also note, with disappointment, that there are some enablers here who find his behaviour excusable, or even laudable, but I suppose that's the nature of this social experiment. - MrX 20:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite the comment in question was way, way beyond the pale, and was certainly block-worthy. If it was an isolated incident I might be prepared to let it go with a block of a few weeks, but this editor has a long history of incivility. Given this, KW should not be unblocked unless he can persuade us that he is going to change his ways, and not until the block has stood for at least a few months. Indefinite does not have to mean infinite, but the burden should be on the blocked editor to demonstrate that they will behave if unblocked, not on the community to demonstrate that they should remain blocked. Hut 8.5 20:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite for exactly the reasons Dennis Brown points out. KW outsmarted himself. Net negative, as is evidenced by this thread.Pedro :  Chat  20:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite as Pedro notes, KW has hoisted himself by his own petard. Net negative indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC) The "net negatives" are those who seem to live in this Hell-hole of vindictiveness. Eric Corbett 20:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC) What, Hertfordshire? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I've decided not to poison the well by adding diffs from my early interaction with KW, so I'm stating an opinion, honestly held. Nothing more. Pedro :  Chat  21:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Comment - To anyone stating that this should be anything less than a two week block (or even shouldn't be a block at all): look at Kiefer's comments over at Wikipediocracy. I'm not going to link the thread here, but the more you read of it, the more you begin to think that he did genuinely imply this sexual connotation, or certainly something incredibly shady. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Also interesting to note they've made an attempt at outing me there as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Interesting is what sense? Doesn't seem particularly interesting to me. Eric Corbett 21:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC) It's interesting because he has his real name on his user page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC) offtopic by blocked editor. -db The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I don't blame Luke, he is just a child. But when teenagers like himself start thinking they are center of the world, and being condescending to more experienced editors such as KW, they can truly become an annoyance. Luke has now established himself as an "admin puppy" who always sides with the admins, and who seems to enjoy calling for the block of other editors. I sense we will see him asking to be an admin soon. We will see. --Diogotome (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Fiddlesticks. KW has been treating others with condescension for a long time now. People like KW are "admin pitbulls" who go around looking for a reason to try taking a bite out of the nearest admin they can find. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Automatic, we will see you asking to be an admin too, aren't we? You have a dog in this fight. ~ Diogotome (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC) No, you won't and I don't have a dog in this fight (nice pun). AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I'm quite sure we will. If you can read minds then so can I. Eric Corbett 22:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC) In that case, neither of us can. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Oh, I don't know. I see a number of admins, myself included, who aren't taking Luke's side. I've no idea whether he wishes to run for RfA, but as a number of young hopefuls have found before, being regulars at AN/ANI have had the opposite effect at RfA than they expect. Don't you think? Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Is this really all about Luke? I'm beginning to lose track. Eric Corbett 23:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Oh, don't worry, I lost track in about 1987. No, it's not about Luke or anyone else for that matter, I'm just getting the impression that certain issues aren't being dealt with even-handedly here. Keifer isn't exactly helping himself, but that shouldn't be the point. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Kiefer isn't helping himself, I agree, but there's a disconcerting degree of asymmetry here, which I'd be inclined to summarise as "I've never liked him and this is a good opportunity to get him blocked forever". Eric Corbett 23:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I feel the need to respond to the criticism of myself, and make a few more comments. 1: I am not an "admin puppy". If I was, I would support all administrative actions. I don't, and it would be daft to suggest that I was. 2: I am not a "child", so please stop making that statement; 18 year olds are legally adults, and tarring me as a child doesn't help your argument anyway. 3: I put my full real name on my page after I was "outed" by Wikipediocracy (which won't have taken much effort, given that this is a username I use almost everywhere) - before that I had left all bar the first letter of my surname out. I had, however, been moving towards naming myself. 4: I'd love to know whom "Diogotome" was. 5: I publicly stated a few months ago that I was not interested in adminship at this present time; that has not changed. I am too aware of my shortcomings to make that move. 6: I do not think I am the "center of the world", far from it. 7: Age should be utterly irrelevant on Wikipedia, assuming you are competent to contribute; I hope that I am indeed that competent. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Speaking as a parent, there is nothing in this world less convincing than someone who is only eighteen saying that age is irrelevant. In doing so you only proclaim, all the more loudly, how entirely relevant your relative lack of adult experience is. Mangoe (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC) One week This appears to be at the low end of the range of those who expressed a specific time (which isn't many). My impression, and I could very well be wrong, is that KW wasn't intending to make the charge implied by the careful wording, but intending to skirt close to the edge, to see how the community would react. Those types of posts often deserve trouts rather than blocks, but the history means it ought to be more than a trout. There's a bit too much hand-wringing over the implications.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite. I don't see any other reasonable alternative when taking this intentional personal attack with the lengthy history of disruption evident from their block log. I don't believe allowing an unblock request any sooner than two months from now would be acceptable, given how quickly this incident followed his most recent block, which was for a month (and he was unblocked early, just a few days shy of three weeks ago). Incivility, targeted attacks, and disruption like this do significant long-term damage to the community and, as a result, the project. user:j (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Which "community" would that be? The faux Ku Klux Klan who frequent boards such as this one in search of someone to lynch? Eric Corbett 23:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I don't know this editor personally, I don't know his viewpoints. I do know he has a lengthy history of being blocked for disruption and civility, and I do know the personal attack he crafted in this case was particularly nasty. I really don't know what to think about your position that other editors taking issue with his behaviour is akin to Klan activity and your view that an indefinite block supported by community consensus is best described as a "lynching." But I don't think you're doing him any favours in your arguments, frankly. user:j (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Seems to be a great deal you don't know then. Eric Corbett 00:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite: This user has definitely not learned his lesson from his other indef-blocks. His attitude towards others at recent RfA's was atrocious. He harassed others, including me that did not have the same opinion as him. Maybe K.W can come back in 10-12 months showing better, but with many restrictions, but otherwise, KW should remain blocked. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 23:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite please. His history of being plain disruptive is ridiculously long, and why he's still unblocked even more ridiculous. If he'd been a new editor, he would probably have been indefinite blocked more than a couple dozen times (Without unblock, I mean). Being a prolific editor must not come in the way of completely decimating and showing an utter disrespect for one of our pillars. No more editors running away because of incivility please. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Which editors have "run away because of incivility"? That's a cheap shot I think you'll find very hard to back up. Eric Corbett 00:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite based on the clear signs that KW has not changed and will not change. If we're going to imagine an epiphany will somehow happen in a few weeks based on a finite block, then the starting point would be two months, as the previous block for this was one month. KW has already demonstrated an ability to wait out moderately lengthy blocks and then return to the exact same pattern of behaviour. I would also support those above who have called for a RfA topic ban consecutive with the block. Not only would such a topic ban avoid the problem of his behaviour there "disenfranchising the nice people by chasing them away", but it would also assist KW in not getting blocked again, because at least half of his problems seem to start at RfAs. There was a time in 2009 and 2010 when KW participated little or not at all at RfA, and in those years there was an absence of this cycle of personal attacks and blocks for him as well. (Perhaps RfA is not just hideously broken but also has deleterious effects on participants.) In a theoretical future where KW is unblocked and contributing constructively, it would be best - for him, for everyone else, and for the encyclopedia - to keep it that way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite ~ that is with no fixed termination point but a clear intimation that it will end. That end must be precipitated by KW making a realistic and believable (i.e., not just a form of words) request which acknowledges that, if he didn't intend the outrageous implication, his words were extremely poorly chosen or, if he did he was absolutely wrong to do so. Either way, he has to refrain from such comments in the future. This WP is a two pronged project and, while KW may be brilliant at the one, presenting the knowledge of the world to the world, he certainly at times sucks at the other, working as part of a viable self-regulating community to do the first. Once he is willing to work at both, why would we leave him blocked? Cheers, LindsayHello 04:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC) At the risk of being called an elitist, I think this section would be a lot shorter and a lot easier to read if people took the A in AN more seriously. I see editors with a couple of thousand edits and no specific knowledge commenting here, throwing their "votes" in the mix here, as if those comments were called for or appreciated. So I'm not surprised that some comment on a lynch mob mentality. As a reminder: this is not the court of public opinion, and AN is not experiencing a lack of opinions. Lest we forget, no matter what you think KW deserves or doesn't deserve, the fact is that he thinks he has work to do here and he has invested in our project. A decision to ban or block him indefinitely should not be taken lightly. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Presumably not taking the decision lightly is why it's useful for a very broad spectrum of the community (including, yes, people with "only" a few thousand edits!) to comment. Deciding that the consensus of the community is meaningful only when it favors decisions of which you approve, is never going to work I'm afraid. For "administrator consensus" WP:AE should be your choice of forum. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Seems the two of you can't even agree on rules governing who should participate in the evaluative discussion at AN. (Maybe if there were some rules to go by it would reduce some of the chaos?! [But said chaos is a beloved part of this WP venue, right?!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC) AN is a community noticeboard -- even the elected elitists say so Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Reversal_of_enforcement_actions. NE Ent 12:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC) This particular discussion is more like a feeding frenzy (still, thank you for the link, Ent) and I suspect a couple of ulterior motives--one, the "let's jump on the editor we hate" mindset, and the other of treating AN(I) as the proverbial springboard to RfA. Demiurge, you don't know what decision I approve of. I may very well not have an opinion, and it would be courteous of you to not presume to be able to read my mind. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you for that Drmies, your combination of "I suspect a couple of ulterior motives" and "it would be courteous of you to not presume to be able to read my mind" all in one paragraph really brightened up my day. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Two weeks max and then impose a 2-way interaction ban with Demiurge1000 per BK. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Who is "BK" here? Black Kite has not offered any reasoning as to why an interaction ban would be justified, useful, or solve the problem that we're seeing here. Who is the other "BK" editor to whom you're referring? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I meant Black Kite, and the reason I support an IBAN between you and Kiefer would be I think rather obvious. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC) It's not obvious at all. I'm just one of a number of people at whom he has chosen to direct personal attacks on more than one occasion. What that has to do with an IBAN remains unclear. He's been blocked for this multiple times when I was completely uninvolved, just as I was completely uninvolved with the RfA nonsense that started this incident off - I did not comment there at all, on either page, or even on TRM's talk page when the argument moved there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Time served Granted, KW's comment was quite snarky. But this grew out of KW being badgered at an RFA for an oppose that looks to me to have been intended to improve the encyclopedia. 1) Indeffing people for things they say after having been badgered, while ignoring those who badgered them, is not a good idea. 2) The block is based on something KW didn't actually say. As alf laylah wa laylah remarked above, blocking editors for things they didn't say, on the grounds that it is their fault that someone was able to misinterpret their words, is also not a great idea. 3) Many of KW's previous blocks, which are being used to justify his indeffing, also grew out his being badgered for good faith opposes at RFA. Driving a person off Wikipedia largely for making thoughtful opposes at RFAs is really not a good idea. So, if this indeffing of KW stands, it will set three troublesome precedents simultaneously. Cardamon (talk) 06:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Your logic doesn't hang together at all. How does KW being criticised at RfA by GiantSnowman and TRM, justify him making a comment of this nature about me, when I didn't comment at the RfA at all, and didn't even offer an opinion on his behaviour there? You seem to be making an argument for a topic ban from RfA, if what you're saying is that the mere stress of his !vote being questioned there causes him to lash out at uninvolved parties in completely different fora. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC) You were encouraging someone who he was currently having 'issues' with to open an RFC on him. Its naive to not expect a response. Granted the response was a bit extreme. But dont poke a badger with a stick and you wont get bitten. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC) On the contrary, I was informing someone who had asked about raising an RFC that there had already been one, and advising him that another one might result in some problematic responses. Far from encouragement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC) (EC) Its a good thing we dont respond to people based on what we *think* they are implying rather than what they actually say then isnt it? Oh wait... Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC) (edit conflicts) First, his comment wasn't at all justified; in this non-admin's opinion it's worth a block of a day. Maybe two days. Also, it looks like this may have grown out of the RFA. You gave advice on taking KW to process at the talk page of an editor who had clashed with KW at the RFA a few hours earlier. Then KW showed up and made a comment similar to, but milder than, the one he later got blocked for. Cardamon (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Demiurge most certainly did not egg me on; "And although I was unaware of the previous RFC/U, looking at the close, that sums up the major reason why I don't want to file one at this time - Kiefer disrupted it so much, drawing in the other parties to do the same, that nothing happened. Which is exactly what is happening at the RfA thread." is a quote of my response to him. Demiurge isn't a saint, but please, when evidence one way or another is this easy to find, use it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Time Served With an admonition to keep accusations of inappropriate behavior to himself or forward to an appropriate authority (arbcom/wmf) Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Time served + Apology, unless you start showing some consistency and block people like Demiurge and Prioryman for far worse personal attacks.Volunteer Marek 07:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC) And note: from the above discussion it doesn't even look like the original block has consensus so why the hey are you asking for duration? That seems like some new fangled way of forum shopping (ask for legitimacy of a block, when it starts to look like no consensus start a new discussion about length...). Just overturn the damn thing already.Volunteer Marek 07:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I presume you are saying time served and the blocking admin should appoligize to Kiefer?--My76Strat (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I noticed the same thing. It is a manipulative argumentative technique. ("How long should the block be?" presupposes the block was/is valid in the first place, and hops over that Q. [Another: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"]) Good for you, VMarek. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC) You guys really need to come up for some fresh air every now and then!--My76Strat (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Actually, the question of validity was answered a couple sections above. The validity of the block has alrady been widely endorsed. Resolute 13:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC) No, no it hasn't. Stop making stuff up.Volunteer Marek 17:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC) And it's been widely criticized, too. (Too many assumptions. The process is unclear. Are you suggesting each individual editor s/b "closing crat" re that decision? What?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC) It's not just a manipulative argumentative technique it's a sneaky way of falsely legitimizing a block that has no legitimacy to begin with by quickly moving the goal post while no one's paying attention. It's actually quite disruptive in fact and whoever opened this thread should be warned about using such underhanded tactics.Volunteer Marek 17:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Actually, administrators are not required to establish consensus before placing a block, particularly in egregious cases like this one. And in this instance, the blocking administrator specifically asked for community feedback on the length of the block. So the person opening the thread was acting entirely appropriately. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Marek, I am pointing to a discussion where, by my count, Horologium's block has been endorsed by a ratio greater than 3 to 1. You can pretend that this is a "no consensus" result all you want or accuse me of "making stuff up", but all that does is make you look disingenuous. Resolute 14:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC) 1 week We're being asked for a specific figure to replace the provisional placeholder of indefinite. To continue to say indefinite therefore doesn't answer the question. Given that the context was a discussion about an interaction ban, then it is to be expected that there will be hostile comments about editors' behaviour and motives. A duration of 1 week seems an appropriate period for tempers to cool, without us forgetting the point of the discussion. Warden (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Time served It was a stupid, provocative post. I'm "special" cause I appear to be the only editor here without sufficient ESP to know exactly what KW meant by the post. The mature response would have been to say Hey, that kind of reads like you're accusing an editor of being a pedophile ... is that what you really mean? Instead we get a whole lot of overreaction -- please take a healthy dose of Wikidryl -- unblock and move on. NE Ent 12:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Time served: unblock We already known there is an acrimonious dispute between Kiefer and Demiurge, that is why the interaction ban was proposed. Blocks are not meant to be punitive, just enable the interaction ban and this pointlessness goes away. Blocking such a good contributor when we can solve the issue boggles the mind, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Those above who say whenever the User provides redress and agrees not to do it again have the tenor of the discussion for the blocking admin. As to an interaction ban, no problem is "solved" by saying you have insulted your way into penalties against others, it just regularly heaps more problems upon it, and the problems become systematic rather than limited. As to RfA ban, well, it looks like that needs its own discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Unblock Hope KW's statement below puts and end to this. