Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Request

Moved from User talk:Elen of the Roads

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

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

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

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

Doing the right thing ....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canvassing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enter the protagonist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canvassing again

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

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

You wrote, "His seemingly unmatched expertise entitles him to canvass only experts in Mathematics/Economics/Statistics whenever he has a dispute surrounding his editing of a political party article."

Your claim is false: For example, in the last days, one of the few articles I contributed to was Socialist Party of America. Reverting an edit from an IP, I suggested that the editor please contact User:Orangemike; he is an honest and knowledgeable person whom I have recommended that people contact Orangemike before this RfC/U: Another reason is that he strongly disliked ("I was not impressed") my initial edits on SDUSA, and identified himself as a supporter of the early SPUSA, while he pegged me as a supporter of SDUSA (a pegging, however plausible, which I disputed).

In this example, and in others, I habitually solicit reviews of political articles from others with different perspectives.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC) 14:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

KW has stated on the RfC that I accused him of canvassing. I did not do so.

However, a parallel example might help to illuminate the issues raised by User:Have mörser, will travel.

Let's imagine for a moment - and this is actually quite likely - that a user raises an RfC/U or an arbitration case, regarding my editing behaviour on the article Robert Zoellick (the current President of the World Bank). If I wanted to post neutral messages bringing that to the attention of other editors, where would it be sensible for me to post them? Options would include WT:BLPN or WT:DRN, since the issues were discussed on those noticeboards - even though highlighting such processes is not really the purpose of those pages. Alternatively, there would be relevant WikiProjects like Economics or Politics or Business or United States. Finally, I could consider mentioning it at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Military History. Although these latter two projects have absolutely no relevance to the issues involved, and their participants unlikely to know anything about them, some of the participants are likely to know plenty about my editing style, since I spend a fair amount of time working on articles in those projects, helping people get their articles to GA or A-class, and so on.

But, in this not-so-hypothetical example, imagine if I posted to WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Military History and no other projects at all... perhaps explaining that I hadn't found the other Wikiprojects very useful in certain past disputes I'd had? Would that be the best thing to do? Or would it be a bit misguided? A bit slanted?

KW has slipped up on this talk page and given away some of his thinking. He says to Worm; 'What do you think would have happened if I started quoting your opponents, and then, per WP:Policy, "had to" contact them'. (A suggestion that he follows with the idea of opening a retaliatory RfC/U on Worm. How constructive.) Curiously enough, KW does indeed seem to have been contacting a few people that he might imagine would give him some support - mostly people whom he's just happened to mention, mostly in passing, in this RfC. [2] [3][4][5][6] The last is particularly interesting; a much more subtle request for attention, to a user whose userpage states that they are a National Socialist. Maybe Worm is just wise to be not so interested in all this politics malarkey.

Where the people KW has contacted haven't commented on the RfC - or not in the way he desires - he's gone on to give them a few "reminders", whether subtly or not so subtly. [7][8] KW has also put a little time into badgering those who have given opinions on the RfC/U that he doesn't approve of; [9] includes lovely accusations of "dishonest hypocrisy", and, when I dare to reply, describes my comments as "childish bullshit".

KW accompanied this rather large number of requests - and remember this is all in addition to his rather curious choice of Wikiprojects to notify - by a single mention to a person that he might argue were not so friendly; [10]. Although actually he had already said that Cerejota and himself had exchanged "declarations of mutual respect". So... overall, a distinctly non-neutral choice of individuals to notify, and some concerns about the projects to notify. Not good.

I'm sorry to make this a case of "what Worm did versus what Kiefer did", but the comparison must be made. Worm went to some trouble to seek feedback from uninvolved administrators about whom he should inform of this RfC/U. The feedback was that people discussed significantly should be informed, and the others should not; and therefore I informed only Peter on his talk page, and Rd232 by private email (he's retired). We also informed those people who asked privately to be told when the RfC/U was completed (two, I think; neither have commented). Peter, who has probably been hardest hit personally by KW's outrageous behaviour, certified the basis for the RfC/U, but chose not to comment further (thus far). Rd232 is still retired, and does not wish to change that. (I don't believe it's appropriate for me to quote his private comments here, but, given KW's behaviour, the tone of those comments can be imagined.)

Now, since then, at least one of the people that Worm and I expressly decided not to inform, based on the advice Worm was given, has now been criticised and condemned - not just regarding their relevant comments, but their editing and status on Wikipedia as a whole - by KW. Who (surprise, surprise) didn't inform them when doing so. So I suppose I shall go and inform them.

While unfortunately non-neutral contacting of editors does happen with situations like this, and it's "no big deal", I feel that the way KW has handled this does go some way towards explaining mörser's concerns. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Du, it is okay for you to announce that you shall contacting editors. It would have been better for you to do so earlier; Worm/David has already apologized for failing to contact editors, per you apparent agreement.

Lihaas collects contradictory user boxes ad absurdum, as anybody looking at his page can observe. He has never violated NPOV editing main-space content, in my experience, and so that your speculating about his personal politics, particularly when he has more than a hundred contradictory user boxes is another violation of WP:NPA.

Your behavior confirms the judgment I made long ago, that it is demeaning to discuss anything with you.

I am done here until this piece of shit is removed.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about his personal politics. I said what it says on his userpage - which isn't, incidentally, especially easy to read. So the Nazi thing is a joke, is it? Some people might not think it a particularly funny one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Lihaas uses the National Socialist tag three times in userboxen on his page. I fear Kiefer.Wolfowitz cannot tell the difference between irony and political statement - lihaas's statements that he supports National Socialism, Self Determination and the British Empire neatly positions him between the British National Party and the English Defence League - both of which I am regrettably familiar with in my neck of West Yorkshire. I would excuse Kiefer.Wolfowitz from ignorance about the resurgence of such attitudes in recent times, if it wasn't that by watching episodes of Wallander I am aware that issues such as racism and the rise of far right groups are a regular topic of discussion in Sweden. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Just as a point of information, User:Lihaas actually has five personalized (i.e., using {{userbox}}) userboxes with the "NS" label. The other two express support for:

• Devolution ("the statutory granting of powers from the central government of a sovereign state to government at a subnational level, such as a regional, local, or state level") which seems to be related to the support for Self determination ("the principle in international law that nations have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or external interference")
• the recreation of a "Greater Hindustan" (the Indian subcontinent, currently India, Pakistan and Bangladesh), which may or may not be related to support for the recreation of the British Empire.

Other political userboxes partially clarify the contradiction between the two positions, while raising further questions. Locally, there is support for Cornish independence/autonomy, Scottish and Welsh independence, Irish republicanism, but also the reunification of Ireland and British federal state. On a more international level, there seems to be support for almost every independence movement there is (Basque Country, Kurdish State, Vojvodina, Quebec independence and the US annexation of Canada, Palestine as part of a federal state, Nagorno-Karabakh, Silesia, Flemish independence/break-up of Belgium, Faroe Islands and Greenland, Transnistria, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Abkhazia and South Ossetia,...). We also have a user claiming to be a nomadic indo-aryan and hindu from Pakistan/Punjab/Lahore and India/Gujarat/Mumbai (speaking some Hindi, Gujurati and Urdu), mildly critical of political correctness, with support for nationalism, fascism, libertarianism, classical liberalism, masculism, anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, the death penalty, sweatshops, redrawing the map of Africa, anti-globalization, Wikileaks, world peace, space warface, and a huge number of international political parties, while opposing the war in Iraq, Kemalism, imperialism (apart from possibly British and Japanese), the United Nations, and the EU.

How does that "neatly position him between the BNP and the EDL"?? Why are the NS userboxes so worthy of comment and stereotyping? I mean, we are dealing with an alcoholic anarchist here!

I was particularly upset by the support for Silvio Berlusconi, which either shows terrible judgment, or an overly developed sense of irony (which is not permitted on Wikipedia). Fortunately, the user also supports good grammar and Oxford English (as well as DGAF and not taking themselves seriously) so they redeemed themselves in my eyes. Geometry guy 23:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Movement?

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

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

Discussion of RfC topics

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

Top section

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

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

Mocking of usernames

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

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

Moerser,

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

Why do you think that anybody cares what you think?

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

Worm and Demiurge,

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

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

Is this a madhouse?

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

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

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

Regarding Moerser and his tenderness about names.

(1) I shan't be bothered writing (with my American keyboard) his non-English vowel on English Wikipedia or typing his full "pay attention to me, please" user name.

(2) You should know that "oe" is the English spelling of the nordic vowel. Now go jump in Da. Jones's locker.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

My username. No, seriously?

Supposedly this guy inspired some of the original philosophy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi 28bytes,

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I said, I don't mind: many editors find "GG" short and convenient. However, if you really want to impress me with your alertness to username delicacies, notice that I never capitalize the "g" in "guy" in either my username or its abbreviations. Geometry deserves the capital, but I'm just a regular guy. :) Geometry guy 23:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Request regarding KW's comments

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think would have happened if I started quoting your opponents, and then, per WP:Policy, "had to" contact them, or what would happen if somebody opened an RfC on you?

It's a pity that we don't do this on a Skype video conference, and we could all witness how well you answer questions, when called to account for all this passive aggressive bullshit.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Now, hang on - the "draft RfC" as you keep calling it was designed to be just between you and me, I thought using the RfC format would help. I told no one of it, I explicitly suggested that it was a private matter between you and me. No one else commented on it or was likely to view it and yet you used to request sanctions! It was clear that you were not looking to discuss the matter with me in an informal manner, so I looked into doing this formally.

As has been well documented on this RfC, you do accuse people of copyvios incorrectly when upset regarding articles that do not fit your political opinion. Your article work in these political areas is great, I've said that a number of times, but the way you've treated the editors who have done nothing more than hold the opposing opinion is unacceptable. I didn't withdraw it because I still believe it to be true.

Regarding your opinion of me, I couldn't give a damn. I keep such things off wikipedia and so I'm not going to get drawn into discussions regarding my political leanings or my expertise. There are valid issues here and this whole things would go away if you actually had the decency of responding to criticism without escalating. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

And Kiefer, I welcome feedback and criticism. I'd certainly welcome you finding my "opponents" and discussing my faults. You might have some difficulty, because I don't consider wikipedia a battleground and I don't think I have "opponents". Keep an eye out in January, I expect I'll be putting an editor review up around then, feel free to bring anyone along you want at that time. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer's hanging out in the lower parts of the triangle

I've had a little time to think on these comments from Kiefer and I do hope he redacts them in the future, as they yet again step over the line from incivility to outright personal attacks. Thinking back, I find it ironic that he's willing to call me "passive aggressive" and that I'm not worth his time, yet he specifically has chastised me for suggesting that he should tone down the "aggression".

Clearly Kiefer has difficulties with concepts such as commenting on the content, not the contributor or other forms of dispute resolution. The thoroughly depressing thing is that this whole sorry affair could have been avoided - and still can be quickly finished - if Kiefer were to accept that there are valid issues which have been raised and discussed them. This alienation of editors who are only trying to help will end badly. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Worm/David, please review what I wrote before addressing me again. You are welcome to address others, of course. Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer, I have gone to great lengths to not only review what you've written, but also to make this process as pain-free for you as possible, though I am beginning to wonder why. You have made a fair number of accusations on both this and the talk page - some of which are inaccurate, whilst others are patently false. I wonder if you might go to the effort of providing WP:Diffs for any accusations you wish to make, as I have. They are, after all, the standard method the community uses to point to further information and can help with any memory troubles you may be having.

Perhaps you would even do us all the favour of not attempting to add your particular flavour of humour into the proceedings, as it appears to be straying into the realm of personal attacks [11][12]. If you do persist with personal attacks, I will take the matter up at AN/I, where a neutral administrator can look over your comments. I am loathed to take that step, please do not force me down that route. Worm^TT · (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

If I "persist in personal attacks ..."! And your personal attacks and the personal attacks of the others?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC

(edit conflict)You are of course free to do the same - should you feel there are personal attacks on yourself. However, I would certainly advise you to use diffs (see Help:Diff), as people at AN/I do require them. I do not believe I have made a single personal attack on you yet you have made a number on me (the two most recent shown in my previous comment). Perhaps you see all criticism as personal attacks? I suggest you read a bit more about what a personal attack is - see WP:NPA. If you can provide a diff where I have made a personal attack on you, then I will gladly look into it further. I note that you have added a total of one diff to this RfC, not counting the ones you copied from elsewhere. Considering the amount of text you've added, that's quite appalling. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

With the usual distaste but unusual fortitude, I did read Worm/David's comments. Let me respond:

1. RE Diffs. I am writing for encyclopedia writers, not for persons so intellectually lazy---and, for administrators, also so negligient or malfeasant in their duties---that they would make a decision (whether endorsing a partial statement or acting at ANI) without examining your diffs and looking around a bit. Anybody who does look around can see that you and Du have been cherry-picking diffs, often after Du has delivered a personal attack on me and before I (often with the pacifying leadership from others, ) have established peace.

   Anybody who reads the page can see that you opened your statement with a bush-league list for which you have finally apologized, but only after it exploded in your face. You shall have to live with the consequences of your opening passive-aggressive bullshit for a long time. Everybody can see that you and Du developed that opening passive-aggressive bullshit over at least 2 months (despite my suggestion that you consult with somebody with experience and focus on a few issues).

2. Go to ANI or do whatever you want. As I wrote before, I really don't care. Again, any serious administrator will look around at the diffs you provided and judge your character and Du's, accordingly. That Geometry guy has independently discussed personal attacks against me should give any administrator with a functioning brain-stem pause.

Seriously,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

My participation in this farce is over

I have participated here long enough that the content of my character and the others' personalities has been established.

At the repeated and increasingly insistent advice of friends, I shall retired, and let others answer for me.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be unfortunate, but if it is the case I'm sure we can carry on without you. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The next section is quoted from my user page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of "National socialist"

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, I fear you cannot tell the difference between irony and political statement - lihaas's statements that he supports National Socialism, Self Determination and the British Empire neatly positions him between the British National Party and the English Defence League - both of which I am regrettably familiar with in my neck of West Yorkshire. I'm sorry, I think you've been had. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

Elen,

I remind you that WP:NPA prohibits unsubstantiated allegations about an editor's politics.

I can imagine that Lihaas displays far-right userboxes to provoke hypocritical hissy fits, which you and Demiurge have provided.

• Was it Lihaas's country where the King had to abdicate largely because of hanging out with Nazis?
• What is Lihaas's country where a PM worried about being overun with Blacks, although there was not a single Black MP, according to Michael Dummett?
• Was it Lihaas's country where the President 41 led his campaign rallies with a national socialist (but also Christian socialist) pledge of allegiance?
• Was it Lihaas's country that presented a sword to Pinochet for saving civilization?
• "Tell me, my main man, what is wrong with Michael Jackson? What is wrong with your country that a Black man cuts up his face and straightens his hair?" (Three Kings)

Lihaas has been one of the prime writers of articles in contemporary politics, among them articles on the Arab Spring. Demiurge smeared him as a Nazi, as part of his smear campaign against me.

You have no business participating in this smear campaign. Look at the company you are now keeping, Demiurge and Pedro, and wake up. You still have not apologized for signing off on that RfC with the bullshit opening of non-issues.

If you can do all this, without an apology or consequences, then Wikipedia can go to Hell along with you.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

We're already in it. L'enfer, c'est les autres ... /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Continuation

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, what on earth is the above set of statements about? I am making no "unsubstantiated allegations about an editor's politics." I simply note that the user has chosen to place a number of userboxen on his userpage which make political statements that are consistent with the manifestos of the BNP and the EDL. If it were only the latter two statements, then this would be consistent with the manifesto of UKIP, but UKIP holds no truck with national socialism. You are the one who "imagines" that these are not simple statements of his political position, but instead represent some elaborate game. I don't know the chap, I can only go on what he chooses to say. If he's using some clever definition of National Socialism that separates it from Nazism, point me to the edits where he does it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen,

Both Geometry guy and I have explained that Lihaas displays more than a hundred of wildly inconsistent user boxes, so you and Du have been violating WP:NPA by picking a couple extreme right-wing boxes, as you continue to do. As I have explained, I am unaware of any POV-pushing by him, and certainly none on behalf of national socialism, as we understand it today (not as in the Bellamy brothers Looking Backwards or the Pledge of Allegiance). In my limited experience, he has been attacked by those (at best) acquiescing to (and at worst ...) nationalist violence.

A month or so ago he was blocked, after a cry in anguish at the seeming disregard of non-American victims of war on Wikipedia. It would be very strange for him to support parties advocating discrimination (or practicing physical battery) against Muslims, Middle-Easterners, Arabs, Indians, Pakistanis, etc.

Again, I remind you of his writing about the Arab Spring, including articles describing attempts to overthrow nationalistic, militaristic dictatorships, such as the Baath dictatorship in Syria, which was started by French-schooled enthusiasts of European fascism. I am truly sorry that you continue to defend the national-socialist charge.

Cannot you imagine your husband [aforementioned 16:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)]a friend shaking his head at your stubbornness, yet again?

Finally, let me quote from the Gawain poet the line to which I previously referred:

'Maskelles,' quod that myry quene,

'Unblemyst I am, wythouten blot,

And that may I wyth mensk menteene;

Bot "makeles quene" thenne sade I not.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (forgot to sign, 16:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC))

Can I recommend you not make personal remarks about my husband. It makes you sound creepy, and I'm sure you did not intend anything like that.

As for Lihaas, I think the subtlety of his position is lost on you. The chap must be very interesting - given that most people in that neck of politics only use their heads to bash holes in walls. What's on his userpage isn't a random collection of userboxen, it's based on a consistent political viewpoint (although I had to think quite a bit about the British Empire one) which is right wing, libertarian, anarchist (not all anarchists are left wing), nationalist (but globally nationalist, hence anti globalization and interest in nationalist movements around the globe), anti positive discrimination (consistent with libertarianism), anti organisations that have control over multiple countries such as the EU and NATO (consistent with libertarianism and nationalism). None of these are personal attacks - before you say it - they are just based on his edits, his statements, and knowing as much as I do about politics. If you think the edit that got him blocked was "a cry in anguish at the seeming disregard of non-American victims of war" then you really have been had. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen,

About the "husband". I quoted a middle-English poem as a compliment/olive-branch, intending makelesse as matchless, as it is ordinarily translated. Elen noted the other (sometimes primary) meaning, as unmarried or widowed, and introduced her husband. Then I tried to clarify that I was referring to the matchless meaning as in Pearl....

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Another voice

A plausible interpretation Ellen, and it would be interesting to be corrected by Lihass themselve, but just as likely the boxes are merely playfully mischievous. Or perhaps they reflect an attempt to transcend apparently contradictory positions. Whatever, their editing clearly shows they are not the sort of person to side with national socialism!

Keifer, one thing I am sure about with our friend Lihass is that they're sharp enough to know their user box collection will cause some to make false assumptions, and if they were bothered about that they wouldn't have certain boxes. So I hope you don't make this a quitting issue. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Feyd!

There have to be some minimal standards of honesty. I am willing to grant the usual portion of hypocricy to other editors that I wish to claim for myself. I am willing to grant XXXL portions to those who reminisce about spankings in British public schools, where they had great practice in the gentile arts of subtle insults and postures of effortless superiority. However, some standards of honesty must prevail.

I am tired of being lectured about civility and NPA and threatened with ANI by an ArbCom member who defends a sociopathic smearing of a valuable editor as a Nazi.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Im just old enough not to have missed out on that strangely agreable bodily experience . Never saw the point of subtle insults though. I put 'literal minded' in my edit summary as I was thinking maybe that accounts for the absurd assumption and its defence, rather than dishonesty? It will be very sad if we do loose you over this. That said I edit less myself than I used to and I dont miss the specatacle of regularly seeing some of the best editors being attacked. So whatever you decide Im sure it will be for the best. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I had the advantage of attending a girls school, where corporal punishment was considered beyond the pale. As for Lihaas, as you say, he put the things on his page himself - I'm sure he's able and willing to take care of any fallout from them and doesn't need quite such an avid defence. The only thing I would say is that I have never called him a Nazi. I would probably disagree with the political views espoused in most of the userboxen, but none of them necessarily make him a Nazi.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen,

As an ArbCom member and administrator, you are an officer of Wikipedia. It is unseemly and unbecoming for you to fail to have distanced yourself from a suggestion that Lihaas is a national socialist, based on the standard "reasonable person" test; it is worse that you have been defending the smear.

Is Wikipedia a place where non-writers smear leading writers as national socialists? Or anybody smears anybody as a national socialist?