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 15:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite per Demiurge1000, Kudpung and Worm That Turned. I believe that this is only necessary because if an unblock occurred, based on previous matters, Kiefer would continue with the behaviour that he showed in the comment directed at Demiurge1000. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC) He retracted the specific sentence at issue. If you think there is a long term issue deal with that through an RFCU. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC) There's no good reason not to deal with this here, as we have done in the past. I see no benefit from repeating this at another venue when the well-documented long term issues can be addressed here and now. The pseudo-retraction doesn't cut it for me and it doesn't prevent a reccurrence of the same types of comments and ensuing disruption. - MrX 16:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC) And that's why this whole "indefinite is not infinite" mantra is such bullshit. What happens in these 'two minutes of hate' is that the blocked user is required to humiliate themselves by "retracting" and "apologizing" and when they do that, assholes people like you come around and smirk "that's not enough humiliation for me, more please". Disgusting. Volunteer Marek 16:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC) You've completely misrepresented what I said and flavored it with your own brand of 'two minutes of hate'. Do you have anything constructive to add? - MrX 18:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC) There is a really, really good reason not to deal with this here and now. KW was indeffed for a remark. He apologized and would have struck it had he been able to, so he ought to be unblocked. The fact that a bunch of other people started throwing out examples of his other putative sins and shortcomings in random order without his being able to participate in the disorganized shouting match at all makes this an incredibly inappropriate forum for sanctioning him for anything other than the one comment for which he was blocked, if that. If there are long-term problems with KW's behavior then have an RFC/U or at least a thread here that's organized for that specific purpose and in which he can participate fully. This current process is sketchy enough given what it's actually about. If it's meant to represent a reasonable process for indeffing KW for a bunch of other reasons it's a sham and a farce. Try to maintain some dignity, for God's sake. I won't waste space asking you to have empathy.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC) He was indeffed for a completely over-the-line remark, one in a long history of such remarks. While I agree that this process is near-useless, I do think it is better than starting over in RFC/U. I also agree that he should be able to comment in this discussion and please don't assume that I don't have empathy for him. - MrX 18:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC) The issue is precisely that it has not been documented. Where is the collection of diffs showing a long term behaviour? Rather everyone is making big assertions with no evidence to back it up. At an RFCU the long term evidence can be laid out, and we can get closer to the truth rather than just lynching the editor over claims of long term issues. There are times when long term issues can be dealt with at AN, but they generally involve diffs of clear issues like clear POV pushing etc. I'll ignore the stupidity of thinking the comment (that lead to the block) was about sexual grooming; what if his allegation about politicking and manipulation was true? It is your opinion that we should block editors who make any sort of allegation out of hand, rather than give them the opportunity to substantiate it or retract it? Often AN/ANI are more about rhetoric and the superficial appearance of having a valid argument than substance, which is why it should be hashed out elsewhere, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC) The only stupidity here is not recognizing the obvious innuendo, but that's not at the core of the long-term issue. And, no, I do think we should give editors a chance to retract unfortunate statements with their agreement not to keep repeating the same disruptive behaviours, again and again. If you remember, we kicked StillStanding-247 off the island for making a joke in poor taste because of how it was perceived. Let's at least be consistent. - MrX 18:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC) No he wasn't, he was blocked for his continuous disruption and as a final straw the blocking admin interpreted his comment as a threat to violence [10]: "Massive battleground mentality, assuming bad faith, and worst of all, threatening violence. Enough is enough.". Read the actual ANI thread again: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive771#StillStanding-247_discussing_my_murder. He was a tendentious editor. I have not heard anyone claiming that Kiefer is a tendentious editor, or in fact problematic with edits in any capacity. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Well, color me astounded that you can interpret this as an editor threatening violence at the hand of Adjwilley but you can't see how this might be interpreted as accusing another editor of paedophilia. - MrX 19:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC) You misread my comment. I suggest you read it again rather than constructing straw men. Let me quote ANI which I linked to, "Fully agree, there is enough other things to justify the block (such as falling off the WP:CLUETRAIN and the incivility etc), but interpreting [38] as a threat of violence isn't one of them." IRWolfie- (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC) You're correct. I apologize. I misinterpreted your words. - MrX 19:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Time served (or short cooling down period) + promise to work on civility: I interpreted the blocking statement as intending sexual implications, but the statement does not make an unambiguous claim and I’m not a mind reader and neither is anyone else here. I also found Kiefer’s statements in AfD insulting to the candidate. My gut reaction is to indefinite block, but the larger goal here is to build an encyclopedia and from what I can see, this is what Kiefer does well. At any age, an indication of maturity is the ability not to react to every little thing that we interpret as a slight. Nobody is perfect here and there is usually a grain of truth in all sides of a dispute, but mature people at any age find ways of not reacting and escalating disputes. If Kiefer promises to work on this, I think he should be given another chance.--I am One of Many (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Unblock immediately As far as I can see, the statement below from KW acknowledges that he wanted to withdraw the statement as soon as he realized it was being misinterpreted. I'm willing to AGF that he didn't mean anything sexual (and the reference to IRC does support that benign interpretation). Therefore, there really is no non-punitive reason for him to stay blocked. --regentspark (comment) 17:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Comment - I would accept an immediate unblock based on one condition: that a RFC/U is immediately filed by the unblocking admin into Kiefer's conduct generally. If people want to investigate Demiurge1000 in the same RFC/U, I wouldn't have a problem with that. And we need to have a promise from all parties that this RFC/U won't go the way of the previous one (ie, being heavily disrupted), else it'll probably end up having to go to ARBCOM. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC) You, or another interested editor, would need to file the RFCU because it 1. needs to be accompanied by evidence 2. the basis of the dispute needs to be certified by 2 other editors Wikipedia:RFC/U#Minimum_requirements. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I don't see why the RFC/U couldn't be filed by the closing admin, even if they had to rope in two other editors (hypothetically, let's state Dennis closes this, files the RFC/U, along with two other admins). At the very least, the RFC/U should be filed promptly after any unblock, although I'm not sure who will do so. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC) If you think there should be an RFC then you should start one. Why are you trying to get other editors to do something you're evidently not willing to do yourself?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I am willing to do so; however, I would rather not as I would prefer someone more experienced with Kiefer (and/or more level headed) to do so. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC) If you're not experienced with Kiefer then why do you think there should be an RfC/U about him?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC) No evidence has been presented in this discussion for a discussion about a supposed long term issue. Pointing at someone's block log does not constitute evidence. The uninvolved admin closing this discussion would then need to collect the evidence themselves for the RFCU and then write a summary of the long term issues showing how they tried to resolve the issues. Considering this block discussion is about short term issues, it is non-trivial for an uninvolved person to file an RFCU. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC) The RFC/U providing detailed documentation of these issues (and a couple of others) has already been done. Years ago. In fact, my merely pointing that out to someone who was unaware of it, rose to the level of being compared to "poking a badger with a stick". Strange - RFC/U's are not much use if you can be accused of baiting just for daring to mention one's existence. The block log is all subsequent to the RFC/U. Have the issues been dealt with? No. Has any apparent attempt to deal with the issues been made? No, actually it's been getting steadily worse. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC) An RFCU from several years ago is irrelevant for establishing disruption since that RFCU. The existence of a block log does not show what has occurred since. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Note to closing admin: This block is being discussed at Wikipediocracy, which may explain the current votes. 18:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.224.6.169 (talk) That is an amazing show of bad faith and explains why you posted as an IP, whoever you are. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Many of those who complain loudly about the block of Kiefer, who is in Wikipediocracy, are themselves members, like Hillbillyholiday81, Volunteer Marek, IRWolfie, et cetera. Kiefer announced his blocking discussion in Wikipediocracy, and that may obviously be changing the outcome. Don't shoot the messenger, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.224.6.169 (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC) IRWolfie isn't part of that particular groupthink, as far as I know. There are a few others who've posted here with similar views that are, but one could AGF-assume that most of them would have arrived here under their own steam anyway. That said, KW posted for support at Wikipediocracy almost immediately, and there ended up being two ongoing discussions about this, one of which he's been updating throughout the day; the other contains suggestions that my real life identity should be hunted down so that my hand "can be firmly held to the stove" (I assume that's a metaphor for something or other). Pretty much par for the course. (Last time I looked, they'd concluded I'm a sinister right-handed libertarian atheist Christian conservative communist from Wisconsin, born in 1908, employed in rocketry, and spending my leisure time badger-baiting. Or... something like that? )--Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Being a member of a free to register forum that discusses wikipedia does not imply any sort of conformity of views on this issue (or in fact any issue despite what I once thought, just browse some of the threads, there is no uniformity of views), nor does it mean someone reads all threads (many of which are very boring to me). Worm is also a member for example, yet he voted for indef. Just because someone is a member of the forum does not mean they came to the discussion that way either. I came to this discussion because I left a comment (an apology) on Kiefer's page before the incident and was reading the reply, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC) An incredibly poor attempt to poison the well. In the interests of fairness and balance (for all that it matters), discussion (of sorts) has been doing the rounds on IRC - I've seen administrators being harassed over the refusal to revision delete KW's initial comment (the one that is the root cause for all of this) and there has been various attempts to influence various people to vote for an indefinite block. The issue, of course, is that both venues (Wikipediocracy and the WP IRC channels) are used by people who are perfectly entitled to have an opinion, those who use Wikipediocracy are, by and large, Wikipedia editors with the same rights and privileges every other WP editor has. Nick (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Put down the matches and step away from the pyre. Time served seems reasonable. There may be an RFC/U, but that's a different question isn't it? Intothatdarkness 19:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 1 month should be enough. Clearly we need to ban these editors from interacting with eachother or thel will get blocked again. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 21:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 3 months Last block was one month and didn't seem to do the trick, make this 3, the next 6, and so on. Either KW will realize that he needs to change the way he interacts or he won't, and if he won't then the longer blocks will eventually remove him from the community. I'm not sure why we have to get into these protracted debates anytime KW or certain other editors cross the line - just treat them like they are anyone else in the community: escalate block duration and move forward. Sædontalk 23:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I agree with you about the escalating blocks concept here. There are many users who believe that interpersonal disputes are somewhat different than, say, vandalism or whatnot and so shouldn't be treated the same. There's also a bit of a weird double standard where long-time users (or those with "more valuable edits") are given more leniency than new contributors. Killiondude (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Not really weird, quite normal actually. Makes perfect sense to tolerate more from good content writers. Happens everywhere and in every profession. Good pilots, hot shot traders, rainmakers, superstar professors, etc. are all allowed more than their fair share of eccentricities because they're good at what matters. --regentspark (comment) 23:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 3-6 months. His block log—and the ridiculous backpedaling (on the part of administrators) that accompanies almost every entry—is literally laughable. Having not seen his page since I blocked him almost a year ago, I actually did laugh when I saw it. "Indefinite" is too wishy-washy, unless you're talking infinite, which we are not. So set something concrete and stick with it. Based on the previous blocks, all of which are for the same thing, a matter of months seems reasonable. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 01:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC) What will have changed in 3–6 months? This notion of escalating punishments is quite simply absurd. Eric Corbett 02:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Oh, don't get me wrong - I have not the slightest notion that anything will improve here. It's not about punishing him, or teaching him a lesson, since he is obviously quite beyond that. It's about lengthening the time between episodes like this that take away time from good editors. Blocks aren't for teaching people lessons, they're for preventing disruption. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 02:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Yeah, right. Eric Corbett 02:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Time served per regentspark and NE Ent. Andreas JN466 04:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Unblock: I'd say there's essentially no option but to unblock immediately. There's no consensus on block length, whether to unblock based on time served, to block for a set period of time or to indefinitely block, some of the timed and indefinite block comments are based on apologies or behavioural modifications by Kiefer, and there has been some movement on that front already with the clarification of the comments made already, so they need to be weighted and ideally those who left the comments now need to clarify their intent. There's also an issue, from my perspective, of various parties getting involved and trying to influence the block - some wanting an indefinite block on IRC, others wanting Kiefer unblocked straight away. I don't believe any user, even one with Kiefer's block log, should expect to be unfairly treated based on external factors weighing on the discussion, so the fairest thing to do is to unblock. I would also say, I'm rather disappointed at the extent Demiurge has become involved in the discussion, Demiurge having replied to those commenting here 12 times, largely in defence of the indefinite block proposal. I consider that sort of involvement unhelpful and inappropriate given the involvement and long history of conflict between Kiefer and Demiurge, it would have been better if Demiurge had sat back, perhaps made a statement and allowed the discussion to evolve naturally, rather than replying to each and every comment he appears to dislike. I would also really like to see any evidence Kiefer can produce about problematic on-wiki behaviour and whether there is any issues of young and/or inexperienced editors being recruited as meatpuppets/cronies or whatever you (within the bounds of taste and decency) would call them. Nick (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC) One month seems reasonable. I agree with e.g. Blackmane (WP:AN#A_fundamental_breakdown) in that I do not think the offending comment can reasonably be interpreted as not deliberately offensive. It Is Me Here t / c 16:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Time Served per NE Ent, Cardamon, I am One of Many and others who have expressed concern that an editor has been blocked not for what he wrote but for his opponents’ questionable interpretation of what he wrote. I’m also dismayed by the zeal of certain parties here who are personally involved and have badgered, with repeated posts, those users who rejected as unconvincing their arguments for an indefinite block.Tristan noir (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite. I note the "Statement by KW" below in which he again accuses Demiurge1000 of "manipulating inexperienced persons ... young men, perhaps boys", which is simply a more subtle way of repeating the insinuations of paedophilia that he made earlier. Add to that what he is up to currently on Wikipediocracy, and it's obvious that he's engaged in a campaign against Demiurge1000. I really don't think we need this kind of person here. He clearly has no regrets whatsoever about his abusive behaviour towards Demiurge1000 and is, if anything, escalating it off-wiki. Prioryman (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Statement by KW copied from the editor's talk page I have stated my concern with a long-term mostly low-intensity conflict in which high-intensity conflicts happen, often because Demiurge1000 has been manipulating inexperienced persons found among WP's editors. Because of WP demographics and because of the obvious, such naive editors tend to be young men, perhaps boys. When somebody complained about the sentence, I first clarified my intention and asked that somebody strike it for me, because I had been immediately blocked and could not remove it myself. Evidence or retraction requested KW's statement above contains the text "Demiurge1000 has been manipulating inexperienced persons found among WP's editors". I'd been led to believe that making accusations about other editors without providing evidence, is unacceptable. So, where's the evidence? (And I don't just mean "you posted a notification on another editor's talk page and that editor happened to be under the age of 25", or "you gave a barnstar to someone after an argument". I mean actual evidence to categorically support what's being alleged.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC) KW is the one who made the statement. You should perhaps make the request on his talk page since he can't reply here. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC) He is indeed the one who made the statement, so he should have provided his evidence when doing so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Question 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. Some editors are offering the IVote Indefinite. Does this mean a Site-Ban by the community, or does this mean to keep him hanging until some unspecified criterion is met? Robert McClenon (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC) You've been here how long and don't know the diff between a block and a ban?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Who said the criterion was unspecified? I specified one above "until such time that KW shows understanding that these sort of accusations are unacceptable". Dennis Brown mentioned an "epiphany". There are many comments from KW that would lead me to supporting his unblock, but at the moment he's making things worse for himself - I don't believe that a time-limited block will change his attitude, but when his attitude changes he should be unblocked. WormTT(talk) 11:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC) A ban is a policy decision. A block is a technical action which can be used to enforce a ban. When editors argue for an indefinite block, they may be using terminology loosely and asking for a ban, or they may be asking for an unspecified block until he apologizes. The former is clear enough as to intent, even if a sloppy use of terminology. My question about an indefinite block until he apologizes or has an "epiphany" is that he has apologized in the past. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Under no circumstance should any of this be taken as even considering a site ban. A ban discussion would be wholly inappropriate. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 12:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC) See: Wikipedia:Banning policy, and WP:INDEF. Blocking should not be confused with banning, a formal retraction of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. Blocks disable a user's ability to edit pages; bans do not. However, users who are subject to a total ban, or who breach the terms of a partial ban, are likely to be blocked to enforce the ban.