Unfortunately, your actions, so far, have answered that question affirmatively.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And you still have not addressed the issue about your WP:NPA violation of unsubstantiated allegations about politics, or the issue about your signing off "regretfully" for the RfC without even Worm's apologies for its passive-aggressive opening.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, you have stopped making any sense at all. If a man puts a sign in his window saying he votes Conservative, I assume he votes Conservative. I don't agree with the politics of the conservative party, but it's not an attack to say that this man has a sign in his window supporting the Conservatives. Lihaas has a sign in his window supporting Antonin Scalia, and the Scalia/Thomas presidential run, Jobbik, National Union Attack, and the Popular Orthodox Rally. He says he is a libertarian and an anarchist - a recognised political position, see the article on Anarcho-capitalism which he also says he espouses. He says he is a nationalist who believes in Self-determination. This is perfectly consistent with his opposition to big government, and organisations such as NATO and the UN, and his support for such causes as Irish Republicanism, and the Turkish man who set fire to himself as a protest against continual police harassment. It also explains his comments on the ITN about the Tottenham riots [13]. Like I said - they are not a mishmash of random boxes, they look to me like a consistent, thought out fairly unique political position. If his actual one is the reverse of what the userboxen represents, he maybe needs to say that a bit louder.

I am going to end this conversation now. You are not making sense any more - at least to me, and you are simply becoming abusive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen,

You neglect to consider the wildly contradictory boxes he has. In particular, anybody supporting Scalia/Thomas cannot be a libertarian or anarchist. Those two dissented, finding no "cruel and unusual punishment" about a prisoner having his face smashed in, while in police custody.

Thank you for explaining (with links!) that anarchism and libertarianism is a recognized political philosophy.

Again, you have failed to deal with your problem behavior, such as spreading an allegation of national socialism.

Further, you show a shortcoming of empathic imagination: Lihaas was concerned about the lack of attention to 10s and 100s of thousands and even of millions of victims of war (when they do not have a whiter shade of pale), and the attention given to a handful, 10s, and 100s of American or British victims; I disagree with his tactics, but I understand his concerns. (It is a pity that no editor is similarly complaining about the effects EU tariffs on Africa and Asia, which kill even more people.)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And another voice

Kiefer. Your relentless complaining about personal attacks and citing WP:NPA is in direct opposition to the very specific personal attaks both further up this page but specifically here where you directly called an editor a "contemptible shit". Hypocrisy is not a pleasing trait. Please feel free to remove this - but also please feel free to stop moaning about something you do - and have done recently - making personal attacks when you're just as guilty. People, houses, glass and stones.. Pedro :  Chat  17:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Pedro,

Reasoned responses and criticism are welcome. The account mentioned made the allegation of national socialism, which you apparently think is consistent with WP policy. (For the record and in your response to your posting at the RfC, I remind readers that you are claiming that stating that User:SandyGeorgia is "courting the Wikipedia fraternity", etc., is not sexist.)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm really not sure what you mean by the above. Let's make it a little more simple for us all. You have repeatedly accused editors of Personal Attacks. You, I assume, find Personal Attacks unacceptable. But you, in the diff I link above, made a personal attack. You are acting like a hypocrite and the evidence is for all to see. The wise man would recognise their hypocrisy and at least apologise for it, in order that proper debate about other perceived issues can resume without the taint of dishonesty hanging overhead. Just my 2p. You noted once on your talk that "adding value" was a good thing. Well I believe I am adding value when I point out that you cannot, in all honesty, continue to complain about perceived attacks when you, with the language of the gutter, are also guilty. Pedro :  Chat  18:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Pedro,

The "editor" smeared a valuable WP writer as a national socialist, and earned his rebuke.

Now, please consider whether further discussion between us can be more fruitful.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You called someone a "contemptible shit" (which you seem to think is a rebuke - how laughable); your sanctimonious hypocrisy is revealing. As I said at your RFC/U this is clearly a hobby you're not cut out for. I'd suggest that instead of "retiring" in a hissy fit as you did before, your actually retire properly. It would be better for you and, frankly, likely better for Wikipedia. With that I shall now "go away" [14] I think your "go away" message was frankly more honest than the softened version you changed it to. Pedro :  Chat  19:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, when you return from Planet Janet, then maybe discussion is possible. In the meantime, it is impossible to find any of your posts where you don't sound like your head has exploded. You seem to have come apart at the seams. Please take a break, leave this stupid bone you are worrying at behind, and come back to contributing content with a fresh enthusiasm. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, in English, "courting" has two meanings. The older, but still very much in use meaning of "to court" or "to pay court to" originates with the practice of attending upon the court of the king or a nobleman, in the hopes of gaining some advantage thereto. The word then also came to mean paying attention to a girl you hoped to marry, but describing someone as "courting favour with the boss", "courting the Press" (as Princess Diana did) etc has no sexual component whatsoever. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Pedro and Elen,

Calling anybody a national socialist (Nazi) is not a small matter. Calling Lihaas a national socialist was outrageous. A lack of indignation is a sign of a lack of knowledge or a character defect (among other causes).

Any reasonable contemporary person understands that "courting the fraternity" sounds like a sexist jibe.

Secretly exulting,

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, my little girl (she was three in August) "secretly exults" too. You're a troll Keifer and you're going to get blocked then banned if you carry on. That's not a threat; it won't be me that does it - it will be you causing it however. Trust me I've seen enough people on Wikipedia who think that their intelligence means their inability to interact socially will win through. It doesn't. Take a break (maybe a week) and come back to what you're good at if you wish. If you don't, you're going to wind up on the INDEF pile and that would be a shame. Pedro :  Chat  20:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Pedro,

I leave your post because it does contain some nuggets of good will, despite the "troll", "inability to interact socially", etc.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Regretfully the "troll" and "inability to interact socially" are how you're coming over mate. A rational person would realise that a simple "Yep, I screwed up and apologise for calling someone a shit - that was a heated over-reaction" response would be easier on us all. You clearly are rational - but you're not being at the moment, and haven't been for some time. Honestly, no-one wants to see an editor who contributes like you do banned; but you need to start developing a thicker skin and not seeing stuff you want to see. Pedro :  Chat  20:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Pedro, Kiefer, everyone else, just stop replying here. Kiefer.Wolfowitz says he is now retired. That means we can leave him alone now, because he's leaving us alone. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"Planet Janet"

Elen's insult "Planet Janet", about an emotionally troubled teenage girl, was new to me. Here's the lede of the Janet Dillon article.

"Janet Dillon (née Marlowe, previously Green, and often referred to as Janet From Another Planet) is a fictional character on the daytime soap opera All My Children. Mostly known for terrorizing the residents of Pine Valley, including her sister Natalie Marlowe, while under psychotic delusions, Janet has had extended periods of sanity, which she and her psyche have been studied within scholarly contexts.

"

Apparently, Planet Janet also the name of a series of young adult novels about an EMO teenage girl, who has conflicts with older authority figures.

It will be interesting how Elen's bullshit plays at her next ArbComm election.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Quoted from talk page of Du

This is quoted from the talk page of Demiurge1000.

KF

Increasingly puzzling

This was about a disgusting an edit summay violating NPA as it gets. Regretfully I'm not able to take action. Apologies for that. Pedro :  Chat  20:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly as he said. Worm^TT · (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm apparently a jerk that must be removed, as well. Or at least, that's one of the options.

It's all increasingly puzzling. I had realised there was something strange about the KW-Lihaas connection when I saw that Lihaas was the one single editor, out of all the ones he contacted, that KW very carefully sought to bring in without openly mentioning that it was the RfC/U that he wanted comments on. It stood out like a sore thumb. And of course I knew that KW had gone to some lengths to defend Lihaas in the past. (Needs a fair bit of defending - AE block for violating sanctions on a political topic, a block for soapboxing at WP:ITN/C, and two other blocks for edit warring.) But I definitely wasn't expecting a huge explosion like this, over a simple and easily provable statement of fact. There's something very odd here.

As for the joke/not joke thing, that's even more bizarre. I respect people's right to be open about their political views, but it really doesn't reflect well on the editor whether it's a "joke" or sincere. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Quoted from talk page of P

This is quoted from the talk page of Pedro.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Retirement of someone whose name is the joining of two others' fame

Wanna bet he unretires? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That outcome would seem almost certain. Pedro :  Chat  09:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems you have won your bet. He's already editing outside of his rants and accusations in his own userspace/talkspace, so (predictably) this looks to have been all a load of posturing for the sake of drama. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And in other news, sun rises ... Pedro :  Chat  14:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Query regarding comments on this RfC

Hi folks. I was wondering what should be done regarding the comments of a couple of users on this RfC.

• User:Manny may, has been blocked as a returning sockpuppet of a blocked user. The user is not banned.
• User:71.246.147.40, a user who has exercised the WP:RTV, but has returned to edit anonymously and has subsequently been blocked.

As neither are banned, I would personally suggest a <small> comment which explains the situations to any editors coming in to the RfC and also whoever close it. I think it would be probably inappropriate for me to do though, since I'm one of the filers of the RfC. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding User:Manny may, I made a few enquiries and;

1. The block is an arbcom block.
2. The edits to this RfC/U were made in violation of an earlier block (i.e. block evasion).
3. A number of uninvolved administrators believe that the editor in question is banned rather than just blocked.

Elen is probably in a position to know more of the facts for certain :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Mattisse is banned. Revert her edits. TCO is an idjit, but he's not actually blocked, so I don't think anything should be done with his edits. This note is enough.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarfication from Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, I was wondering if you could clarify

• After Worm's behavior over months, following his gratuitous attack on Malleus during Worm's RfA (where I AGFed despite my conscience), I just told him that he can write whatever he wants (without expecting me to read it)

I'm wondering what gratuitous attack I've made on Malleus, who was not involved in my RfA. In fact, as far as I know, Malleus doesn't even know I exist... I've certainly not interacted with him significantly. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. I may have confused you with Tryptofish. I am sorry but I have to go. I hope to correct any error or supply a diff in an hour.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I understood where most of your issues with me come from - I disagree with them, obviously, but that one really threw me. To the best of my knowledge I've never made any personal attacks on anyone, let alone gratuitous ones! Worm^TT · (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry again. I should have doubly checked my memory, at any time, but especially now since my heart does not overflow with benevolence for you.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Rules about editors' views

RFC has specific rules about who gets to edit what. This isn't a regular discussion page or an article. The rule is "Do not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them." If KW wants to endorse my view, he's welcome to do so. But nobody except me gets to change the text of my view—exactly like I'm not changing his view, not even to correct the spelling of the word defuse. ("Diffuse" is what soluble chemicals do in a solvent; defuse is to make an explosive situation unlikely to explode.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

WaId,

I removed your personal attack, per WP:NPA; then David/Worm Elen modified my comment to clarify that I had removed your personal attack, providing a link for anybody curious to see what a user with "an annoyingly high IQ" might have written.

Please leave restoring your personal attack to Elen or David, whose judgment (either one will do) I pledge to accept.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Although I think Elen was the person who added the diff, I'd suggest it stays redacted. It's hardly difficult to ascertain what was said, and since a large part of this RfC is regarding civility (and KW has also had his comments edited in a similar manner during the RfC), I have no issue with the redaction. Remember, he's not changing your view, it's clear that your whole view is not showing. Just my 2p. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as I have noted, Kiefer.Wolfowitz redacting that very mild observation as if it were a personal attack is a demonstration of the problem that has caused this RfC/U. If one cannot say anything even mildly critical without it being regarded as a personal attack, then dispute resolution becomes very difficult. Technically however, Whatamidoing is in the right here. If a view contains a completely egregious personal attack then the victim may request a neutral party to redact the term - but it would need to be at the level of a blockable insult. Other than that, editors must not refactor each other's comments on the RFC/U page. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You think it is blockable to write "I trust that they are not going through my garbage", which you redacted with a snide comment?

Signs and wonders.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes actually. Accusing someone on no basis whatsoever of a criminal act, just because you disagree with them in a Wikipedia discussion, could very well be a blockable offense. You really need to take the beam out of your own eye you know, before you start criticising others for motes. Some of the things you say are outrageously rude, and you are too intelligent to post a defence that you were not aware of it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You are aware that the dynamic duo live in England and I in Sweden?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen's in England too, I think. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I am indeed. I cannot see that anyone's location is a modifier of "accusing someone on no basis whatsoever of a criminal act..." Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me spell it out, then. ;p

I trust that none of you limeys will jump out of my Swedish computer and punch me.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess I was just trying to keep the peace. The two comments are very different. Suggesting that Kiefer is lacking an ability (especially that it is a commonly lacked ability) is not a personal attack. It is an interpretation of all the evidence shown on the RfC, and whilst it is criticism, "lacking the skill to defuse drama" is not an attack on character. However, suggesting that someone is likely to "root through garbage", tantamount to stalking or other forms of harrassment - a criminal act - is an attack on character. I think the only reason you weren't blocked for it is because you are in a different country and it was intended to be lighthearted. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Your distinction makes sense, despite your lacking in the ability to engage in honest discussion, an ability which our best editors have.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC) (Struck through, as part of my pledge to leave such parodies to those adept at unconscious self-parodies. On second thought, the parody may exhibit an adeptness at unconscious self-parody of myself, which would render me free to parody Worm. Maybe we can have a logician help with an RfC on parodies? 10:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC))

Much better. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer - these aren't parodies. I'm not going to speculate on why you apparently cannot see the difference between the statement "lacking the skill to defuse drama" and your two 'parodies' - "lacking the skills to read and write" and "lacking the ability to engage in honest discussion." Any number of possibilities present themselves. What I will say is that if this is not mere trolling, you need to discipline yourself to stop allowing your wit to override your intellect, because the next time you accuse anyone of lying - which is what "lacking the ability to engage in honest discussion' means in plain English - you will find yourself back at the incident noticeboard. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Another example of honest discussion

I repeat this comment from the previous page:

Fetchcomms proposed an interaction ban months ago. Above, his discussions are misrepresented in an AGF violation and falsification (emboldened):

• "KW attempted to deflect the RfC/U by asking for an interaction ban with both Demiurge1000 and Worm That Turned.[15]"
  • "KW implied that the interaction ban was the suggestion of User:fetchcomms - but Fetchcomms had specifically stated he was unaware of the history. He was only explaining how to make an interaction ban request.[16]"

This was a misrepresentation. Deal with it, Elen.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that since fetchcomms' first comment assumed it was a content dispute - (paraphased) "why don't you all just try to avoid each other" was followed by his second comment "I haven't followed the thread"... it was definitely not a misrepresentation. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• note, I have removed the comment on the other page - it was not appropriate where it was, but should be discussed here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

  While the sun shine out of your behind, Elen, please remove your personal attack on "TCO".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

  DONE!

  I took care of the removal of a particularly cowardly personal attack on a retired editor, which has stayed while the ArbCom member has been delivering hypocritical lectures about WP:NPA and threatening ANI, despite my having called it to her attention.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

  What retired editor? Do you mean an editor who had previously exercised WP:RTV? That's a different thing to retirement, and that page says "Vanishing is a courtesy. Vanished users have no right to return under a new identity or as an IP" (my emphasis). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

  Du,

  Cannot you see any problem with your response, at least here? You ask a bunch of rhetorical questions, whose answer you know, raising a cloud of dust through which no illumination may may spread, alas, from even the brightest of bums. This pattern of response is why you should agree to an interaction ban.

  The user has been blocked and an apparent IP has been also blocked, the IP that wrote on this page. Simple charity, and particularly the deepest charity and respect due to an editor who has contributed so much to WP, should have prevented the insult.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

  Extending the courtesy of Right to Vanish, on the assumption that the request was being made in good faith and the editor would keep that agreement, was already a charitable act. In this case, it seems the assumption of good faith was incorrect. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Kiefer.Wolfowitz, please stop refactoring my comments. You seem not to have a clue when something is said in malice or affection, is or isn't a personal attack. I'm beginning to think WP:COMPETENCE applies here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

  Your calling the respected now vanished editor an idiot ("idjit") was beneath your person and your office, and would be read as a personal attack by most unfamiliar with your saintly meekness.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And I'm not makeless either - my husband of 30+ years is still very much alive thank you. You gave it the modern Swedish meaning. I - a Yorkshirewoman - automatically gave it the Middle English meaning of widowed. Interesting. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was thinking of the English translations using "matchless" or peerless, a secondary meaning used in "Pearl" for example.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries. It's an oddity - it must always have been one word with two different meanings. 'Make' is still occasionally used in Yorkshire to mean a spouse or partner, but like makeless in both senses, it's largely obsolete these days. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved from talk page

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC) The housekeeping crew seems to have a one-sided concern with removing comments helpful to me. Elen somehow missed this in her last clean up operation.

It's worth mentioning with regards to Kiefer.Wolfowitz's reply to this view (that DGG should review the word "or") is similar to an event at WT:RFA, where Kiefer was criticised in absentia. He ended up focusing on the difference between AND and OR there too... Worm^TT · (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Worm/David, the error with "or"/"and" was made. The article had problems (and the book offered a pseudo-scientific/non-scientific account of schizophrenia). Do you deny this?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that we live in the real world and can't use && as a short-circuit operator, I would suggest that your comments there were attempting to wikilawyer your editorial commentary out of the discussion. It was nothing to do with and/or. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

David,

You may also have a problem with or.

An example may help. The sentence "David/Worm wastes my time by engaging in AGF violations ("attempting to WikiLawyer") or denying the relevance of a discussion of and/or" does not deny that you waste my time in other ways.

Stating that 3 factors each suffice to cause an editor to fail to fix a problem does not deny other factors (e.g., the editor being tired).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Schopenhauer

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Schopenhauer, in a good mood, was quoted on the RfC page. The following may also be considered (from Wikiquote):

• * Hatred is a thing of the heart, contempt a thing of the head. Hatred and contempt are decidedly antagonistic towards one another and mutually exclusive. A great deal of hatred, indeed, has no other source than a compelled respect for the superior qualities of some other person; conversely, if you were to consider hating every miserable wretch you met you would have your work cut out: it is much easier to despise them one and all. True, genuine contempt, which is the obverse of true, genuine pride, stays hidden away in secret and lets no one suspect its existence: for if you let a person you despise notice the fact, you thereby reveal a certain respect for him, inasmuch as you want him to know how low you rate him — which betrays not contempt but hatred, which excludes contempt and only affects it. Genuine contempt, on the other hand, is the unsullied conviction of the worthlessness of another.
  • Vol. 2, Ch. 24, § 324
  • Variant translation: Hatred is an affair of the heart; contempt that of the head.
    • As translated by Eric F. J. Payne

• Childish and altogether ludicrous is what you yourself are ...; and if a grown-up man like me spends fifteen minutes with fools of this kind, it is merely a way of passing the time. I've now got more important things to do. Goodbye!
  • "Thrasymachus", in "On the Indestructibility of our Essential Being by Death, in Essays and Aphorisms (1970) as translated by R. J. Hollingdale, p. 76

from discussion at talk page of L K

Dear Geometry guy, You kindly suggested that I would read and think about LK's comments, which suggests that my previous response may be informative:

BEGIN Quotation

Hi LK!

I appreciate the thought and good will evident in your remarks, especially at the RfC.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear this - I was afraid of giving offense. I think all that is needed is that you be more mindful in your future interactions. IMO, the RfC should be closed if you make such a commitment, and we can move forward. regards --LK (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lawrence,

You suggested that I should state a commitment to mindfulness in future interactions. Please read Professor Bialy's statement, which I signed.

You seem to take the principal critics to be well intentioned, fair editors.

• Have you looked around at their edits, particularly Du's? Why is this not a joint RfC, suggesting the interaction ban, long ago suggested by me, by Fetchcomms, mentioned by Geometry guy, etc.?
• Have you examined the previous RfC draft by Worm That Turned, or his statements in the earlier ANI/AN or his talk page: This is a fellow that can spend months preparing and RfC, but claims to have trouble finding problems with Du because I have not presented him with diffs!

I distinguish between honest, sincere criticism and dishonest hypocrisy. I gratefully acknowledge and seriously read the former, as a look at my talk page should reveal. I was raised not to enable vice, so I do not reward the latter, even when politically expedient. Even the patience of Kwai Chang Caine had limits ....

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

END Quotation

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice. I note you didn't quote the rest - which remains available at LK's talkpage. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Closing this RfC

Attentive editors might notice that I haven't participated in this RfC for a few days. My reasons for such have been largely summarised in Geometry guy's recent comments in his endorsements. RfC is a fundamentally flawed process, stressful for everyone - especially the subject. I did not take the choice to start one lightly, I was not looking to sanction Kiefer.Wolfowitz, nor to drive him off the encyclopedia. I wanted him to take some feedback, which I believed was reasonable, on board. We've gone through a number of types of Wikipedia's dispute resolution, and I've seen little or no evidence that he has accepted the feedback.