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:05, 5 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. User Talk page protected The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The combative discussions continued on User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz so I've given it a days full protection. I've had a couple of requests to unprotect at User talk:Salix alba#KW talk page and Kiefer has emailed for it to be unprotected. I'm inclined to let to protection run its course, but if any admin want to change it that fine.--Salix (talk): 07:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC) For the record, I support this action. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 11:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I'm not opposed to your administrative decision, just curious as to why you protected the page instead of revoking his access to it? Technical 13 (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Um, so that other people don't continue the argument while he stands around helplessly unable to respond. T13 - you were asked to self-impose an AN/ANI topic-ban ... this question could have been asked directly to the protector (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Partially also so that I didn't have to change the main block. I didn't want an indefinite block on the talk page just a short one to diffuse the situation. You can't have different part of a block running for different times.--Salix (talk): 12:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC) BWilkins is exactly correct. It was the best possible solution in a situation with no good options. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 12:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC) KW does not have email enabled...if he's blocked can he still enable it? Just asking since I don't know...and since his talkpage is protected.--MONGO 16:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I believe that preferences are not affected by a block. We don't know when he disabled email, but I don't think it has always been disabled. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I have revdel'd KW's original comment. Regardless of what it explicitly said, consensus is fairly clear that it contained a deliberate implication by Kiefer. If any admin disagrees with this, feel free to revert it; I won't take offence. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure it was required. I maintain the primary issue was intentionally crafting the words to be easily misunderstood for the purpose of causing drama, rather than the words themselves. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I agree, and I very strongly object to the revdel of all edits made to the page between 20:39 UTC yesterday and 17:05 UTC today, inclusive. This revdel even removed postings to completely different top-level sections of WP:AN, as well as many posts in which members of the community expressed their views on the duration of the ban and suggestions concerning a proposed topic ban from RfA. --Stfg (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC) All of those posts have been restored, with the comment from KW excised. Nothing else is missing, but to revdel an older post, all subsequent edits have to be briefly removed as well. Horologium (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Ah, I see, thanks. The diffs still cannot be obtained from the history file, nor from editors' contributions pages. I do object to what has been done, and wasn't it wheel warring? --Stfg (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Based on my familiarity with Basalisk, I don't think it was wheel warring, just misplaced enthusiasm. I have no issue with the comment being removed from the page, but I think they should all be in the edit history, as they don't fit the criteria to RevDel. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Would you care to undo it then Dennis Brown? Prodego talk 18:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC) It looks like Horologium said he already has. Wheel warring requires intent, and this is just a mix up, no one is trying to step on anyone, no need for feathers to get ruffled here. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)When I read KW original post, it set my mind racing about Demiurge's conduct on IRC. I realised that that's not ok, as what KW said was baseless. We shouldn't leave those kinds of posts lying around to place suggestive images in people's minds. Stfg - thanks for raising it on my talk page. I didn't realise the post had already been removed and restored, and wouldn't have removed it again had I realised. I skimmed through the discussion here and in all fairness the only mention of it was from Darkness Shines. I meant what I said in my previous post - I did this because I felt it was the right thing to do, but if someone thinks this is a bad decision then go ahead and revert it; it's relatively easy to undo. I won't mind. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 18:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)Well, I disagree with the revdel, too, and I'll undo it, if there are no strong objections. There's nothing explicitly requiring revdel in the edits, and given that KW was blocked for what boils down to his choice of words (intentional or otherwise), it doesn't seem fair to him to remove them from public view, where they can't be accurately judged. (FWIW, Horologium appears to have restored parts of the removed text but nto actually undone the revdel.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Trout, self-served by db Ok, part of this was my fault and I may have given Basalisk some bad info in an email. But it is just a misunderstanding, of which I will share in the blame. Writ, if you will do the honors (I've never UNrevdel'ed before) I would be in your debt. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC) That isn't true, Dennis didn't offer me bad info. I simply didn't know about the previous discussion, which was my oversight. I've apologised to Prodego. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 19:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Well, I should have caught it in the email and I didn't, so that is my fault. Too many distractions at work today and the internet isn't working right and a technician is on the way. Had I caught that, this wouldn't have happened. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) Okay, the edit history is restored. I've left the comments redacted in the live version of the page (without prejudice as to whether they should be restored on the live page, too), as I don't feel as strongly about that as I did the revdel; his comments can be seen in the edit history at least. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks everyone. Basalisk, I apologise for rasing wheel warring. I skimmed WP:WW, but didn't grok that it requires intent. I've never doubted your good intent. --Stfg (talk) 19:11, 4 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. User:Eric Corbett The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. "I find you to be an exceedingly obnoxious and offensive prick..."[11] "Which only goes to demonstrate that you're a malevolent idiot."[12] "Please don't try taking the piss. Unlike you I have a degree in psychology."[13] Is this his attempt at humour? Other editors really shouldn't have to accept a constant undercurrent of incivility from a small group of editors just to try to improve Wikipedia. I think he's trying to make a case for User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz by being even more incivil and by lodging new personal attacks to distract from the original... user:j (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Are you certain you've been thinking at all? Eric Corbett 01:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I think enough drama has happened for one day. Eric, that wasn't your best phraseology at work, even if tempers are running high. I suggest we move along and not make this any larger than it needs to be. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I get really pissed off with these childish reports to mommy because someone said something I don't like. It's about time WP grew up. Eric Corbett 01:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I have no idea what Eric Corbett's age is, but it is about time that you, Eric, grew up. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC) So you have no idea what you're talking about then. QED. Eric Corbett 01:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC) This is what I'm talking about, tempers are high, everyone needs to just go edit articles or have a tea. There is more context than meets the eye here, and jockeying for the last word isn't helping. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Witless comments of this sort are typical of the kind of people who want to be friends of bullies because they like and envy the power that bullies have: enfeebled attempts to do the same thing that amount to little more than a kid saying "you smell". KW's history of personal attacks eptomised clever and witty bullying of the kind designed to belittle and humiliate others, all the more obnoxious because it was so skillful. The repeated sarcastic remarks of this editor combined with the desperate desire to assert claims to intellectual authority represent the problem that emerges when editors like KW's acquire cheer-leaders. Paul B (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I've moved Paul B's comment to its chronological position, as its previous insertion made it appear that Dennis's comment was a reply to Paul rather than to Eric. --Stfg (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Your username is a letter. Your argument is invalid.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC) And it's not even a vowel, for cryin' out loud... pft! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Comment on the edits, not the editor's username! :P Seriously, though, I appreciate the levity, but there's an editor having a meltdown, calling other editors "pricks" and "idiots." And his response to this thread makes it clear he doesn't seem to think there's anything wrong with that behaviour. user:j (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC) There is a lot of background which makes this different from standard "that editor was uncivil" cases. No one is going to be sanctioned for the above diffs, and so long as there is no provocation there will be no unpleasant commentary. There is no meltdown. This is an admin noticeboard and plenty of people have noticed this thread and would comment if they felt it would be helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Comment: I suggest this section be hatted. It's not about KW, and if anyone has any gripes with Eric they should take it elsewhere - otherwise this is just creating diversion and more stupid drama. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I've fixed the problem of it being a subsection. And I agree with J (The Devil's Advocate's attempts to divert the discussion notwithstanding) that those comments are extremely inappropriate. The sad thing is, if he made those comments in real life, Eric would have long since been kicked out of his job or out of any sort of organization. SilverserenC 05:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Why Malleus was granted a user name changein an effort to clear his block log is beyond me, and why people tolerate him is also beyond me. What's it going to take to get him to be blocked and actually stay blocked? It really doesn't matter what a wonderful content contributor he is: his demeanour should have resulted in a ban years ago, and the change in username has done nothing to clean it up.—Kww(talk) 05:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Kww, suggesting that MF got a new name to hide his block log is...well, let me not say what I think of it. Why he changed user names is a matter of record, and what you're doing is insinuating, and I thought that you would be above that. The kind of passive-aggressive BS civility complaining we see all over the current page is far more destructive to the project than Malleus/Eric's incivility. I don't think his commentary in the section above is very helpful, but your dramatizing (and SilverSeren's) is even less helpful. Do you want to know why I tolerate him, and why I think that he's an asset to the project? Because, in the end, we should be producing well-written and well-researched material. The rest is secondary. Drmies (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Apparently actually changed to using his real name. I agree that deportment is secondary, but there's a big difference between secondary and inconsequential.—Kww(talk) 05:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC) When his cost to the wiki is a number of people leaving the project, I think it outweighs any amount of material he could produce. SilverserenC 05:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC) You'd better start targetting me, then, Silver. I suspect that a lot of people have left due to things I have said or done. Or, instead, you could start thinking in terms of net positives. - Sitush (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I don't think there are any net positives when an editor is making the editing environment toxic for everyone else. SilverserenC 08:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Eric's intentions at Wikipedia are not up for discussion here and this subsection is out of order. One more comment and I'll hat it and start throwing some warnings around for disruption. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC) That's why I tried making it an actual section and not a sub-section, so it could be a separate discussion. Why are his personal attacks not up for discussion? SilverserenC 07:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Because no admin will block him based on civility anymore (despite it still being a pillar) because they know another admin will come and undo it in 5 minutes time. Its a waste of everyone's time and effort discussing it, so the best option is just for everyone to shut up and let him curse and call people names all he wants. Blah blah content creator blah blah special flower blah. The best option is to either ignore him, unless you have to work with him, in which case bear in mind he will be able to call you all the names under the sun but you cannot respond. With the implication you probably deserve it and should just grow a thicker skin. This is the state we are currently at. I will add the Kudpungs comments above are part of the reason why the general impression is that Eric enjoys special protection. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Bowing down to the unblockables isn't the proper response. SilverserenC 08:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Seren, the man said drop it.Volunteer Marek 08:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC) No. And nice to see you too, Marek. SilverserenC 08:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I could consider myself a victim of Eric's attacks, but I don't. This whole sordid affair has got tempers running high on all sides, and unfortunately Eric is one of those who hasn't held it. I don't hold any grudges, and I know they're a very good editor from what I've seen with the Sunbeam Tiger article. I've clearly overstepped the mark at times in the RfA, as most of us on that talk page did. I suggest this particular section is closed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:25, 5 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. Civility blocks are sexy, articles are boring. Please support new policy proposal. The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A bored spotlight-seeker trolling for attention with ambiguous wording is blocked and there's a gratifying storm of response. This whole thread about one of our favourite incivility stars covers 67% of the Administrators' noticeboard right now, by my simple measurement. (It's 34,5 screenfuls on my good big monitor.) Meanwhile in another part of the galaxy (ANI), there's a dry-as-dust attempt to defend the integrity of Wikipedia articles by topic-banning a long-running manifestation of a self-promoting sock/meat-puppeteer. Old arbitration case about it is here, ANI thread about the topic ban here, with its currently three comments (which is about — starting to count — losing my place — oh — it's currently about one fiftieth of the number of comments made above on the block length alone), which is hardly enough for a topic ban, at least I don't think it would be proper to institute a ban on such a "consensus". The contrast got me thinking about making "Civility blocks are sexy, articles are boring" policy, as it already is our practice, and I'm just floating it here in the hope of a good start-up discussion before I create the RFC. Proposal: "Civility blocks are sexy, articles are boring" should be policy. Please comment below, stating: a) Support, b) Oppose, c) No, just stick it in MastCell's Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia, d) Why is Wikipedia is an MMORPG tagged as {{humor}}? e) No, I think I'll just go contribute to the ANI topic ban discussion, f) other. (Don't in any case bother to tell me it's moot because topic bans ought to be posted on AN in the first place, not ANI. So they ought, but sometimes, as in the sock/meat-puppet case, they arise from an ANI discussion and stay there. And we all know ANI, other things being equal, gets more attention than AN anyway.) Bishonen | talk 10:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC). a) Support — Ched :  ?  11:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC) ... Second First choice h) Bright Blue .. :) — Ched :  ?  15:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC) g) Purple. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC) ? I thought this was already policy. You mean it's actually not policy? We must rectify this oversight at once! Oh...and green. Intothatdarkness 13:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Good points, but I think the more serious analysis here would be along the lines of "civility blocks/disputes are easy to understand (if sometimes hard to resolve) and hence everyone has an opinion; article integrity blocks are much more complicated and there are fewer people with the inclination or time to roll up their sleeves and sort through the history." In general, as is reflected not just on AN/ANI but on XfD pages as well, there is often depressingly little correlation between the importance of an issue and the amount of collective community time and effort spent evaluating the issue. This is a flaw in our processes, but I have no idea how to fix it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC) It is a flaw in human behaviour more than anything. People gravitate towards personalities - good or bad - and the level of discussion of them will naturally increase as a result. The flaw in process is that the result of this is an often paralyzed community that becomes unable to enforce its own standards because the editors who become time sinks often attract enough like-minded support to evade any meaningful sanction. Such enablers, in turn, empower eachother behave even worse. Resolute 14:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC) It's actually not that simple, although it's tempting to believe it's so. There is also a cycle of baiting, passive-aggressive POV pushing, and policy OWN ensuring that in many cases those who instigate things are able to slink away in the resulting building of pyres. Humans, especially in a collective, relatively closed environment, will seek the "easy answer," and it's far easier to attack someone who curses rather than the person or behavior that caused or provoked the cursing. It's easier to brand those who disagree with terms such as "like-minded support" (thus lumping them into the same supposedly disruptive category) than it is to sort through the entire picture. Intothatdarkness 14:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC) The lowest hanging fruit is always the sweetest and everyone loves a good old-fashioned mob. Why waste time digging for answers when you get just as many bonus points for looking right? As for fixing it, sometimes I feel like we are drilling holes in the bottom of a sinking boat, to allow the water to drain out. [14] Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 14:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC) I mentioned to someone yesterday (perhaps in email) that I often felt like I was trying to bail water out of the Titanic with a thimble; great minds? — Ched :  ?  14:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC) [ec]It's always incredibly difficult to fix culture, especially when many of the people who would need to do the fixing are so vested in the existing culture that they either see no reason to change it or feel threatened by any attempt to change it. Maybe they should just drop the anchor through the bottom of the boat to stop the forward motion...;-) Intothatdarkness 14:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Interim comment: I was hoping alternative e), "I think I'll just go contribute to the ANI topic ban discussion", would attract a lot of support, but it doesn't seem popular so far. (Though thank you, Dennis.) But perhaps people, such as for example you, Brad, are even as we speak rolling up your sleeves and sorting through the history, HINT HINT? Actually the history's a doddle; the worst part is having to read (Gosh, that sounds painful! I meant glance through!) through a dull old arbcom case from 2005. Bishonen | talk 15:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC). I didn't want to read all the material (so many words!), so I just added a me too vote, you know, to be popular and jack up the vote total. </joke>. And for those too lazy to watch the whole video I linked, starting at 5:11 gets the job done[15]. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Civility blocks are ridiculous, but that was a personal-attack-with-foul-innuendo block. Well different. --Stfg (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC) The problem that I think Bishonen brings up is that our incentive system is counterproductive. For people who thrive on interpersonal bickering, Wikipedia is like a crack house smorgasbord of constant oversupply and reinforcement. So we've accumulated an ever-increasing population of editors who thrive on and perpetuate interpersonal disputes. On the other hand, trying to resolve a content dispute is incredibly time-consuming, frustrating, and unrewarding, since our current system gives filibuster power to anyone with an Internet connection and an obsessive pet belief. So over time we've lost the people who provided sane, reasonable, encyclopedia-focused input into content disputes. If we want this unfortunate dynamic to change, then we need to change our incentive system. MastCell Talk 17:15, 6 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. 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 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.