On the other hand, I've seen little evidence that he hasn't. Besides the hostility towards me and the other main certifiers, he's made a few notes where he appears to have accepted that he's not wholly innocent. Previously, when I raised issues with Kiefer.Wolfowitz, he did make some small changes - for example, he strikes through when editing comments and leaves better edit summaries. I personally hope that he will read over this RfC in the future and come to the conclusion that there are areas that could do with some work. He may even notice that no editors endorsed his behaviour, though almost every editor said they didn't want him to leave over this.

If we take this point of view, it becomes obvious that this RfC remaining open only escalates the situation - a number of recent outside views point this out. Larger issues are ignored while point scoring appears to happen over smaller ones. There is nothing more to be gained by keeping the RfC open, except driving Kiefer.Wolfowitz away or poking him until he does something blockworthy (which, in my opinion, he already has, but is lucky enough to have not been). Neither of those two outcomes are things I want from this RfC, and therefore Irequest that it be closed. I'd like to note, that Kiefer.Wolfowitz should also be in agreement to this closure for it to happen - if he'd like to keep it open regarding concerns in the above section to be discussed, I'm willing to do so.

RfCs can be closed in a number of ways - due to inactivity, due to other dispute resolution, or by agreement. To close an RfC by agreement, it would be helpful if we could create a summary with which we all agree, then place a note at WP:AN requesting closure. I suggest the following. If you agree with closure, but do not like the summary, please suggest an alternative. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(I have not figured out where is the place for comments, so please move this wherever appropriate.) I think the summary should mention two more things: a) indeed, KW is responsible for some of the conflicts, but so are other editors, so remembering that "good people can legitimately disagree" would be beneficial for all the participants in this RfC; b) one of the lessons from this RfC is that it is much better to resolve conflict situations immediately after they arise. Sasha (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sasha, could you outline how other editors are responsible for "the conflicts"? Do you mean their good faith additions of poorly sourced, or hurriedly written, content to political articles, five years ago? And then their becoming upset when repeatedly and rudely being accused of plagiarism after KW had objections to the political viewpoints expressed in those articles? Or, do you mean editors (three of them) choosing to revert KW because they had a good faith belief that other editors' userpages should not be changed against their will based on KW's interpretation of a WP:ESSAY?

Do you mean Worm and myself, for submitting an RfC/U when it was quite clear after multiple appearances at WP:WQA, and at WP:ANI, and at WP:AN, and other places, that things were getting worse rather than better? (RfC/U is far from perfect, but it's less of a drama-fest than ANI; and few things are as regularly ineffective as WQA.) Do you mean me, because I made a simple true statement and now am a little perplexed to be called a "sociopath", a "contemptible shit", and a "jerk" who should be "removed" (that last one was repeated twice, for what it's worth) as a result of that one simple statement? Or do you mean something else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge,

to emphasise that I do not make any personal statement about you or Worm, I switch to first person singular. When I am involved in a conflict that I do not manage to resolve without arbitration, I consider it a sign I have to improve my conflict resolution skills. The same applies to my adversary of course (perhaps I can say that it applies more to the adversary, since obviously the conflict was more of his fault :)

The involved parties got more than enough (contradictory) advise on how to resolve their conflicts during this RfC, so I will not add another one. I do think that the summary is a good place to remind everyone involved that no-one should be proud of having to request arbitration. This applies especially to the involved admins, since the standards for them are higher for obvious reasons.

Sasha (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

For the most part, I've deferred to Worm in addressing the issues here, both before and during this RfC/U; he has a longstanding and demonstrable record in dealing with editors who have problems, with considerable success. He has gone out of his way to comply with every request, requirement and expectation that KW has had, even when some of them have gone far beyond what is reasonable, and he did everything possible to try to find a way to avoid this RfC/U being necessary at all.

Worm has, in my view and that of numerous other editors commenting on this RfC/U, behaved in an exemplary manner as regards tact, fairness, understanding and open-mindedness. In return, KW has questioned Worm's competence, his level of experience as an administrator, the "worth" of his contributions to the encyclopedia, his impartiality, integrity and character, and a selection of other things. KW doesn't stop there, though. Anyone who has concerns about his behaviour is suspect; he's most recently proceeded to call for Elen's resignation from arbcom. Perhaps we all have serious deficiencies in our conflict resolution skills?

Worm and I have had concerns throughout, shared by some other editors, that the processes for dealing with user conduct issues may not be as effective - or as constructive - as we might wish. That doesn't change the fact that the problems do need addressing. It's difficult to see where and how your suggestion could be incorporated into a closing statement; I think referring to possible arbitration at this point would tend to make any closing statement appear threatening rather than helpful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge,

I am sorry, I do not have anything more to say here.

Sasha (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Closing summary suggested by Worm That Turned

Kiefer.Wolfowitz is an excellent editor of articles about mathematics and statistics, and has also made valuable contributions in other areas.of mathematics articles and has done some great work on BLPs The editors who have participated in this RfC acknowledge this fact and do not want this to change. His interactions with other editors, however, are not always as exemplary and so it is suggested that Kiefer.Wolfowitz should remember that "good people can legitimately disagree". It is also suggested that Kiefer.Wolfowitz should not regard critism with hostility and should consider ways to address the concerns of his critics.take feedback at face value, not regarding it with hostility. It is recommended that Kiefer.Wolfowitz discusses future issues with a neutral third party he trusts before they escalate, especially in areas he holds strong opinions. All editors should also try to follow these reasonable suggestions.

Comment

This is not bad, and I appreciate the effort and apparent good will, but it is not yet in shape to be voted on. Please consider the following criticisms, which I hope will be according some merit, even by my critics.

The following phrases are objectionable as vague or trivial; they should be rephrased carefully worded, substantive phrases:

1. "It is suggested that ..."

   Why not honestly write, "The undersigned suggest"?

2. "should remember that 'good people can legitimately disagree'

   When have I denied this? (A look at my editing shows my understanding that good editors not only "can" but do disagree with me; the relevant issue is to resolve disagreement by writing truthful articles based on reliable sources, which is the practice of good article writers.) On an encyclopedia, cannot we avoid such clichés?

3. "take feedback at face value, not regarding it with hostility"

   This appears disingenuous. "Feedback" is neutral. Are you saying that I have a trouble accepting praise? The record here and elsewhere shows that I have acknowledged thoughtful criticism. (Also "face value" is another cliché.) .

   I do not appreciate the personal attacks, particularly by people who have not written worthy articles. This is an inappropriate closing to an RfC/U where Demiurge1000 and Elen of the Roads have each suggested Lihaas was a national socialist (Nazi), unless it be another unconscious self-parody.

4. "particularly in areas where he has strong opinions"

   I have strong belief, indeed knowledge, in many areas, not just mathematics. Why not avoid my intention and instead discuss behavior, as usually recommended on WP, by writing "when he considers strongly criticizing sources or edits"?

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with KW that Worm's opening sentence here is not an appropriate start to the closure. (KW struck part of Worm's proposed opening sentence). In particular, saying that KW "has done some great work on BLPs" is problematic. The point is, I have always considered the most serious problem here to be a BLP problem. That's not to suggest that there aren't other serious problems with KW's behaviour. But dragging a living person's name through the mud, deliberately and provocatively, after repeated requests to desist, and even after acknowledging the possible damage to their real world reputation and even livelihood, is not something we can ever permit on Wikipedia. The WP:BLP policy applies to all edits made to Wikipedia, not just the article space.

However, I do not question Kiefer's undoubted positive contributions - he's already brought one mathematics article to Good Article status, and will most likely soon manage the same with a politics article. I suggest as a compromise; "Kiefer.Wolfowitz is an excellent editor of mathematics articles, and has also made valuable contributions in other areas." --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge1000,

The restriction to mathematics articles is bad, because statistics is not part of mathematics, and because my articles in politics and history have received praise. I believe that all my articles have the highest quality most reliable sources, and most are very well referenced; certainly anything controversial is well referenced (typically, the last year, with in-line page references).

Regarding your recently emphasized WP:BLP concerns:

1. There has been very little discussion of my flagging concerns about a possible copyright violation for the Socialist Party of America and listing the close paraphrasing of paragraphs from the "history" published by the Socialist Party USA:

Parallel passages raising concerns about possible copyright violations, etc.

*SPUSA: The ISL was a Trotskyist splinter group founded and led by Max Shachtman .... In 1958 the ISL dissolved, and its members joined the SP-SDF. ... the concept of “Realignment.” Shachtman and his lieutenant, Michael Harrington, argued that what America needed wasn’t a third party, but a meaningful second party. The Realignment supporters said that in sixty years the Socialist Party had failed to bring labor into the Party, and in fact kept losing their labor sympathizers (such as the Reuther brothers) because they saw they could do more within the Democratic Party. WP: In 1958 the party admitted to its ranks the members of the recently-dissolved Independent Socialist League led by Max Shachtman, a ... Trotskyist .... Shachtman and his lieutenant [[Michael Harrington[17]]] advocated a political strategy called "realignment," arguing that rather than pursuit of ineffectual independent politics, the American socialist movement should instead seek to move the Democratic Party to the social democratic left by direct participation within the organization. SPUSA: At the ... Democratic National Convention ... in 1968, Realignment Socialists were present as delegates.... At the same time, many Debs Caucus members were in the streets with the demonstrators. WP: This division was manifest most strongly during the 1968 Democratic Convention, in which members of the Debs Caucus were among the protesters outside of the convention, while members of the Coalition and Unity Caucuses were among the convention delegates. SPUSA ... Max Shachtman’s leadership, ... showing a growing tendency toward a Stalinist “democratic centralism” in practice. WP: the Shachtmanites maintained the strongest tendency to ... democratic centralism SPUSA In the 1972 Presidential election the Shachtmanites supported Henry Jackson .... During the campaign itself, they took a neutral position between McGovern and Nixon, following the lead of the AFL-CIO. Harrington and his Coalition Caucus supported McGovern throughout. Most of the Debs Caucus members supported Benjamin Spock, candidate of the People’s Party.... WP: During the 1972 presidential election, ... the Debs Caucus supported the independent candidacy of Benjamin Spock, many of the Coalition Caucus supported ... George McGovern ..., and those in the Unity Caucus tended to support Hubert Humphrey and Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson. ... The party, following the lead of ... the ... AFL-CIO ... declared its neutrality between McGovern and incumbent Republican President Richard Nixon .... SPUSA At the end of 1972, ... many of the states and locals within the Debs Caucus, .... Early in 1973, the Socialist Party of Wisconsin, with the support of the California and Illinois Parties, ... voted to reconstitute the Socialist Party USA. WP: Socialist Party USA (not Socialist Party of America): Numerous local and state branches of the old Socialist Party, including the Party's Wisconsin, California, Illinois, ... organizations, participated in the reconstitution of the Socialist Party USA. *SPUSADue to America’s restrictive and often undemocratic ballot access laws (which have made it almost impossible to break the two-party monopoly on national politics), WP the financial dominance of the two major parties, as well as the limitations of the United States' legislatively and judicially entrenched two-party system. SPUSA: the party views the races primarily as opportunities for educating ... WP: The Socialist Party USA ... runs candidates for public office, though these campaigns are often considered educational in intent .... WP: The Debs Caucus finally broke with the party in 1972 to form the Union for Democratic Socialism. ,,, The UDS became the Socialist Party USA in 1973 ... Michael Harrington and the Coalition Caucus left the party soon after, establishing themselves with headquarters in New York City as the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC). Harrington and his supporters, ... believed that the third party road to democratic socialism had been a failure, and instead sought to work within the Democratic Party as an organized socialist caucus to bring about that party's "realignment" to the left. This left Shachtman and the Unity Caucus in unopposed control of the Socialist Party (though Shachtman himself died very soon after). In 1972, this group renamed itself the Social Democrats USA (SDUSA). This quotation shows extensive paraphrasing from the Socialist Party USA's own literature, which does raise concerns about its being a possible Copyright-Violation. These passages no longer appear in the article. (These passages raised questions about COI/RS/Verifiability also.)

and so I suspect that this is an inappropriate topic for a closing statement. I also raise the procedural objection that

2. you have added the WP:BLP concern not at the beginning (10 October), but rather only at the end of this RfC (21 October), well after most of the "outside reviews" were written, so that this should not be in this RfC's closing statement. (Given the discussion of this topic at AN/ANI, and the lack of interest by others here, and given my attempts to write the nicest possible statements on his talk page and the article talk page, please drop this issue.)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Happy to revise my suggested alteration to "Kiefer.Wolfowitz is an excellent editor of articles about mathematics and statistics, and has also made valuable contributions in other areas." --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge1000,

Please read my proposal before, which does try to deal with the substantive issues alluded to by Worm. Please reflect on my word choice. In particular, I am not an "editor" (or a "Wikipedia user"); rather I am a writer.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge, I do not think your change is unreasonable - I've done it. Worm^TT · (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

KW, I had a look at your suggestions. "We the undersigned" is not appropriate, as there needs to be agreement on the summary of the RfC - ie the summary should not be contentious to any party. I take your point with the neutrality of the word feedback, we are talking about criticism, and I've adjusted appropriately. Regarding the 'good people can disagree', I've not suggested that you denied this, indeed you agreed with it on the RfC - I was hoping to bring in what I thought was a salient quote which all of us could learn from. Regarding your "opinions", I feel that it is appropriate, because it is based on your opinions that your editing flares up - be it political opinion, opinions regarding minors or other opinions. If you spot a discussion starting to flare up (and I'm sure you can), and it is a topic you feel passionate about, why not get a third opinion? I do and have done many times in the past, it's good advice.

Regarding the personal attacks, I am afraid I still see none. I'm sorry, but I do not see a single attack on you personally. I know you feel aggrieved by the criticism here, but you are the only editor who has suggested personal attacks on you. However, I disagree with the concept of "worthy" articles and "unworthy" articles - remember this is an encyclopedia, not an academic journal. It is written for everybody - and therefore every article written to a high standard should be treated with the same level of "worth", just my opinion. In fact, there's an argument to say that more viewed articles of the same quality are more worthy... but lets not go there. Worm^TT · (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

NB, due to an edit conflict, I lost the changes to my statement, which I've put in now. I've changed it a little further, to point out that all editors should follow these reasonable suggestions - there's nothing out of the ordinary. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Alternative

Worm/David,

Please look at what I wrote and see whether any of my changes can be accepted.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz is an excellent editor. The editors who have participated in this RfC acknowledge this fact and do not want this to change. His interactions with some other editors, however, are not always as exemplary, and so Kiefer.Wolfowitz should remember the spirit of the saying, "good people can legitimately disagree". Kiefer.Wolfowitz should continue to acknowledge feedback and consider ways to address the concerns of his critics. Before he strongly criticizes sources or edits, Kiefer.Wolfowitz should reflect on past experiences and consider discussing such criticism with any competent third-party.

For example, the statement that "KW should remember that others can disagree legitimately" is painful for me to read, but I can accept the spirit of the sentence.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Imprimatur

The suggestion that I should consult with somebody before writing on anything strongly believed is utterly unacceptable. Should I ask for permission before farting?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

From Areopagitica by John Milton

Areopagitica "To fill up the measure of encroachment, their last invention was to ordain that no book, pamphlet, or paper should be printed (as if St. Peter had bequeathed them the keys of the press also out of Paradise) unless it were approved and licensed under the hands of two or three glutton friars. For example: Let the Chancellor Cini be pleased to see if in this present work be contained aught that may withstand the printing. VINCENT RABBATTA, Vicar of Florence. I have seen this present work, and find nothing athwart the Catholic faith and good manners: in witness whereof I have given, etc. NICOLO GINI, Chancellor of Florence. Attending the precedent relation, it is allowed that this present work of Davanzati may be printed. VINCENT RABBATTA, etc. It may be printed, July 15. FRIAR SIMON MOMPEI D'AMELIA, Chancellor of the Holy Office in Florence. Sure they have a conceit, if he of the bottomless pit had not long since broke prison, that this quadruple exorcism would bar him down. I fear their next design will be to get into their custody the licensing of that which they say Claudius intended, but went not through with. Vouchsafe to see another of their forms, the Roman stamp: Imprimatur, If it seem good to the reverend Master of the Holy Palace. BELCASTRO, Vicegerent. Imprimatur, Friar Nicolo Rodolphi, Master of the Holy Palace. Sometimes five Imprimaturs are seen together dialogue-wise in the piazza of one title-page, complimenting and ducking each to other with their shaven reverences, whether the author, who stands by in perplexity at the foot of his epistle, shall to the press or to the sponge. These are the pretty responsories, these are the dear antiphonies, that so bewitched of late our prelates and their chaplains with the goodly echo they made; and besotted us to the gay imitation of a lordly Imprimatur, one from Lambeth House, another from the west end of Paul's; so apishly Romanizing, that the word of command still was set down in Latin; as if the learned grammatical pen that wrote it would cast no ink without Latin; or perhaps, as they thought, because no vulgar tongue was worthy to express the pure conceit of an Imprimatur, but rather, as I hope, for that our English, the language of men ever famous and foremost in the achievements of liberty, will not easily find servile letters enow to spell such a dictatory presumption English." John Milton

Question and answer

Question (formatting by KW)

KW, have you demonstrated your ability to work well with other editors, on political topics where you disagree with them? Or has it caused problems? [A question from Demiurge1000]

Answer

Hi Demiurge1000,

User Carrite habitually (but affectionately) and understandably (mis)characterizes me as a right-wing social democrat, and calls himself something else. You should see his very negative reaction to my initial edits on Social Democrats, USA. (I have in fact identified myself as having attended Michael Harrington's funeral, so a knowledgeable person would suspect that I might be hostile to SDUSA, in fact.) Carrite suggested I use the New York Times article to describe the change of SPA to SDUSA, and has largely approved of the results.

You can ask RJensen for his opinion. He is a respected historian, who has worked on a few articles with me. There has been no edit waring.

I acknowledge having difficulty working with persons using sources that not just a few times, but over and over make gross errors, particularly partisan errors, on political articles.

This is a good question. It is a pity that RfC/Us no longer have a question section. I think that I addressed this question in earlier discussions.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Users who agree with closing and endorse the summary

• Worm^TT · (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• As proposed by Worm, with my suggested amendment to the first sentence. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse with Demiurge1000's amendment. At the risk of being annoying Ive a comment to make. On Friday I didnt read the whole RFC and just endorsed the two relatively anti RFC views as I have great admiration for Keifer and his work here and thought some of the statements against him were one sided. On the other hand there has been uncollegial editing. I at least partly agree with all the other views, especially what DGG said. So I fully commend editors like Worm, Ellen etc who are good enough to take the time to address overly aggressive conduct. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Users who disagree with closing or do not endorse the summary

•  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC).

Closing summary

Criticism/Alternative

Alternative: Long form

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (KW) has been a very active writer and editor. He has written primarily in statistical science and other mathematical sciences (principally statistics, but also optimization/operations research, mathematical economics, and computer science); he has also written biographies in these areas. His first work, revising optimal design inspired his name, honoring Jack C. Kiefer and Jacob Wolfowitz. In these areas, his editing has received very high praise: in this RfC, leaders of the WP:WikiProject Mathematics and WP:WikiProject Mathematics commended his editing and raised the concern that KW's total contributions to Wikipedia be considered, particularly the articles in their expertise, which they commended.

In the last 6 months, KW has written more about recent American political history, particularly about controversial articles that have long been featured in Wikipedia:Noticeboards and at least one Arbitration Committee case: History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United_States, American left, Socialist Party of America (SPA), Social Democrats, USA, Socialist Party USA, Michael Harrington/Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee/Democratic Socialists of America, neoconservatism, Freedom in the World, and more than a dozen articles based on material imported from on-line websites.

• In all cases, KW boldly edited the articles; in many cases, his early edits were criticized as POV-pushing: However, in all cases, his edits have stood the test of time (although their referencing has been improved), and one of his early critics User:Carrite stated that he was "astonished" to be cited in criticism of KW, stating "on the contrary, I think he is a terrific editor". None of his material has any tags, and certainly none for RS, NPOV, etc.
• At the same time, these political articles have been the sites of greatest conflict. In these conflicts, content/political questions overlapped questions about sources (complying with WP:Reliable sources and WP:NPOV). KW's editing and his referencing has been praised in the current good-article review of Tom Kahn (and American social democrat) and called "meticulous" in the recent featured-article of Shapley–Folkman lemma (a topic in convex geometry and mathematical economics). While improving articles, KW has bluntly condemned some sources as "crap" and sometimes as politically biased fantasies, while also criticizing the edits that introduced that material; some of these criticisms have been made while also raising concerns, infrequently by using tags, about compliance with WP policies on avoiding close paraphrasing/plagiarism and respecting copyright. In all cases, the tagged material has been rewritten, to comply with WP policy; in the case of Freedom in the World WP copyright expert User:Moonriddengirl stated that the infraction was probably not a serious but nonetheless rewote the section. It is this cluster of issues have raised the greatest concern among critics of KW. KW has acknowledged that calling sources "crap" and raising concerns about close paraphrasing/plagiarism/copyright-violation/POV-pushing/fringe upsets the editors introducing the questioned material.