---

These were "good closing comments" in the sense that they were very diplomatic, in that they made the rights nods in the right directions, that they were worded in a way which made sure that no one can accuse the closer of wrong intentions or bias, in that they were a well designed to end drama and in that they made an appearance of "resolving" the situation. But it was still a bad close.

But you strip away all the rhetoric and fancy language and what it boils down to is this:

What that means is that Horologium's indefinite block stands, until such time either Horologium or another uninvolved admin (after consulting with Horologium per our blocking policy) are convinced that the behavior (i.e. accusing another of misconduct without evidence and in such a way that reasonable people may infer an accusation of sexual misconduct) will not be repeated

You can put all kinds of nice words on it but what it amounts to is 1) Kiefer is indef/infinitely blocked and 2) you authorize the interpretation of his comments as suggesting sexual misconduct (please, look up the difference between the words "imply" and "infer" in a dictionary!) which was not supported by many of the commentators and by not unblocking him and, more importantly, making it very difficult for ANY admin to unblock him you imposed consensus where there was none.

Was it a good close? No, despite all the ass kissing above. Was it well played? Yes, yes it was.Volunteer Marek 01:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

A decent close would have at the very least outlined the conditions for Kiefer to resume editing, particularly since it's pretty obvious from the discussion that the original block did not have overwhelming, or even "strong" support. It didn't do that. All it did, in practical terms, was turn the word "indefinite" into the word "infinite". Without justification, against policy, against consensus. There was some nice words in the closure, there was some "on the one hand, on the other hand" sops to the parties involved, there was a lot of "cover my own ass when I do this", but at the end of the day... it gave one side of a contentious dispute (the "hang him high and humiliate him" side) everything they wanted without even leaving a crack of an opportunity for Kiefer or the people who think that this is a person whom the encyclopedia needs.

That's pretty much the definition of a "bad close". Nice words and all.

How exactly does "KW hold the keys to resuming editing"? There was nothing in the wording of the closure which would indicate a willingness to undo that or to actually hand him these "keys". You can say false things like that but... they're... just... not... true. So stop it. That's actually called "lying".

.... Volunteer Marek 02:19, 7 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.

Blocked

"Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment".[1]

I have blocked you indefinitely for [16]. That edit (and the edit summary) is far out of the bounds of acceptability. I will be posting on the noticeboard thread in a minute about this block. Horologium (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You have no idea what you're talking about. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Read what I wrote. I accused nobody of being sexually used by DU1000---certainly not WTT. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Comprehension seems low today, Kiefer. I, for one, understood what you meant. Intothatdarkness 21:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Is he behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men?" How did you expect that to be interpreted? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  When read in the full context of what was going on there, I take it to be a question as to whether an experienced user should be encouraging new users to fight his battles for him. But people will read what they wish into things. That's always (IMO) been one of KW's written weaknesses. His style is opaque at times and easy to misunderstand or twist. Intothatdarkness 21:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  So substitute "young people" if it makes you happy, and strike the offending phrase. Please focus on the issue, which is recruiting pawns. Should he have been advising Luke to pursue an RfC targetting me? Should he have been egging on gwickwire? etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  One of the "young boys" Demiurge has, according to Kiefer, been questionably behaving towards is a member of the arbitration committee. That sort of undermines the argument, here. The fact of the matter is that grooming was immediately surfaced as a possible interpretation of your statement - and instead of doing anything in response, you goaded people. You either knew full well what you were saying or just fancied poisoning the well a tiny bit more. Neither attitude is appropriate. Ironholds (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Back to business

• How about you put up or shut up? You pay me 500$ for every diff where Worm That Turned expressed surprise, etc., at how the RfC went? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  Whatever the rights and wrongs here KW it's pretty obvious how this is going to end up, and it's going to start with you being denied access to your own talk page. For God's sake get a grip man. Eric Corbett 22:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  Please review "Truth and Probability" by Frank Ramsey. The Ramsey test is a way to evaluate claims/bullshit. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  I have a pretty good built-in bullshit detector, and I can tell you right now that you're going about this the wrong way. I'm no more in love with those such as Demiurge1000 than you are, but as they so rarely get involved in article development I find it relatively easy to avoid them. And as for RfA, that's a pit of snakes best kept clear of, whichever side of the divide you're on. Eric Corbett 22:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've now protected the page for one day. This is to try and stop this spiralling and rather pointless argument. People really need to read Wikipedia:No angry mastodons and understand none of this is helping build an encyclopaedia.--Salix (talk): 23:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Whatever you cited is a user essay. In the future, there should be a policy cited. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Essay or not, its application saved your arse from being denied access to your talk page, so for Christ's sake get yourself in gear. Eric Corbett 23:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC) The essay is amusing and its applicability..., hmmm. I recall a NYT story about African elephants 20 years ago, I think. The adult males had been poached. So the young males formed gangs and flattened trees and houses for funs, because there were no role models telling them not to be stupid. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Poached elephants? How on earth do they get them in the pan? -- Hillbillyholiday talk 00:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC) So to explain the protection. I have watched a little incident at a RFA grow and grow and get more and more heated. Eventually you just pushed things over the edge. For a dynamical systems analogy a tipping point was reached. The best thing you could have done would have been to drop the discussion at RFA, but that did not happen. You could have dropped it at AN but instead went on the offensive. Even when blocked you still continued to argue continuing the disruption and there was no sign it would end. Following WP:BLOCK#PREVENTATIVE Blocks should be used to: prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia there was continuing disruption. To prevent further disruption there were two options, change the block to deny talk page access or protect the page. I chose the latter as a) I did not want the talk page access to be prevented for a long time, b) other parties were also involved contributing to the disruption. I am sorry for not replying to your email, but I was looking for signs that you had cooled down, and they were not present in the email. If this page becomes badly disruptive again the protection may have to be reapplied.--Salix (talk): 01:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Let me live in Sweden a few more years, and I'll likely comply with Jantelagen, although stuttering in fear and kowtowing are unlikely options, given my upbringing. :) A vigorous discussion is not disruption. The disruption policy describes "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". Stupid discussions are not disruption. Insofar as there is disruption---pesanos with pitchforks and torches declaring me the AntiChrist and declaring RfA the New Kingdom---you might look at the quality and quantity of attacks against me at AN and the recent RfA, and consider whether administrative action was needed only against me? Of course, you note that your action did at least stop everybody from posting, so that it was equitable. I don't think that you could block enough administrators who were disrupting AN and RfA to be equitable there. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Quite a show of AGF

AN is putting on quite a show. We've had calls for blocking me indefinitely unless I apologize for the edit. Above, I already asked for somebody to strike the phrase that evoked hysteria.

Ironholds should correct his falsehoods, e.g., his fabrication of "young boys", which I never wrote. Similarly, The Rambling Man should remove his misrepresentations of what I wrote, in which TRM alleged man-boy grooming, and try to behave according to WP:NPA and WP:Civility.

As I understand it, I am indefinitely blocked because an administrator misunderstood what I wrote, and tried to guess at my intentions.

Soon thereafter, AN has been hit with persons trying to ban me from RfAs, using this block, clearing abusing process. If they want to ban questions about grammar or about writing on encyclopedic topics from RfAs, then they should ask the community through an RfC. Good luck with that!

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I agree that AN is a shameful disgrace. I saw what you wrote and could see how it could be misconstrued but at the same time if they bothered to read the context of the discussion around it, it was clearly a misunderstanding and overreaction. That is unfortunately what I have come to expect from admins these days though. Indefinite block, ask some peers to gratify their actions, and continue trolling the discussion just to prove their point. Not much AGF anymore in this site. But hey, the new features make it a lot more like facebook every day! Kumioko (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't really think you can place all the blame on the admins. Much more culpable are the admin wannabes who hang around that place. Eric Corbett 23:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Side topic

That's very true and fair to say. I would like to take this time to say that although I have tried for the tools three times I am no admin wannabe. Its just the only way to get the ones I need. Kumioko (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Let me take this opportunity to say that you could get all the tools you feel you need if you'd just drop the "nobody loves me, nobody listens to me" act. Maybe they don't, who knows or who cares, but it just comes across as pathetic. Eric Corbett 00:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Worse than a golden calf Being a Priest of Moloch may give some keys and some initiations into the higher mysteries. However, some job requirements strike me as unsavory. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for BK

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Did you ever look at my RfC/U. Worm That Turn and Demiurge1000 quoted you in their beginning. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Shrug I thought you were out of line there. I said so. Note, however, that I *didn't* use my admin tools or run off crying to ANI about it. Currently, I believe you're on the end of treatment that's also out of line. So I said that as well. The last thing I'm going to do, in any situation, is not say what I think. (I might change my mind later, but whatever). Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I objected to their quoting you out of context, neglecting my misunderstanding of the facepalm as "talk to the hand" and my apologies; for this selective quotation, WTT apologized. But perhaps they were correct, afterall? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Dictionary needs

At AN yesterday, WTT cited this diff as evidence that I was using "grooming" with connotations of sexual predation. In fact, the diff and his citation yesterday demonstrate a limited vocabulary. WTT should have reviewed "groom" and "preen" and understood their consonance, before and yesterday. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

KW, either you do not understand how the juxtaposition of "grooming" and "child" is problematic or you do understand and are chosing to quibble your way out of trouble. If the former, you should be removed from the encyclopedia due to intense naïvety and I believe you've exhausted many people's patience with the latter. There's really not much more for me to say. Worm^TT(talk) 11:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

In the diff I quote, following you, I compared you to a student-government politician gaining votes by making friends with unpopular kids. You know that "groom" is used for such activities, in contemporary literature, as I have posted on Wikipediocracy.

I am utterly uninterested in your patience or opinions. You are the same man who carried out Demiurge1000's RfC/U against me, and anybody reading that dishonest piece of work or your current postings can see what you are made of.

You too offered the "hand of friendship" after that RfC/U.... Perhaps Dennis Brown can consider what such offers are worth. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

In a nutshell, you have successfully snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. GS was baiting you at RFA. I spoke out in the interest of fairness and GS reflected on it and admitted his wording was very suboptimal. You doubted his sincerity and couldn't resist making a point of it all. You are a clever wordsmith, perhaps too clever for your own good at times. My issue isn't what you said, even a dense fellow like myself could read through the opacity with a little extra effort. The comment was crafted specifically to cause drama, to fool the mind's eye and get people to misinterpret it. It wasn't your first use of the device, and you could easily predict the reaction although you may have underestimated the aftermath. You took it too far this time, and while that might not have been the intent, it would be foolish to not recognize it now. The solution here is simple and obvious. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 12:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

A crucial turning point in that earlier history occurred when men and women of good will turned aside from the task of shoring up the Roman imperium and ceased to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of that imperium. When they set themselves to achieve instead—often not recognizing fully what they were doing—was the construction of new forms of community within which the moral life could be sustained so that both morality and civility might survive the coming ages of barbarism and darkness. If my account of our moral condition is correct, we ought also to conclude that for some time now we too have reached that turning point. What matters at this stage is the construction of local forms of community within which civility and the intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new dark ages which are already upon us. And if the tradition of the virtues was able to survive the horrors of the last dark ages, we are not entirely without grounds for hope. This time however the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time.

— Alasdair C. MacIntyre, After Virtue

FFS, Dennis, WTT quotes me using "groom" above to describe a student-politician "befriending" uncool kids to get votes. I have a record of using groom precisely for such manipulative recruitment. The word has other meanings without manipulation, as e.g. Jon Snow being groomed for leadership in Game of Thrones.