In the last year, Kiefer.Wolfowitz has participated in discussions for Requests for Administrator. In these discussions, KW has consistently opposed minors becoming administrators, because of his ethical and legal concerns; while sanctioned by WP policy, his and others' stated opposition to minors has been criticized. He has been criticized as being paternalistic and rigid about removing personal information, such as disabilities, from minors' user pages; all the minors involved have thanked KW for concern, while choosing to continue to display the information. KW has acknowledged that WP:Oversight may be contacted in future cases.

There has been forthright, sometimes heated, but rarely illuminating discussions about the wisdom of this RfC, about the history leading to this RfC, and about the conduct of the parties. By its nature, an RfC/U focuses on the conduct of the targeted user, unlike a request for mediation, which may suggest voluntary interaction bans, etc. KW has long sought a voluntary interaction ban with User:Worm That Turned and User:Demiurge1000; KW, User:Geometry guy, and others have suggested that this RfC failed to address the problem of interaction, and in particular did not address Demiurge1000's behavior.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Wholly inappropriate for a summary - but would have made a great response if you'd said that in the first place. I think it misses the point we were trying to make in many places, whilst being spot on in others. Worm^TT · (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

  I do not retract truth claims that I think are true. However, I have tried to address legitimate concerns for a long time, for example when Ryan Vesey leaped to my defense, before, and I suggested that he consider the other fellow's statement. It is unfortunate that there were no examples given of my being nice to young people or people who identified themselves as having problems; I should like to think that those examples far outnumber the rough examples discussed here (and I'm not claiming that 90 good deeds excuse 10 bad deeds for any editor).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Alternative close proposal

Kiefer.Wolfowitz is plainly out to lunch at this point (a phrase I'm sure he will make 10k of comments with sources about shortly). Let's lock this up and move away. If he turns up back in polite society still causing the same problems, this RfC/U will provide evidence for some administrative or community action - whatever seems appropriate at the time. On the other hand (which I'm still kind of hoping for) if he finishes working through this and starts editing articles again - without the need to keep up a running commentary on how everyone is against him, inferior to him &etc - then it can gracefully sink into the archives.

I have asked at WP:AN [18] for an uninvolved editor to close this. I think that would be for the best. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
2. moving on is the important thing here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

#  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments # It is very clear that the distribution of comments is split between two clusters, which I shall roughly label as

1. • article writers, who have raised concerns about personal attacks and have made supportive statements (and some thoughtful criticism), and
   • other.

   Of course I choose the "polite wisdom and letters" of the writers, rather the "barbaric pride of a Hunnish and Norwegian stateliness" of an ArbComm member abusing her power and disgracing her office.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

2. "Polite society" reminded me of Areopagitica.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
3. I would consider an AN close inappropriate, as isn't part of the proper procedure. However, as Demiurge says, moving on is the proper thing, and ... well... there are no procedures. Worm^TT · (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
4. I don't think that a close without discussion is useful at this point, so I would ask any newcomer from WP:AN to treat this with extreme caution. We may be "back here" in a month or two, which would be sad - we certainly don't want to be back here in a week or two. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Better to agree and to move on

Old business

Rather than argue endlessly and unproductively over minutiae, let's instead look at the things on which we all are agreed. Put enough of those agreements together, and, magically, the need for the RfC/U falls apart, and we can all move on.

In this edit, KW agreed with Moonriddengirl's stagement that "people on both sides of the copyright question should be treated courteously".

I think any reasonable person would agree that KW treated some people on one side (by his view) of "the copyright question" discourteously. Everyone here agrees with that. If there is a person who believes that KW's behaviour toward Peter was courteous, then we need to hear from you right now.

In reality, there were problems. These problems must not be allowed to recur. WP:BLP must be followed regarding people who contribute to obscure material about obscure political parties in the USA. Equally, it must be followed about obscure political parties anywhere!

Let's get an assurance that KW will not behave like this again - even if he feels very strongly! - then let's dismiss this whole thing and move on.

There's nothing complicated in this. --Demiurge1000 (talk)

I've been following the above and agree with the general principle that it is more important to close this RfC and move on than to agree about every issue that has arisen here or pretend that any closing summary will make everyone happy. Geometry guy 21:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The clouds part and angels sing

All right, please critique my summary. Let's not get precious about who says what or who is on what side, this is an attempt to just close this nonsense.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz made some mistakes when dealing with certain political articles; he has agreed to be more careful when raising such concerns in future, and the people involved agree that there is no need to take further action. Kiefer.Wolfowitz has agreed to contact oversight, in future, if he thinks that information about younger editors should be removed.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz agrees to limit himself to a simple statement about his views, rather than engaging in an prolonged argument, when someone under the age of minority applies to be a Wikipedia administrator.

There's not much more? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Demiurge1000!

I recognize that using some academic "fighting words" (wink, to release tensions) has little support, even when I think that I am correcting a great wrong, when dealing with productive editors. To establish peace and to make amends (insofar as possible, given the past) with an otherwise productive editor, I did write the nicest possible statements on the article and user talk-pages, without stating anything that I believe to be false or cowardly.

I would remind you and the others of Moonriddengirl's statement to you, when you had questioned my motives for asking for assistance from the copyright violation department: Most users discover copyright problems because they are concerned about content questions. Again, I remind you that I helped to clean up 10-20 articles in one day, after I discovered the importing of articles from a partisan website; in every case, rewriting was done, whether by me or others. In every case!

I have resented your questioning my motives for asking for copyright-violation experts to look at the pages, and really for not acknowledging that I cleaned up a lot of articles of no interest to me, because I take BLP seriously. If I had not taken action, those problems would still exist.

You overstate some acknowledgments that you attributed to me:

• I have not acknowledged intellectual or academic mistakes, but I have acknowledged imprudently writing statements that caused unnecessary conflict, usually in the Spring or Summer when I started editing politics.
• Regarding RFAs:

• I wrote more at the first RfAs, because of curiosity and a genuine concern, and in one case because I thought that people were wrongly dismissing MF, without being able to state his views.
• Like other writers, I shall continue to raise concerns when we see candidates who are minors or persons with poor scholarship or limited writing. In some cases, this requires documentation, and my contributions have been acknowledged by great writers like TCO and SandyGeorgia. They deserve some respect from you and WTT/Dave, too. As leaders of RfA reform, you have an obligation to be concerned with poor scholarship among RfA candidates, if only to ensure that your RfA reform is not dismissed as an childish administrative clique with poor understanding of writers.
• I am concerned about the development of a network focused on RfAs, which is not only beginning to dominate RfAs, but also is becoming increasingly intolerant towards eccentricities. I expect that leaders of the RfA reform shall pay more attention to preventing group-think and scapegoating, which has already appeared.

I have not agreed to contact Oversight. I have acknowledged that in all cases so far, the minors have continued to display sensitive information, and agreed to always consider contacting Oversight first and leaving the decision to them---presumably, they can act within 15 minutes or so.

Now, do you agree to the mutual interaction ban?

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Talk of an interaction ban is pointless at this point. The RfC/U has fairly comprehensively established that the problem isn't with Demiurge. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

  How can a process "comprehensively establish" an issue that it didn't and never intended to address? Geometry guy 22:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

  Ditto. Also, Demiurge1000 and I are now discussing issues without knives or elbows being thrown, and let's let him respond. He has already acknowledged reducing his contacts after I made this request before, which makes me think he would consider at least a trial extension of this practice.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

  Excellent. Do you agree that your behaviour with regard to Peter, was inappropriate? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

  Demiurge1000, I have said what I could say. Please understand that you are pushing me against my conscience, and I believe that your fixation on this is not helping anybody. Please just accept that I have an extremely strong reaction against good persons being called Leninists, fascists, komisarsteins, "courting the Wikipedia fraternity", etc., and that I believe that such WP:NPA insults must be dealt with firmly. I recognize that others and the majority disagree.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

  I have stated that my approach caused conflict, and I now clarify that no benefit was apparent from using zealous indignation. The main benefit that can be expected from such a reproach is an admission of error and resolution to avoid similar errors, when possible. I have tried to show in a small way, by my acknowledgements of past errors, that we should all admit errors and try to do better.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

  That's absolutely fine. Those of us who are Leninists, fascists, komisarsteins, or whatever else you may call us, don't actually really care very much, or even recognise what the insults are about. Seriously, I am struggling to know what that is all about. Sorry. Let's move on... please. Peter edited Wikipedia with good faith; he was never part of any "cabal" or any extremist group, just like Rd232 was never part of any similar cabal. Will you accept this? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

  Peter seems like a nice guy. I think I wrote repeatedly that I have seen no evidence of any similar issues, and I tried to make peace. I also wrote a defense of him, when I asked Ryan not to get involved.

  I was disappointed that highly sophisticated (in politics and WP) SPUSA editors had not seen the borrowing from their "history". I raised a concern that these articles promoted SPUSA above the other post SPA organizations, even though it is very small, and apparently no longer wins the city-council races in Iowa City; where the others's members are very well known. At worst, I suspected that a handful of editors have consciously been promoting the SPUSA on WP, as a cabal or (more likely) because of a belief in the virtue of both SPUSA/WP (c.f. Euston Manifesto).

  I take it that we are done. I have concerns about the language of WTT's draft, particularly of his "gag order", which I trust he or you can accomodate.

  Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"Gag order"?

• I can't find anything about a "gag order" on this page, so please be a little clearer. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  Here is the overly broad and overly strong requirement:  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• DRAFT: "It is recommended that Kiefer.Wolfowitz discusses future issues with a neutral third party he trusts before they escalate, especially in areas he holds strong opinions."