I didn't even use "groom" here. Others misattribute it to me, along with "young boys", sloppily or maliciously. I've given diffs and links on Wikipediocracy. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer, they will see and read what they wish or what they're conditioned to believe. That's how some conduct gets condoned or ignored here while other actions bring out the mob with its torches. You also have to remember that from a group psychology sort of standpoint closed societies need enemies. They need a vague external threat to rally the troops so that no one looks too closely at the rot that's going on inside. Why go out of your way to provide them with said enemy? OWN of policy prevents many from making real change, or putting it off as too complicated, so we're stuck with what we have. It pains me to say that, but so long as OWN of policy is condoned (and even encouraged by the various shadow bureaucracies) that's the reality. Intothatdarkness 13:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Then I'm left with only two choices: 1) You crafted your words to intentionally make a point. or 2) It was a very foolish mistake. As most people consider you a skilled wordsmith, you surely understand why it is difficult to believe it was the 2nd option. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 14:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • No, sex doesn't need to have anything to do with it. But the innuendo is there and is strong, so is the allusion to canvassing. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 15:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Good advices

"I'd like it here if I could leave" Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Choice

I've gotten the impression you'd rather do the right thing rather than suck up to "powers that be." Sort of a the coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave man dies but once. While I can't be certain -- there's a temporal element to AN & ANI where the "pitchforks" tend to show up first, and then the more reasonable folks later -- if not this time, then the next time, or the time after that it's likely you'll get banned. You should be savvy enough to know what kind of phrasing is going to get you in hot water, and which won't. I'll be the first to admit WP is a messed up, political place but despite that it's produced the best encyclopedia ever -- it'd be a shame if your contributions to it were lost, but I don't think my minority sentiments and that of a few others can continue to turn the tide of the reactionary types who are just gonna react to anything provocative you post. If you were more of a newbie I'd suggest phrasing for an unblock request but I don't think you need that -- bottom line is I think you have a choice to make very soon now if you want to continue to participate on-wiki or be content limiting your efforts to 'cracy and the like. NE Ent 13:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I asked for others to remove the phrase that was objectionable, before, which shows my intention to focus on the issue at hand, without using precise language that is alas liable to be misinterpreted.

It is unfortunate that many at AN call for me to apologize despite my having made my strike-the-comment request soon after somebody raised concerns. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Drive by shooting off the mouth
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, just as you did the time before that, and the time before that, and the time before that, and the time before that... like a broken record. I just stopped in to see what all the fuss was about, and from your block log I see that very little has changed since this time last year. At a certain point, the righteous indignation act wears a bit thin. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 13:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Your righteous indignation act do you mean? Eric Corbett 14:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Kafziel, nobody cares what you write, apart from your "puling masses", which may be your most celebrated contribution to Wikipedia. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Ah, yes. That comment. Quite defining, that. At least for me when it came to some observations about this place's dominant culture. Intothatdarkness 14:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

KW, I've read what you've written above and I have a suggestion. If I understand you correctly, young men and boys are impressionable and easily led and that the misleading of this youthful set was what you were referring to. I'm willing to AGF and accept that statement and doubtless there are others who would do the same. But, clearly, the statement has been misinterpreted, and not without reason. Would it kill you to make a clear statement that both explains what you meant and also apologizes for the poor choice of words that have lead to giving people offense? I know we Americans can appear to be way too eager to be politically correct but one reason why we thrive in social settings is that we realize that giving unintended offense is not just well worth an apology but is also a good way to keep moving forward. And that's not going to happen if you think there is nothing to apologize for or that the people taking offense are merely out for your blood. Right or wrong, there is a way to survive on Wikipedia and a way to self-destruct, the choice (as NE Ent above also says) is yours. --regentspark (comment) 14:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I've clarified my intention numerous times, and I asked that my comment be struck after I read a complaint. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I see that here but not on AN. What would be helpful would be a clear explanation that includes your strike out request along with an apology for giving offense that can be copied to AN. Otherwise, I suspect, this is going to end badly. Something along the lines of In the comment that is causing this controversy, I meant blah blah blah. I apologize for my poor choice of words that caused the statement to be misconstrued and, in fact, asked that it be struck (include diff) the moment I realized that had happened (I was blocked and couldn't strike it myself).--regentspark (comment) 14:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I've said this many times.

I have stated my concern with a long-term mostly low-intensity conflict in which high-intensity conflicts happen, often because Demiurge1000 has been manipulating inexperienced persons found among WP's editors. Because of WP demographics and because of the obvious, such naive editors tend to be young men, perhaps boys. When somebody complained about the sentence, I first clarified my intention and asked that somebody strike it for me, because I had been immediately blocked and could not remove it myself.

I don't think this will make people happy. What they want is a ban of me from RfAs and a block of me, probably through the next WP ArbCom elections. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right. But it is the right thing to do and that's always worth something. I've copied it over to AN. --regentspark (comment) 15:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose that a link to Wrangham's Demonic Males would have not raised Youtube-copyright concerns, but might have been considered more inflamatory than the link to Julie and Harry. See, I'm trying to fit in. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Pmanderson said it the best: it's a social website, not an encyclopedia. The social dynamic here seems out of Milan Kundera; the picture of enraptured youth dancing in a circle. --regentspark (comment) 15:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I've never read Kundera---almost up there with King Lear and Tolstoy as my most humiliating literary lacunae. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Time to move on

Strange comments. How should an improperly blocked editor "move on"?

K-Wolf, there comes a time when one needs to accept that one has made their case and move along. I personally think your concerns are overblown, which is not to say that scrutiny is altogether unnecessary. But that's not going to be your department moving forward, nor is Wikipedia the place. You've made your case. Move along. Radar screens are now being watched, trust in that. Any such radar watching is not gonna be your department, however, because if you try to make it your department you're going to get banned off for good. Let it go. You very nearly immolated yourself at AN by implying way too much backed by way not enough. I don't want to piss you off, but it felt sort of like the anonymous phone calls an early campaign of Richard Nixon is said to have made against his stamp-collecting opponent asking voters, "Did you know that Richard Nixon's opponent is a known philatelist?!?!" If not an actual accusation, it was an unseemly implication and a smear. A major, major mistake. At some point we shall see the dialectical transformation of quantity to quality and the sum of previous small dramas becomes sufficient for the executioner's axe. Read again the long list of hearty endorsements for an indefinite block at AN and tell me I'm wrong. I tell you this as a friend, as does Eric — you've GOT to disengage here and trust in others. Accept this reality, get unblocked, write a completely new article and take a true vacation from the drama circus. I appreciate your commitment to your beliefs. Trust others. Best regards, as always. —Tim /// ShoeHutch@gmail.com /// Carrite (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC) In friendship and respect for you, I endorse this statement by Carrite. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC) I couldn't have put it better myself. Eric Corbett 17:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC) I'm going to have to agree as well, because I'd really like to see you back to editing. I fully admit that much of your work, especially in mathematics, is far above my comprehension .. at least without my putting some major effort into understanding it; but I do very much appreciate your work here. — Ched :  ?  18:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Hi! Usually I can endorse the advice of any one of you, and I would have had difficulty imagining a scenario where all four of you are wrong at the same time. It is false that Sweden has the world's highest suicide rate, notwithstanding the beliefs of a majority of Americans or the avowal of President Eisenhower. Similarly, the beliefs of a majority of early discussants at ANI similarly have no bearing on the truth. I am impressed and pleased by the fairness and thoughts of Nick, Fram, and IRWolfie---three editors who cannot be dismissed as being "my supporters"---amid other good and reasonable editors. Carrite was correct that Fram had been unfairly dismissed by me, I am pleased to acknowledge. I had not mistaken myself as in recent days having been "engaged" on Wikipedia. Sorry to sound so cold, but you seem to want me to avow having written with an intention contrary to my intention and then to pledge not to repeat doing something I haven't done. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Speaking only for myself, I was a bit surprised that I also agreed with IRWolfie, or that he agreed with me. My own thoughts aren't so much that I see a need for you to retract your concerns, and indeed I even felt that much of the content that was inferred by others was without merit in respect to the actual wording you used. My thinking is more along the lines of having stated your concerns, it would be best to drop it at this point. Let others watch and draw their own conclusions - or if you feel a need to present any evidence of wrong-doing, perhaps it would be best done by emailing Arbcom or the WMF (as I mentioned here). (and apologies for my "e before i" mis-spellings of Kiefer, I'll try to be more attentive to that in the future.) . — Ched :  ?  19:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC) ArbCom has NewYorkBrad and WormThatTurned now, neither of whom have my trust in this matter, and ArbCom has a history of leaking emails. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Kiefer: I haven't looked for this at Wikipediocracy, so I know I'm missing some of the spelling out. But let me make a confession. I didn't understand what the heck you were on about with that statement at AN. Its opacity was ... too much for this admittedly tired and literalist PhD holder in the humanities. (I also find Henry James impenetrable.) Whatever the demographics of en.wikipedia - and I happen to believe the WMF know less about that than they collectively know about nuclear physics or Wolfram's Parzival - there are a lot of EFL editors around the place, as well as whatever my demographic may be .... and also a lot of Americans, who are known to be hair-trigger on certain subjects, both because American English is more formulaic and having fun with style and vocabulary far less common, and simply because it's a Whole Other Country. We are after all divided by a common language. Your expat status in a country where English is not the first language may have caused you to forget how easily things can be misunderstood even between dialects of written English. And you and Eric do tend to forget that intellectual conversation sometimes goes over people's heads - I have sat around faculty meetings but I still don't always get what you're on about, and this was, I'm afraid, an example of that. I wonder whether you've overestimated the ability of those at AN to figure out your meaning? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC) I have explained my original wording (which was hastily written to avoid the usual ec headaches, as documented above). When it caused a problem, I quickly offered to strike the offending phrase (to pacify those with limited English). I suppose some of the hysteria was caused by my using "boys and young men" (which I thought showed respect to teenagers), which I suppose is due to a fear that "boys and young men" sends an anti-gay code; I won't waste my time with diffs. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Yes, I did look carefully at the remark itself (I don't hang out at AN) and at that clarification - just not at the other site. It's actually after my bedtime :-). But I suppose my point is that you may not have fully realised how often stuff goes over people's heads. (It went over mine, although I rejected that reading of it, and my English, although eccentric, is native.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Forgive me, Lord, my unkind thoughts. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Way forward

KW...in my mind there is an easy way to move forward...simply state you're going to avoid the dramaboards and places like Rfa for at least six months and concentrate solely on article improvements and stick with that. One thing I have noticed here is those that simply state their opinions with calmness and coolness and avoid threaded arguments end up having the louder voices and more say as a result. The back and forth and stonewalling rarely succeeds in doing anything but getting blood pressures up. I hope you'll not just remove this or hat it off because even though we haven't always agreed, you should know that I value your general edits in article space and would like to see you return to that fold. What gets accomplished at the dramaboards anyway? I'm a strong supporter of freedom of speech but also freedom from speeches...and thats my speech to try and bluntly offer what I think is the best way forward.--MONGO 16:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestion is welcome after the improper block is removed.

The improper block seems to have been confused with consensus at an AN/I discussion, with an RfC with voluntary restrictions, an ArbCom case, or an intervention by Jimbo Wales. Each has its place at times on WP, but at this place and at this time discussion should focus on the improper block.

New York Brad also suggested that I volunteer to self-imposed limitations at RfA before he could see what he could do with the block. I would like to introduce NYB, after his performance on the bureaucrat's talk page and here, to the signatory of the ArbCom decision who was concerned with uneven enforcement of civility.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You should know there isn't any justice in this place...I can also testify to that. Man, I've been misunderstood (maybe cause I sometimes parse my comments too strongly ((sound familiar?))) more often than not but I do know where you're coming from most of the time. I'm all for the good fight but sometimes its better to lose a battle than the whole war ya know. NYB isn't going to get it right all the time anymore than any of the rest of us, but he's more right than not to a degree that I rank him as one of the more sane persons on the website, certainly more so than I. You also get to the grit in the matter and your words are generally worth reading, even if they can be (like mine) somewhat eyebrow-raising.--MONGO 20:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I know NYB for supporting RfAs of minors without offering anything like a review of their contributions and for writing a toothless guide for minors editing Wikipedia, which should be compared to the guidelines of organizations like the Boy Scouts. I know NYB for coddling The Rambling Man and coming here to kvetch about my comments at RfA, at a grossly improper time. Let him rescue one of the Rihanna projects GA articles and get it to DYK status, as a member of the community, before he comes here again to lecture me on being more tolerant of sports page cliches on an Encyclopedia's FAs or pointing out that the encyclopedia is being overrun. Perhaps his childhood never involved work, since he seemed to think that "studying or flipping burgers" was an insult or an improper expectation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I speak as the fifth-highest contributor to Beyonce Knowles' Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It), and helped it through FAC, never mind DYK, despite never having heard the song or having any interest in it; can't really remember why now, probably felt sorry for it. I'm also the sixth-highest contributor to Manchester United F.C. So whatever NYB has or hasn't done let me simply say that you're really doing yourself no favours. Listen to the advice you're being given, please. Eric Corbett 21:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I did my time on a song by Christina Aguilera, and know whereof I speak when I complained about the standards of GAs on pop songs, which despite my efforts do not meet the standards of DYK. The end of the article now with GA status has not been improved since my clean up of the first 3/4s. There are plenty of problems with such projects' GA articles, a proposition not disproved by your fine work on an FA article or NYB's displeasure (elsewhere). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No indeed. In truth I not infrequently find WP's pop culture coverage to be quite useful. When I'm watching a film, for instance, I'll sometimes flip to the WP page to try and understand what the Hell is going on, or if I'm feeling particularly impatient how the film ends. I was rather in the dark about how Dark Water ended until I read the WP article. Did she die or didn't she? Apparently she died. Sort of. Eric Corbett 22:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer...I'm willing to fight to get you unblocked....but Dianna below has left the building. What's the next step? I definitely think it's admirable to stick to your principles and maybe diffs at the time of your comment would have helped...but unless you just agree to just let it go, you're stuck in limbo for the near term. Tell us what you you're willing to give here. Can you agree to just move forward and avoid the drama zones for awhile? A self imposed ban from some of these areas would have a positive impact.--MONGO 04:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer, Mongo has given you excellent advice above. The way you're going about it now, right or wrong, no one is going to unblock you (unless Horologium chooses to do so). Even admins who are favorably inclined toward you need a reason to unblock and you're not giving us any. Looking at the current trajectory of this affair, the prognosis, I'm sorry to be brutal about this, is extremely negative and you're likely to end up amongst the heap of departed and forgotten editors. You might want to think about that. Read Mongo's suggestion at the top of this section carefully and take a day off to think about it before posting anything. --regentspark (comment) 15:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

After the improper block is lifted, we can discuss RfAs, etc. I am certainly not going to condescend to discuss other matters now. I would wish that people would stop repeating themselves. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Your participation at RfA

Improper discussion of RfA during improper block
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Let me see if I can help with the current situation in some fashion. I'll put to the side for the moment the specific comment for which you were blocked and take your suggestion of looking at the broader situation that led up to your making the comment. I've just read again through Mattythewhite's RfA page and its talkpage. You of course had the right to oppose his candidacy, whether or not other voters agreed with your rationale. However, several of your comments explaining your opposition were, in my considered opinion, appalling. In the context of a comparison of numbers of pageviews of the candidate's articles and your articles, your observation that "more persons still suffer from HIV" was gratuitous and objectionable. Telling another editor that "your broken-record false witnessing jeopardizes your soul" damages the collaborative environment. While it was clearly suboptimal for someone to refer to your "having gotten your knickers in a twist," characterizing this cliche as "your fantasies about my underwear" did not help matters in the least. Telling an editor younger than yourself to "run along and play nice somewhere else" was obnoxious, as was the suggestion that younger members of a wikiproject should be "flipping burgers" instead of editing. (I do, however, agree with your explanation of the "Andy Capp" comment. It was a bit obnoxiously dismissive of editors who work on sports articles, but it was not a personal attack on anyone. On the other hand, I also have to agree that your rewrite of his prose plainly overlooked some conventions of British English and British football parlance.) I do not consider myself any form of "civility cop" (in my six years as an administrator, I have never blocked anyone for "personal attacks" and I have supported such blocks only in extreme circumstances). However, the RfA pages, of which Mattythewhite's is the most recent example, are a forum in which you have made many of your most intemperate comments that have led to bickering, drama, and blocks. As I expect you will sooner or later be unblocked, would you be willing to agree either to stay off the RfA pages for awhile, or at least to some reasonable limit on your comments on these pages? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Fair questions at an unfair time. Let's discuss this after the block for the AN comment is ended. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Perhaps you don't understand Lukeno94's sexist insult. In British English, "knickers" refers to women's and girl's panties. Lukeno94, who claims to be 18, had better learn that delivering such insults has unpleasant consequences. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC) (with apologies to Kiefer) Brad, I had the opposite impression from reading that RfA. Kiefer gave a simple, one sentence, neutrally stated oppose !vote. The immediate reaction to that was the comment "pure snobbery" following which the discussion deteriorated to quite an extent. The question one should be asking is whether Kiefer was responsible for the mess or whether the comment in response to his !vote was responsible for the mess. In recent RfAs, and I'm sorry to say this, the comments made by people who don't like certain oppose !votes has been the principal problem. Reasoned reactions and comments are fine, but the pure snobbery comment looks like it was made with the intention to rile. If it was, it succeeded. --regentspark (comment) 15:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC) GiantSnowman has apologized and I think I have---if not I do so now, for my part. AN did remind administrators of their special obligations to uphold policies. It seems that nobody has spoken to The Rambling Man about his behavior, which despite his being a bureaucrat and administrator, has been much worse than GiantSnowman's, with no signs of remorse. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC) KW....next time think....what would that asshole MONGO say...then do the opposite of that...and you won't get blocked.--MONGO 17:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC) MONGO, you were never an asshole. You just wore yourself out trying to protect crucial articles against crazies. Don't worry about the past. I think everybody, regardless of past conflicts, appreciates you and also appreciates your friendly comments. My WP editing is better now that I've stopped protecting almost all the statistics articles I used to watch. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Lol....well, I'm hardly a model of civility and not here to offer serious advice....though there is an element of truth in what I wrote.--MONGO 18:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC) (Responding to RegentsPark above) My issue here is not with Kiefer's original oppose !vote and its rationale. I happen to disagree fairly strongly with the rationale that an administrator candidate is less qualified because he or she edits mostly sports-related articles rather than music articles or mathemtatics articles or legal-history articles—but my personal opinion counts no more nor less than Kiefer's does; he gets one !vote and so do I. So far there was no user-conduct issue involved. And, I would not have personally have characterized the oppose rationale as "snobbery." But, I understand what was meant by the description: Kiefer was presumably saying that some Wikipedia articles are more valuable than others, and hence by extension that contributors to those articles are less valuable to the project than others. That can credibly be cast as a snobbish argument, for at least some connotations of "snobbish." So I don't see that response to Kiefer's oppose as a user-conduct issue, and it certainly didn't justify everything that came afterwards. From that point, things spiralled downwards fairly rapidly, with more than one person modeling poor behavior. I've cited above the comments that Kiefer.Wolfowitz made which I would prefer not to have seen. And I don't think that the references to HIV, or going out and playing, or damaged souls, or undergarment-related fantasies, were reasonably proportionate to any provocation that occurred. That being said, I welcome Kiefer's comment above that he's prepared to address the tenor of his RfA participation in due course. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Brad, I don't disagree with you that Kiefer's comments went out of hand after a point, they did. Kiefer does tend to go for the jugular when he thinks he's under attack (as the recent imbroglio more than adequately demonstrates) which is not a good thing. He could have, for example, elaborated on his oppose or merely ignored GiantSnowman's comment entirely as a response and thus defused the situation. But, I am less troubled by his responses than by the comments of others on his oppose !vote. Rather than just respecting his right to oppose, they instead used the !vote as an excuse to attack the good faith behind the oppose and, in one case, the entire RfA process itself. That, too me, was far more troubling than the oppose !vote itself. To be honest, I rarely agree with Kiefer's rationale for opposing but, imo, they're better than the "percentage of how often the candidate has voted correctly on an AfD" sort of reasoning (I won't even pretend to understand that one!). We need a variety of opinions on every RfA - and that particularly includes ones that are in the minority - because variety make us think and the combative responses to these maverick opposers is more of a problem than the opposers themselves. In my opinion, of course. By attacking Kiefer and trying to ban him from the RfA process we're just shooting ourselves in the long term foot. --regentspark (comment) 03:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC) A very strange discussion, in which NYB coddles The Rambling Man, of which I was not notified. Brad is well known as a (automatic?) supporter of child administrators. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Criticism of The Rambling Man's failure to uphold minimum standards as an administrator/bureaucrat, from the Bureaucrat's noticeboard Bureaucrat views RFA talk-page discussion as play and entertainment I didn't know this editor was a bureaucrat until I started to review my options in regard to the latest edit.  For reference, here is a recent diff of the talk page.  The following diffs show that this editor's attitude toward the candidate is less than impartial, or show attempts to deflect the flow of discussion away from the topic at hand, [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25].  There is an edit moved to the talk page from the Project Page with similar content posted at 17:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC).  My discussions with this editor occurred in the "Traditional encyclopedic content" section (although there is also one exchange on the Project Page).  The editor was never able or willing to discuss the topic at hand.  After a few unproductive posts, this edit reveals the editor is looking at our discussion as "play".  If you review to the edit posted at 17:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC), the post reports that the RFA discussion is "becoming entertaining".  In the context, "play" and "entertain" are not constructive words.  Anything I say to him will be viewed as "play", and the response will be his idea of play.  As shown in the first diff, this has already happened.  I realize that the people here are volunteers.  I, too, am a volunteer.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Looking at that first edit, The Rambling Man was calling out what he considered hypocrisy on your part; to be fair, I think that's a fair declaration when someone is criticizing someone else's writing and then has several errors in their own posts. I don't see how you can refer to this edit as him calling the whole discussion as play; are you genuinely not familiar with the phrase "well played"? It's akin to "touché", albeit used sarcastically here due to his disagreement with your and Kiefer.Wolfowitz's positions. TRM is simply frustrated at some rather poor attitudes and is getting his hands a bit dirtier than normal as a result (there's nothing saying that bureaucrats can't jump into the mix at RfA, though I trust TRM enough to know he won't likely close the RfA, so I don't have any concerns about him not being impartial), but considering how silly (and absurdly personal) some of the comments from the opposition are getting, I personally don't see it as a problem (and I don't think him saying that a situation is "becoming entertaining" is some egregious insult; I think you're misinterpreting his statements and taking them way too seriously). Perhaps everyone should just step back and disengage. EVula // talk // ☯ // 11:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I was going to reply here, but I see that EVula has made all the points that I would have made (and then some), so I'll just note that I agree with his analysis. 28bytes (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Hey guys (mainly User:Unscintillating). Anyone fancied letting me know about this discussion? No great shakes, but it would have been nice to know, not that I'd have had much to say about it, EVula has covered it. As my mum says, "politeness costs nothing". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC) (outdent) I think it was fairly clear throughout Mattythewhite's RfA that he was commenting in the discussion in his capacity as an editor, rather than as a bureaucrat. A bureaucrat is as free as anyone else to !vote in an RfA and to comment during the discussion, so long as he or she doesn't then act with his or her bureaucrat hat on during that RfA. (It's the same principle by which I be a party to a dispute that comes before ArbCom, but then I couldn't act as an arbitrator in that dispute.) However, I think we can all agree that the snark and bickering on that RfA's talkpage got completely out of hand, and I hope we don't this sort of thing again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC) We probably will until some form of reform or policing of the system is finally introduced. But that would either need a top-down from the WMF (which is unlikely) or an RfC that is heavily subscribed from the commnuity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC) How about this proposal, which really represents a "least common denominator" situation: A bureaucrat has authority to ban a given editor from commenting further on a given RfA or its talkpage if (1) the bureaucrat reasonably believes that the editor's contributions have become disruptive or distracting, and (2) the editor has already made ten or more comments on that RfA? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC) They can use discretion to discount votes and probably even to strike them if they are egregiously inappropriate, but the power to ban probably falls outside the scope of a bureaucrat. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Better to use non-bureaucrat clerks (whether the clerks are formal or not), than to have the bureaucrats muddy their role by both guiding consensus negotiating behaviour, policing undefined rules, and judging. Past attempts to remove/prevent unsavory stuff have led into prolonged discussion, and it is better that bureaucrats are not committed to engaging in these discussions during a RfA. Any admin may block an editor who is disrupting, and then it goes to ANI, away from the RfA page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Every time any admin tries to clerk an RfA, it explodes into controversy and can easily turn bad for the candidate. It goes to ANI, drama happens, that brings over more people from ANI to add more pointed votes at RfA, rinse, repeat. Striking or removing sock comments isn't a problem, but other than that, policy is unclear and failing us miserably. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 17:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Clerking needs to be with great care, probably more care than is usually associated with past attempts. Overly strong clerking, even from a bureaucrat has been unwelomed. See here. More lately, MBisanz had been doing a a very reasonable job, but his momentum seemed to break following a slight overstep, see here. I think it might be safer for a well respected non-bureaucrat to do some tentative clerking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC) I never misused my admin or my 'crat tools in this RFA, I deliberately supported Matty because I think he's an excellent and long-standing contributor (few and far between) who is capable of making a net gain to the project. I wasn't specifically "clerking" the RFA, but making personal reactions to some of the nonsense that I saw there. I was never going to be anything but an "editor" in this RFA which EVula has already noted, I voted strong support first up of any !voters. The fact that Unscintillating doesn't understand the nuances of British English and one of KW's stick with which to beat Matty was similar (i.e. the appalling "review" of the lead of Matty's FA), and the ongoing saga with KW demonstrates that we should all pick and choose our language more clearly and unambiguously, particularly in inflammatory situations. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Obviously, people hold Bureaucrats to the highest standard of Wikipedians, higher than Arbs or Admin, but it is more complex than that. To many editors, Crats are the final word of good sense and calm judgement here, and it has nothing to do with using the bit in any way. This is why the standard to get cratship is so high and typically only obtainable by individuals who have shown they can be among the most calm and neutral in discussion. While you didn't break any policy by your participation, you fell short of what people expect in a Bureaucrat, ie: perfectly neutral in all ways. Just as people expect admin to be held to a higher standard even when they aren't using the bit, the expectations for Crats is higher in everything they do. When you fall short of that, some people will be disappointed and believe you have failed the bit, failed Wikipedia. This is inescapable. Is it fair? Maybe not, but that doesn't change the perception that people have about Bureaucrats: "Those are the guys that rise above the petty arguments and politics, and offer neutral input on all things." Most editors will give your opinions more weight in any discussion, but at the price of higher expectations in all things, regardless of how policy defines your role. Nothing you can say here will change that perception. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Ok, then we should start the move to remove my 'crat bit. I'd rather allow myself to have (and post) honest opinions when things are going south. If having the 'crat bit means I can't, and if the community think I've "disappointed" them and "failed the bit, failed Wikipedia", then I'd be a charlatan if I was to remain as a 'crat. Obviously I'd prefer otherwise, but if that's what you and the community believe, I've always remained open to recall and in this situation, nothing has changed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC) I don't think that's necessary. Remembering that people may have slightly unrealistic expectations at times is helpful. I don't think you have to sacrifice having opinions, just be more sensitive to the fact that people will take you more seriously than they would a Rollbacker or Admin, by virtue of the bit. With great power comes great responsibility, and all that. The real power of the Crat bit isn't the tools, it is the faith that the average user puts in your words, in spite of your own desires and in spite of policy clearly stating otherwise. No matter how much we claim there are no ranks here and act accordingly, people will perceive them. It is human nature to seek structure, even where it doesn't exist. Even with the admin bit, I have to phrase things differently than I did before. A Crat, much more so. Arbs have their own somewhat similar limitations. From my perspective, bits are more burden than power, and should be. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Oh, I'm fully aware that people have higher (aka unrealistic) expectations. I reiterate, if there's a genuine support for the fact I've "disappointed" and "failed the bit, failed Wikipedia", I'm open for recall, both as a 'crat and an admin. I've had a notice on my talk page for a while to indicate this. I meant it when I said it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC) I don't see any reason to consider such a step. My friendly advice would simply be that if you find yourself posting a couple of dozen times to the same discussion (whether it's an RfA or an RfA talkpage or something else), it may be time to consider whether you've contributed all you have to say to that particular discussion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC) The only reason I'd consider it is because of comments such as "failed the bit, failed Wikipedia". Otherwise, I'll carry on carrying on (and will consider your kind advice Brad, thanks). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC) There is no reason why bureaucrats have to be silent vote-counting machines; it is beyond unrealistic to expect bureaucrats to adhere to that standard. Wikipedians expect neutrality from bureaucrats, but we also expect them to step in and intervene in a situation when they deem necessary. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply for NYB

Ecrasez l'infame!

Links have accumulated at Wikipediocracy.

I still don't see an indefinite block for the on-Wiki advice on avoiding parental monitoring of IM/email. WP:CHILD forbids editors asking minors for personal information, such as IMs and email addresses. Advising a child how to avoid parental controls on computer use requires an immediate indefinite back with email access removed and talk page access removed.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Examine the contributions on Simple Wikipedia and follow the policy

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.

---

Evidence or retraction requested; KW's statement above contains the text "Demiurge1000 has been manipulating inexperienced persons found among WP's editors".

I'd been led to believe that making accusations about other editors without providing evidence, is unacceptable.

So, where's the evidence?

(And I don't just mean "you posted a notification on another editor's talk page and that editor happened to be under the age of 25", or "you gave a barnstar to someone after an argument". I mean actual evidence to categorically support what's being alleged.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:41, 5 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.

You all have been asking for it. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Simple Wikipedia userpage

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.

---

Forget it.

Forget about emailing me. My stupid parents just went through and deleted most of my contacts. Instead, I'll be at Playcrafter sometimes. See you. Loudclaw (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, don't worry, this sort of thing happens sometimes. I'm sure you realise they are just being careful of your safety.

Technically speaking, someone not being in your contacts, doesn't stop you emailing them (if you know their address), or them emailing you. But it's better if you agree with your parents about who you should and shouldn't email.

Another good thing is to discuss what you do online with your parents - when they're not busy - so that they know what's going on. Did you remember to ask if they would agree for you to create an account on that chess website?

I don't think I will use Playcrafter much, the games aren't that great and the chat interface is pretty annoying.

Now, back to Wikipedia things. How is WikiProject Warriors going? I see there are still a lot of articles to create. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well.....Look on the talk page of WP:Warriors. Loudclaw (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC) (I left a little treat)

Well I did find a new member. That member can be found here, at User talk:Silverspirit. Loudclaw (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, uh.... I can improve Metroid Prime 3: Corruption because I now own the video game. I'll also use GameFAQs. Loudclaw (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Demiurge, I'm not allowed to IM anyone or I'll get into trouble. Sorry, Loudclaw (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No access to email. Can't think of another way to tell you this, my IM might be screwed too. Loudclaw/Hey, let's collaborate!/Desk/WP:Warriors 21:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep. It's screwed. Loudclaw/Hey, let's collaborate!/Desk/WP:Warriors 21:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least that means you're not risking getting into trouble. As regards websites that are not so restrictive to people in your age group, you should probably sign up for Runescape. As regards Simple Wikipedia, how is your work on the Warriors articles going? Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

So? Anyway, I haven't been very active on here lately. Have you made the account on Samwiki? Loudclaw/Hey, let's collaborate!/Desk/WP:Warriors 21:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC) If you have, ask for adminship and cratship, and unblock me and block SAM for a month. Take his powers and give me mine back. I never hurt his wiki.

...

There could be an anti-Demiurge1000 right now! Loudclaw/Hey, let's collaborate!/Desk/WP:Warriors/My changes 05:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

What does that mean? It doesn't sound very sensible.

Anyway, I have created a SamsWiki account called Demiurge1000. Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2011 (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.

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.

---

Advice for young editors

If you are a younger editor and feel that another person on Wikipedia is behaving in a way that you feel threatens your personal safety, or worries you in any way whatsoever, please tell a responsible adult, and ask them to look at this page. Do not continue to communicate with the other person – ignore them completely. Never give out personal information to anyone, including people who say they are trying to help you.

Any administrator may block an editor for the conduct described in this policy. When an editor is blocked for such conduct, the blocking administrator is instructed to use neutral block summaries, and disable the editor's ability to edit their talk page as well as their access to the on-site user email interface. Blocking administrators should inform the blocked editor that any appeals or further discussion may be addressed only to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org, and then notify the Committee immediately.

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.

Rationale for block

"Rationalization" would be more apt.

"Wikipedia *has* had an issue with advocates of pedophilia"

notice the past tense "has had" rather than "has", and notice the "advocates of" rather than "practitioners of".

"small cadre of his supporters"

such as administrators who have blocked me recently?

"(unfounded) allusions to pedophilia pass without comment"

Horologium et alia are the ones misinterpreting my remarks as an "allusion to pedophilia", a word that I have never used on Wiki. Others have explained my intention and English. (Of course, discussions of violations of WP:CHILD should be made to the WMF Foundation....) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't block KW because of his edits on WP:RFA (which is not an arena in which I post unless I have a familiarity—positive or negative—with the candidates). My block was based solely on his comments on WP:AN, where the allusion to pedophilia was both striking and repugnant. Ignoring the rantings of a fair number of editors (here, and on other fora), Wikipedia *has* had an issue with advocates of pedophilia; we just blocked one of them earlier this year. (I am referring to Meco (talk · contribs), whose offenses have been detailed elsewhere, both on- and off-site.) Allowing a longtime editor to make allusions to similar behavior (through specific phraseology) is simply unacceptable. Despite the protestations of KW (and a small cadre of his supporters) that his statement was not at all about pedophilia, the fact remains that he the verbiage he employed was clearly intended to provoke some sort of negative response (as witnessed by the substantial number of editors who have weighed in at the discussion on WP:AN). I am not convinced by KW's assertions that his statement cannot be reasonably interpreted as an assertion of pedophilia, with references to both "young men and boys" and "boys and young men", the mentions of "recruit[ing]" and "inexperience", and the ending question "Is he behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men?" To claim that those constructions were simply happenstance boggles the mind, and (if they were in fact simply coincidence) KW needed to be stopped immediately, either for grievous personal attacks or because he was inadvertently defaming another editor. I find it fascinating that a bit of fairly unpleasant invective has been directed towards me by an administrator of a site which exists largely to complain about the less savory aspects of various WMF projects, with some snarky follow-up from an editor in good standing here. Aspersions are cast upon me, yet (unfounded) allusions to pedophilia pass without comment, for the most part. I am a bit surprised that the evolving consensus seems to be to uphold the indefinite block, but KW has dug in, rather than admit that his posts have been a major component of this whole ordeal. While I blocked for a specific post (with a reference to his block history), the community as a whole chose to look at the ongoing behavioral pattern. Horologium (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

though the comments merit a block, an indef seems to be pretty excessive given his experience. It's a shame to throw someone of this caliber to the street. The blocker definitely shouldn't be surprised about the criticism he or she gets since actions like the one above need to thought about given the repercussion and how it may affect your reputation 174.236.64.146 (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Horlogium, your language here is obnoxious, and I repeat that the only reference to pedophilia is in your mind and in the minds of others making that accusation. You seem not to have looked at much at the Wikipediocracy site, if you are so shocked to be criticized. Have you looked lately at the evidence rolling in? Below I link on-Wiki behavior of telling a teen how to evade his parents' ban on internet usage. What the fuck are you doing not enforcing a block, immediately, on Demiurge1000 for violating the prohibition on asking minors for personal information? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Horologium,

You are "surprised" at the response of editors at Wikipediocracy? You might look at AN if you want nicey nicey discussions of your policy-violating block.

Make Lukeno94 happy and file an RfC if you want to block me for a pattern of behavior.

You should resign your administrative office, because policy also boggles your mind. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have problems with criticism; I would not have blocked him (or, for that matter, taken any other admin actions) if I couldn't handle criticism. I've had a few blocks or page protections which have been less-then warmly received </understatment>. The only reason I brought it up is the attention my block (and the disclosures on my userpage) have received elsewhere. I have noted that I don't support an infinite block on KW, but I can't disagree with those who argue that he needs to have some sort of epiphany before he returns. There are plenty of reasons why we have fewer editors subjecting themselves to RFA, but paint-by-numbers automated opposes don't help matters, and KW's opposition due to age is reminiscent of another KW's automatic opposes (through self-nominations) and ultimately equally disruptive and corrosive. That was what touched off this particular dispute, but the specific attack (and it was an attack) was why I blocked him. His disagreements with other editors were personalized to an unacceptable degree, by his own doing. Horologium (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not oppose him because of age. He wrote badly at the RfA and is associated with a weak project; his FA article had a weak lede. He seems not to have contributed to traditional encyclopedic articles.

It's was a little late for you to announce that you are blocking me because of your political agenda, which violates the RfA consensus that lack of adulthood may be freely mentioned by opposers (although in this case it seemed to have been irrelevant).

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Horologium's block for one comment violated the blocking policy, as discussed by IRWolfie at AN. The discussion here and at AN clarifies why large segments of the community question the misinterpretation by Horologium of my edit, which has been asked to be struck by me and which has been clarified by me many times. Thus, the block was improper.
In his most recent posting (above), Horologium clarified his political agenda. If he wants to change the rules of RfA, he should use a community RfC, not his administrative tools. He should discuss matters (possibly filing an RfC/U if he wishes) and not use his block tools, if he wishes to discuss other issues. It is at best confusing and raising the appearance of impropriety for Horologium especially (and for other administrators, from the civil NYB to the mob at AN) to mix other concerns with a discussion of this block.
Also, given the concerns about IRC canvassing noted at AN by User:Nick and the blocking administrator's few edits, the blocking administrator should declare how he learned of my edit and whether he was on IRC when he blocked me.
Argument in the alternative/Alternative pleading: Even if some block can pass the laugh test for some reasonable person, the indefinite length of the block has been harshly criticized at AN also. At very least, the block should be reduced to a definite time, perhaps time served.

Decline reason:

The discussion at AN showed no consensus at AN to lift the block or reduce its length. Assertions that the block is unfair will be inadequate to overturn this consensus. Assertions that the blocking admin had a political agenda will not be adequate to overturn this consensus. Whether the blocking admin first learned of your post at IRC or happened upon it by chance is irrelevant to the unblock. What has to happen for you to be unblocked is that an uninvolved admin, in consultation with the blocking admin, has to be convinced that the behaviour in question will not be repeated. The behaviour in question was "accusing another of misconduct without evidence and in such a way that reasonable people may infer an accusation of sexual misconduct". The unblock request herein and your other posts on this page have not been adequate to demonstrate that the behaviour will not be repeated. Convenience link to discussion at AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive249#Interaction ban proposed. Dianna (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Dianna,

Regarding

• "accusing another of misconduct without evidence":

  I was blocked within minutes of the posting, so there was no time for evidence. I specifically explained my concern with Demiurge1000's political manipulation of Gwickwire and Lukeno94, egging them on against his on-Wiki targets. I specifically disavowed any accusation of sexual misconduct, every time it such an improper imputation has been made to me by WP editors.

  I have quoted below Demiurge1000's on-Wiki explanation to a minor---whose email-contacts had been erased by parents---how to continue emailing persons against his parents' wishes. Sam's wiki (linked at Wikipediocracy) shows continued emailing and IMing despite the parental wishes, and an IM sent after the child stopped accepting them.

  Thus, there is evidence to support the accusation of improper conduct towards young people, and sufficient evidence (the treatment of gwickwire and lukeno94 mentioned) was already given at AN. This accusation is false.

• "reasonable people may infer an accusation of sexual misconduct". There is no consensus for this interpretation, and the IRWolfie has dissected its intellectual carcase.

If you have something to say, write it and don't engage in vague accusations or bs: "your other posts on this page have not been adequate to demonstrate that the behavior will not be repeated". WTF does that mean?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

A very large number of editors participated in the AN discussion and a well-trusted bureaucrat closed with the conclusion that there was no consensus to unblock until it becomes obvious that you understand the reason for the block and will not repeat the behaviour that led to the block. The material in the unblock request and on this talk page is insufficient to overturn that consensus and therefore I declined your unblock request. -- Dianna (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The accusation against Demiurge should never have been posted without evidence. Expecting that you would be able to post such an accusation and later collect and present evidence to back it up is not realistic. As with editing articles, extraordinary claims against other editors require rock solid evidence at the time of posting, not at some indeterminate time in the future. The fact that many editors construed your post to have a sexual meaning only made matters worse, but that was only one factor in the block. What you need to do to get unblocked is assure the community that you will not post accusations against other editors without presenting evidence. Once an uninvolved admin, in consultation with the blocking admin, is satisfied that the behaviour will not be repeated, an unblock will follow. -- Dianna (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

What accusation against Demiurge1000? I presented evidence, namely his egging on Lukeno94 and Gwickwire.

Why was that evidence inadequate? Is it too much to assume that WP administrators and AN-enthusiasts and in particular you can search "Demiurge1000, Kiefer.Wolfowitz, Gwickwire OR Lukeno94"?

I did not present evidence to support the accusation you and others accuse me of making, because I did not make it, and indeed when somebody insisted on making it (despite my patient explanation) I asked that the misinterpreted wording be struck (and replaced with an imprecise phrase, apparently without connotations).

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Repeated use of the phrasing that these are young boys and men being recruited implies that Demiurge is intentionally targeting vulnerable members of the community. The community interpreted your post to have a sexual connotation, and many people assumed this was intentional, so sorry. Since you are a highly skilled user of the English language they assume you meant to say exactly what the post implied. It was not until you were already blocked that you offered to amend the post to remove the sexual connotation. But leave that aside for a moment, and just look at the diff itself. It makes an accusation, without presenting any evidence: Diff of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and your next post, eleven minutes later, repeats the accusation without presenting any evidence: Diff of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Whether the post has a sexual connotation or not, you are accusing Demiurge - without presenting any evidence - of manipulating and using other people. This type of accusation should never be presented without evidence. If there's no on-wiki evidence that can be presented, the accusation should not have been dropped into a thread on a highly travelled admin notice board. -- Dianna (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry for not requesting that you read the AN thread. In particular, please read Fram and other's posts of plenty of diffs, since you seem not to have already. Fram linked (I believe) Demiurge1000's noting (on Lukeno94's talk page) of his RfC/U against me (with Worm That Turned as point man)? Gwickwire is a minor, but his behavior was discussed so many times on AN/I that I took it for granted that Demiurge1000's egging him on would be known. (Have you still not searched for Gwickwire and Demiurge1000?)

You claim that accusations require evidence. I'm still waiting for you or New York Brad to block The Rambling Man for his unretracted hysterics at the RfA and his talk page. Is TRM also a "respected bureaucrat"?

Get busy blocking the liars and false accusers at ANI, if you want my respect. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry for assuming that you were ignorant of Demiurge1000 and Gwickwire. You just gave an "attack kitten" to Gwickwire's new account, amid many other mutual admirations with Demiurge1000. Don't you think that you are the last administrator (besides TRM) who should review the unblock request? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Since you feel I am not qualified to help you, I will not be responding here any further. Good luck. -- Dianna (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

See above. Dianna has years of WP friendship with Demiurge1000 and has just given an "attack kitten" to the new account of the Gwickwire, and she failed to identify her conflict of interest. An independent administrator should review the petition, without being prejudiced by the partisan administrator's improper review.

Decline reason:

I reach essentially the same conclusion as is expressed here: namely, that the Bureaucrat closing the discussion wrote that Administrators should only change the length of your block if they become convinced that the sorts of actions which led to the block will not recur. To my mind, the contents of your User Talk Page do not demonstrate this.It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 14:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Sorts of actions"?

I was blocked for one sentence, whose objectionable intention I disavowed and asked that it be struck. What on this page makes you think that I would repeat that sentence (or a similar sentence)? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

See above. The unblock request was made at 10 am on 6 June 2013. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read my statement again, carefully. I did not block you because of your contributions at RFA. I disagree with them, but that is beside the point entirely. I blocked you because of your allusions to pedophilia in your post on AN. The only connection RFA has with this block is that the AN discussion resulted from the dispute there. While there was a fair amount of suboptimal contributions from several editors at that RFA, nothing said there was block-worthy. It was the attack on AN, and the specific verbiage employed, that earned the block. As I (and others) have said, you chose wording that was deliberately inflammatory, rather than neutral wording which would have conveyed the same idea, and even your revision of the first sentence wouldn't fix the problem with the rest of the post. Horologium (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Then block yourself for your deliberately inflammatory falsehoods---e.g., "paint by numbers", etc., which one would like to think were written thoughtlessly rather than deliberately. You can repeatedly assert that you have psychic abilities to understand my intentions, but others have already laughed at such assertions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The only reference to paedophilia is in your mind.

You still have not taken responsibility for your falsehoods and aspersions, which were made with non-neutral language. Where did you strike out anything?

Read what I wrote, which was not "crafted". It was a quick comment posted five minutes after my previous edit. You edit so little and took so long to reply that we are supposed to forgive your "verbiage", "deliberately inflammatory", "allusions to pedophilia", "attack on AN".

It's time that you take responsibility for your own actions, and strike your obnoxious comments and replace them with neutral language. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if User:Horologium uses IRC and if so, what his nicks, cloak or host details are, so I don't know if he was on IRC when you were initially blocked. I didn't see any discussion prior to the block or immediately afterwards, but I idle for long periods so could have missed any discussion - don't take my word as definitive proof either way. I was asked later on, however, when the block period discussion was going on, to endorse the indefinite block by a couple of users - they don't use cloaks though so I can't verify who exactly they are, sorry. I don't log any of the channels I use on IRC so have no evidence to make direct accusations against any users or to take any action where necessary, I'm afraid. Nick (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The last time I was on IRC (for Wikipedia, or any other purpose) was on April 25, 2008, where I fired up my IRC client to see which channel was loaded (I am sure of the date because a question was asked at my RFA about IRC). I had only been on the general WP channel four or five times previous to that. I have not been on IRC since I became an administrator, and I have never been on the admin channel. Much of this is trying to prove a negative, but (IIRC) you have to make a request for access for the admin channel. I never made such a request, and I'm sure that somebody, somewhere, has a list of people who have made that request. I do not know if anyone keeps logs of IRC chats, or if they contain IP addresses, but my IP address (which is static) is 71.199.83.38. (Those five edits from last fall are from my husband, who does not always log in to his account on the infrequent occasions that he edits, so I know that my IP address has not reset since then.) Horologium (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the supererogatory explanation. From your username and your "expelliarmus" spell, I'd pictured you as Hermione Granger, but not married to that Weasley. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, you had my sex correct earlier. I am a "he", not a "she". The picture of my on my userpage should make that clear. (wry grin) Horologium (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I corrected the error, which does remind us of the risk of maximum a posterior probability estimation. And just yesterday we were singing "Jag har en pappa och en pappa. Det ar bra att har en pappa och en pappa ..." at daycare.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The indefinite nature of the block has been criticized by some, yes, but while the blocking admin intended that it be indefinite only until the community decided on a proper length of time, there is also significant support for it to remain indefinite. That aspect may be somewhat unfair to you unless one were to successfully propose a proper community ban, but it certainly exposes a rather high level of disatisfaction with both the attack that preciptated the block and your followup responses, which can best be described as unrepentant, coupled with your history of being rather abrasive. It lends itself to questions: If the block were lifted, what is the likelihood of you making similar comments that cast such aspersions (whether intended or thoughtlessly, it doesn't matter) in the future? How do you plan to address the concerns of those who do believe that indefinite is the proper time frame for this block? Resolute 16:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I am concerned less with your faction than with addressing the concerns of editors who believe that they can read my mind, and I have addressed those concerns sufficiently. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering the objections are a mixture of past grudges (some have acknowledged that), misinterpretation of policy, twisting what KW has said (by assuming bad faith), pile on votes, and illogical reasoning (claims of ageism and gender discrimination against males for example was a silly reason), etc I do not think KW can do anything to convince those who say indef. If you have a grudge you have a grudge. If someone twisted his words, KW can only apologise that it could be twisted. If the reasons were illogical, nothing can be said, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Principia Mathematica theorem 54-43.png

"From this proposition it will follow, when arithmetical addition has been defined, that 1+1=2." —Volume I, 1st edition, page 379 (page 362 in 2nd edition; page 360 in abridged version). (The proof is actually completed in Volume II, 1st edition, page 86, accompanied by the comment, "The above proposition is occasionally useful."

Thank you for supplying the missing middle arguments, in a shorter proof than I could have managed---my style running more to Principia Mathematica's two-volume proof that 1+1=2 --- along with explicatives and knife-thrusts from Deadwood---before I edit them out! ;) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I would also note the ANI didn't have a consensus that there should be a block either. There were a lot of editors who felt the block was a misunderstanding and should be shortenened or dropped. So it seems in light of a bad decision the only thing that can be done is to let the bad decision stand? That's Wikipedia for you. This is just prime evidence that admins aren't required to make good decisions nor are the held responsible for bad ones. Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This may have been the first recorded agreement between myself and Bishonen---I almost did not dare to type the name lest I be accused of suggesting an inappropriate relationship with another Chinese young male sex worker. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

A few specifics

This wall of text is giving me a headache and making my eyes go fuzzy, so just one question: is there clear and incontrovertible evidence that Demiurge1000 asked a minor for their personal details? Eric Corbett 23:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Here, I can only discuss what is on-Wiki, as I understand it, and I have cited a troubling conversation on Simple Wikipedia, the meaning of which should be clear on a second reading. (I missed the leitmotiv on the first, as you can see at Wikipediocracy.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

For obvious reasons, the quotes and diffs have been moved to a secure undisclosed location. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Horologium and WP:NPA

Quotation from talk page of Horologium

Notice the diffless wall of accusations from Horologium, the blocking administrator. 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 Perhaps you should unblock him. He has explained that there was no sexual intention behind his statement and indicated his willingness to strike it out. AGF perhaps? The way this discussion has gone, you're about the only one who can unblock him drama free so that might just be the fair thing to do. --regentspark (comment) 03:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC) No. I did not edit Wikipedia this weekend, but what I saw when I came back today (both before and after the unblock request was denied) was enough to push me from "I didn't intend for the block to be permanent" to "it was only a matter of time before he was indeffed". I had a great deal of trouble deciphering the chronology of the edits because of the massive refactoring and reorganization KW performed on his page, which is apparently something he has done on other occasions. I will not be watching the page any more, because his editing has utterly obliterated the sequential nature of the edits in favor of his preferred presentation of the situation. His vociferous denunciation of the admin who declined his unblock request leads me to believe that he will not accept as unbiased any admin who does not agree to unblock him. As you are just about the only administrator who both opposed my block and supported an unblock, that makes you possibly the only admin who he will consider to be sufficiently unbiased. While I will not consent to an unblock (barring some change in behavior) I will not initiate a wheel war over it. The rest of the community might have an issue with such an action, however. I also encountered a rather interesting exchange of edits between KW and another editor in which KW was more than willing to ascribe sexist and homophobic motives to someone else based on the wording of their posts, but on far shakier grounds than those for which I blocked him. Instead of confining the discussion to the talk page on which the edits occurred and the user talk pages of the two of them, he fired off a missive on the talk page for a (presumably) sympathetic wikiproject. The resounding silence from that project was rather interesting, to say the least. It was a rather obvious attempt at canvassing which failed to achieve the desired result. A review of his past blocks (and the 2011 RFC/U) reveal that nothing has changed, and the complaints leveled against him the the RFC are still valid. The wikilawyering and wall of text behaviors that were issues in that RFC have been repeated, and I doubt that he is either willing or able to change his method of interacting with other editors, which is a shame, because he is a great content editor when he is not bogged down with interpersonal disputes. I don't think that the proposal to ban him from RFA is going to eliminate his anti-collaborative nature, which is the primary reason I didn't endorse any proposal which advocated such an action. I was flamed on Wikipediocracy for discussing KW's block on WP:AN, but since a) the edit for which I blocked him was on AN, and b) the discussion regarding this particular flareup was initiated by another editor on AN, it was the appropriate place. I wasn't trying to incite a lynch mob; if I had discussed the block anywhere else, I would have been accused of trying to hide the discussion. Whatever. I wash my hands of this situation, because I am now convinced that KW should remain blocked for a good long time, or until he gets a good whack from the cluebat; even EC (who had nothing nice to say about my block) and Carrite (ditto) have not been successful in impressing on KW the folly of his actions thus far. A couple of other non-admins (Mongo in particular) have given him some good advice, but he doesn't seem to be taking any of it to heart. Horologium (talk) 04:55, 11 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.

Let me address the points raised, most of them irrelevant to the question at hand, his block.

• "the massive refactoring and reorganization KW performed on his page, which is apparently something he has done on other occasions. I will not be watching the page any more, because his editing has utterly obliterated the sequential nature of the edits in favor of his preferred presentation of the situation."

  Any refactoring has followed talk-page guidelines; in particular, time and date stamps remain. Conversations offering advice like "stop opposing weak candidates at RfA and you will be unblocked" have been moved together, so that future conversations can benefit from the past.

• "vociferous denunciation of the admin who declined his unblock request leads me to believe that he will not accept as unbiased any admin who does not agree to unblock him."

  Bullshit. Administrator Dianna had an undeclared conflict of interest from her years of friendship with Demiurge1000 and kitten-giving to Gwickwire's new account. The second administrator has no such COI (known to me), and has received no criticism from me.

• "you are just about the only administrator who both opposed my block and supported an unblock, that makes you possibly the only admin who he will consider to be sufficiently unbiased."

  It starts off vague and misleading and leads to nasty speculation, a poor example for any editor and especially inappropriate for a blocking administrator.

• "I also encountered a rather interesting exchange"

  This passive aggression is inappropriate for an adult or an administrator.

• "KW was more than willing to ascribe sexist and homophobic motives to someone else based on the wording of their posts, but on far shakier grounds than those for which I blocked him. Instead of confining the discussion to the talk page on which the edits occurred and the user talk pages of the two of them, he fired off a missive on the talk page for a (presumably) sympathetic wikiproject. The resounding silence from that project was rather interesting, to say the least. It was a rather obvious attempt at canvassing which failed to achieve the desired result."

  An accusation without a diff violates WP:NPA. I asked for diffs days ago. Would an administrator remind Horologium of his responsibilities?

• "I don't think that the proposal to ban him from RFA is going to eliminate his anti-collaborative nature" (emboldening added)

  "anti'collaborative nature" is a textbook personal-attack, and is particularly inappropriate for an administrator with few (especially collaborative) contributions to WP.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kiefer. I just want to clarify, since you have repeated your assumption that I am friends with Demiurge1000. Overlap seen on this page is as a result of my activities as a coordinator of the Guild of Copy editors such as the delivery of barnstars and newsletters for that organisation. Other overlap in our edits includes random inclusion in the same talk page archive, such as User talk:Ezekiel53746/Archive 1 and User talk:Kolakowski and Talk:Main Page/Archive 167. I did work on the Rabbi Pinto case with Demiurge, who you perceive to be your enemy, and did watch-list Charmlet's talk and added the kitten, but because you perceive these people to be your enemies does not put me into a position of being involved in your case. As far as I can recall, I have never interacted with you, which is what the concept of WP:Involved is all about. -- Dianna (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Space reserved for apologies for WP:NPA violations by Horologium

Horologium, the administrator who blocked me for allegedly making an allegation without evidence, makes many allegations without evidence, violating WP:NPA. (Dropping the passive aggression would help, also.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:CHILD

Kiefer, just for information: you've mentioned WP:CHILD a few times on this page and claim to have quoted it, but you're linking to the wrong page. The page you've been quoting is WP:CHILDPROTECT, a different page. Another paragraph of it states (its bolding, italics and linking, not mine):

Reports of editors engaging in such conduct should be made to the Arbitration Committee for further action, and should not be the subject of community discussion, requests for comment or consensus. If you are concerned about the behavior of another editor, please contact Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org, but please read the Communications and privacy section of the Arbitration Committee page before doing so.

--Stfg (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:47, 14 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 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)

Kiefer, maybe it's time to archive this talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked

Kiefer, you are hereby unblocked. You are well aware that not all members of the community will agree with this decision, and it can only be hoped that the following editing restrictions, based on discussions held on-wiki prompted by email contact which I sought with you, will ease their mind somewhat.

1. You should not interact with Demiurge. Given the nature of the diff that led to the block in the first place, I cannot really impose a two-way interaction ban, but I have no doubt that Demiurge will not seek you out or bait you, and I hope that they will refrain from commenting on you elsewhere. "No interaction" includes you won't mention them or their conduct anywhere on-wiki, including by allusion (added for us literary types). You won't visit their talk page or follow them around. Obviously I cannot (nor do I wish to) block you from the dramah boards etc; you must let common sense (mine, and I hope yours) prevail--stay out of discussions that they're involved in. This does not mean that Demiurge can, for instance, block you from continuing a discussion you've already engaged in by merely placing a comment, but I trust this won't happen. I have seen your efforts (some after your block, but still) to undo the damage caused by the remark, and I believe that you are sincere and won't repeat this; Demiurge appears to be of the same mind. At any rate, practically speaking it is not likely to be tolerated.
2. You must stay away from threaded discussions in RfAs. A number of editors/administrators have made this clear, and I will log it as a formal restriction. For now, I will interpret this fairly narrowly: if there is a thread (two or more comments), you cannot add to it. You cannot, for instance, respond to a comment on your comment. At the same time, editors are not allowed to bait you--a term that is difficult to define, but a practice that is not hard to discern. While I cannot "ban" the community from responding to your comments, I think it is no more than fair that admins look carefully at any such responses to see if they are above board, and violations thereof should be reverted and followed by a warning (and perhaps more, if that behavior continues). Baiting is never OK, of course, and it goes for you as well as for others: no baiting, no leading questions, etc.
3. (Now comes the fatherly advice--which I can give, since I have more children than you, I think.) You have said you will focus on article editing: that is a good idea since, and I think there was a consensus for this on AN, it is outside of mainspace that trouble starts (and I am not saying that this is always your fault).

   But let me add something based on my own observations, of this case and of many others (too many to mention; somehow they always end up on Jimbo's talk page). Bringing up the past, and drawing inferences from editing behaviors of others about their motivations, is rarely a good thing. I know (believe me, I know) it is exceedingly difficult to treat other editors fairly after they have been unfair to you. This ("fairness") is a matter of perception, everyone can admit to that, and I'm speaking in the general, not about this case, this block, this blocking administrator, etc. One must not say, "admin x is abusive" and say that to mean "always abusive", in the same way that one must not say, "editor y is a disruptive asshole" as if that is all they are (there aren't that many trolls here, I trust). This is not to say that every hurt and every wrong must be forgotten completely; it is, however, to say that one should be sparing with digging up the past. I wish I could say this to a lot of people, including myself. Such generalizing leads to dramah, and dramah leads to blocks, to anger, to misunderstanding.

   Human nature is a difficult thing. If you run into trouble, let someone know--an admin you really trust, for instance, if there is one. You may find that they are sceptic; if so, there may not be much you can do but to find another one. But we're not all bad--bad as me, Tom Waits might say.

I've said all I can. Maybe one more thing. This may be controversial, but it wouldn't be the first controversial thing we have to live with here. I wish Newyorkbrad could translate this into proper Bradspeech, but lawyers are in the cocktail bar Friday nights. I wish you well. You are a fine editor, I think most people agree on that, and I trust that you will regain the community's trust, even if not every single member's. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• RfA restriction logged. I would like to thank Horologium, Demiurge1000, and RegentsPark for their input and advice. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)