  Thank you for the clarification. Under the circumstances, that seems rather weak to me... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• I feel strongly that 1+1=2, but I shall not consult with anybody. Also the sentence's syntax is convoluted, I'm sorry to say, and "neutral" is redundant. I suggested the following  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  Before he strongly criticizes sources or edits, Kiefer.Wolfowitz should reflect on past experiences and consider discussing such criticism with any competent third-party.

• KW, there's a large difference between feeling strongly that 1+1=2 - which is a fact (for the majority of situations, I'm sure we can come up with a few where it isn't) - and you feeling strongly that say, that minors shouldn't be admins. All the above is recommending (and you don't have to follow the recommendation, but it is good practice), is you keep an eye on a situation and discuss it with someone you trust before letting things get too far. I'd not be happy with comments like "competent third party", as it is hard to quantify... I know there are people you'd regard as incompetent who I wouldn't. Also it's not just criticizing sources or edits, it's also commenting on editors. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  WTT/David,

  I am glad that you accepted some suggestions. I suggested a longer close, which you rejected. I have explained why your sentence is too broad in scope, so that it must be changed. Find a better wording or delete it.

  The general rule is to avoid commenting on editors, and to focus on edits and sources, I repeat.

  If you want to ban comments about minors, change WP policy, which explicitly states that editors are free to oppose granting administrative powers to minors. Your example clarifies why this ban is unacceptable.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  I don't want to ban comments about minors. I have never supported a minor to be an admin and it would have to be an exceptional candidate to change that. Demiurge, to the best of my knowledge has never voted for a minor to be an admin. He certainly didn't on any of the ones I've looked at recently. I don't want you to stop airing that opinion, it is right that it should be put forward on the encyclopedia - however, I do want you to pause before you get into a situation like Dylan's RfA, where you made twice as many posts as the candidate and asked wholly inappropriate questions. Worm^TT · (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  You are asking me to agree to consult privately with a third party before posting something that might escalate. This is just absurd. Also, this was not listed as a "desired outcome" so it has no business being in the closing summary.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  This is what you two wrote as a desired outcome, "to state his views clearly and succinctly at RfA, instead of engaging in extended arguments, even if he feels strongly that a particular outcome is not acceptable". There was no bullshit demand to consult with somebody, so this bullshit summary is just bullshit.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved third party close proposal

I think I've summarized the discussion well and I've been diplomatic in this close. Please discuss.

Kiefer Wolfowitz is a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia, however, at times his communication habits have tended to learn toward incivility in the least and personal attacks at worst. No matter a person's excellent contributions, all editors are treated with the same rules. KW's opinion of young editors, especially in RFAs, is not neccessarily wrong but the way his opinion was communicated was inappropriate. DGG had some wise words about that when he said "With respect to younger editors ... I find that they respond very favorably to being treated as equals." As much as Wikipedia needs established editors with strong content contributions, it also needs new editors who bring fresh breath and new ideas to the project. Incivility and rude behavior does not encourage new editors to participate. It has been noted several times that KW seems willing to 'dish out' but has trouble receiving constructive criticism while not perceiving it as a personal attack against himself.

To move forward, KW has agreed voluntarily with two viewpoints in particular (Fetchcomms and Sławomir Biały) that he can be tactless and aggressive in discussions, although most editors can be at times, and that he should try to minimize the behavior and be a little more respectful to those around him (close paraphrasing of Sławomir Biały) and also that he should say things in a nicer and non-demeaning manner (close paraphrasing of Fetchcomms). If he sticks to these ideas, the complaint should be solved.

Can I get endorsement by those involved?--v/r - TP 23:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Endorsed --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi TParis!

I've always liked you, and this shows a spirit of fairness and intelligence, but this won't do. Please remember that this is permanently attached to my account, and can be used for future complaints. Therefore, it must be precise and fair.

You have to focus on the desired outcomes stated at the beginning, which are the basis of the whole procedure. I did not condescend to discuss the complaint, but I did discuss outside views.

My view is that you should try to summarize the consensus of the discussion, particularly by the outside views; I would regard it as unfair to use only the statements of the critics, when their points were ignored by the outside views, but I do not know whether WP policy discusses this situation.

One concern is that everybody essentially signed the statement by David Eppstein, and I don't see much evidence of trying to convey that statement, or Carrite's. Look at what I wrote above as a sample statement.

I shall read more.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This is more extreme than WTT's, in terms of statements about my personality. It is extremely strange to have a closing document more extreme than that suggested by the critics of the targeted editor.

Why don't you take a look at what I wrote, which received praise from WTT, although he said that it was too long. WTT also suggested that it lacked some of the statements about future expectations that he tried to put into the final document, to which I objected. The objectionable statements don't appear in yours either. So we have a more extreme criticism, but the turned up criticism results very little statements about the future, even less than mine.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer, the desired outcomes are what I wanted at the start of the RfC process - they are not binding in anyway and the subsequent discussion have shown that there are larger issues in some areas and smaller issues in others. My statement was designed to be agreeable to all - a closing admin does not need to get agreement from all parties. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's my opinion that the suggested close begins with a paraphrase of David Eppstein's view, and therefore gives it considerable weight. Seems a fair summary to me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please hold off on voting

TParis has asked for feedback. We did make progress on WTT's draft. Let us try to make a consensus document here.

Round 2

Kiefer Wolfowitz is a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia, however, at times his communication habits have tended to learn toward incivility in the least and personal attacks at worst. No matter a person's excellent contributions, all editors are treated with the same rules. KW's opinion of young editors, especially in RFAs, is not necessarily wrong but the way his opinion was communicated was inappropriate. DGG had some wise words about that when he said "With respect to younger editors ... I find that they respond very favorably to being treated as equals." As much as Wikipedia needs established editors with strong content contributions, it also needs new editors who bring fresh breath and new ideas to the project. Incivility and rude behavior does not encourage new editors to participate. It has been noted several times that KW seems willing to 'dish out' but has trouble receiving constructive criticism while not perceiving it as a personal attack against himself.

All participates very strongly agree that KW's participation in the project is a net plus and would hate to see this RFC result in his absence from the project. In addition, two one user (Fetchcomms and Carrite) have said their views were improperly conveyed by Worm that Turned and Demiurge1000. There A few editors have also been several statements felt that this RFC is not productive or appropriate.

To move forward, KW has agreed voluntarily with two viewpoints in particular (Fetchcomms and Sławomir Biały) that he can be tactless and aggressive in discussions, although most editors can be at times, and that he should try to minimize the behavior and be a little more respectful to those around him (close paraphrasing of Sławomir Biały) and also that he should say things in a nicer and non-demeaning manner (close paraphrasing of Fetchcomms). He has also agreed on the talk page in his proposed closing statement that he cknowledges that WP:Oversight may be contacted in future cases involving minors voluntarying too specific personal information.

I've included the information you requested, KW, but I left out the bit about copyright since it was largely ignored by the uninvolved parties. Please discuss this new close statement.--v/r - TP 00:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I would suggest striking out the whole of the first paragraph after the first sentence. You may look at my or WTT's draft for inspiration.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

And I would strongly oppose Kiefer's suggestion. I believe the first version was better, and note that KW has been (quite improperly in my opinion) haranguing the closer on his talkpage. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel "harangued" (sp?), but I assure you that the proposed close was of my own opinion of the tone of the RFC. KW - I think the first paragraph is appropriate, but I am not opposed to trimming it. It does give a bit of undue weight to one particular part of the discussion (the minors and new editors).--v/r - TP 00:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure Fetchcomms said that his views had been improperly conveyed - can anyone clarify where he said that? (It's a bit difficult to query things with him, since he's said he'll block the next person to discuss this on his talk page!) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Du's concern: Fetchcomms's statement is hard to summarize, admittedly.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me, I had read a comment by KW and meant to research it but I had forgotton. After looking deeper into it, the comment by KW that "evidence was removed from here by Elen" was not what I had thought it was.--v/r - TP 00:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I moved some threaded comment from the RfC/U page to the talkpage, in a somewhat vain attempt to keep some order. Is that what he is referring to? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like this was a misunderstanding of who said what; TParis has now fixed it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Prefer the first version, but would accept this one in order to reach a compromise. You could perhaps take out the sentence "Incivility and rude behavior does not encourage new editors to participate" in order to achieve more balanced weight in the first paragraph. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I've trimmed that out and half of the preceeding sentence. It was undue weight and critcism of KW that is already described prior.--v/r - TP 00:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

See below about the "new member" nonsense. KW

Trimmed a bit too much :-) - I'm not sure it reflects the balance of views now. I think this is problematic; "There have also been several statements that this RFC is not productive or appropriate." There was only one view (Carrite's) unequivocally along those lines that received significant support, and even then it was endorsed by only a minority of editors, some of whom also endorsed sections stating that there were indeed problems that needed to be addressed. Perhaps word it as "A few editors felt the RFC was not productive or appropriate."

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think the view of incivility toward new members was a concern but no the only concern or the gravest (sp?) concern. I did change the last sentence of the second paragraph like you've suggested. The improper RFC view was also shared by Sodin and Tkuvho, although Carrite's opinion was endorsed the most.--v/r - TP 01:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse current version - happy with this one or the Round 1 variant. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

RE "New members"

I was never uncivil to new members, unless you are thinking of IPs that write racist, anti-semitic, or EE nationalist stuff, in which case I might have written more than "Thank you very much and welcome to WP. However, it does not seem that your edit removing all mentions of Jew or Poles in Lviv (or your edit blaming juvenile delinguincy on African American young men who always have to carry basket balls) was based on reliable sources, and it has been reverted. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia and ask me for help anytime"---I may have been "guilty" of incivility to such new members. Otherwise, whoever wrote that I was uncivil to new members should smoke a better grade of crack.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding User:Carrite

Demiurge1000 made several comments about the few number of persons voting for various proposals, and noted that Carrite had less votes than others.

Let me remind you of some facts:

1. This is not a vote. (23:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC): Counting the number of "supports" is objectionable, whether they be called "votes" or not, particularly given the rather bimodal distribution of supporter/writers and critics/non-writers (or those with no contributions to articles I've edited).)
2. In this RfC, the only person knowledgeable about the articles on American socialism is Carrite, and he is a very productive and careful editor. I have mentioned two other editors with knowledge, who have not participated, one giving reasons.
3. You would do well to review the history of Social Democrats, USA, and see how User:Carrite initially strongly criticized me edits as "taking a crowbar to the article". Within a week, he congratulated and began helping me. In our discussions, we frequently note our political differences.
4. You should note the tone of his comments on my talk page, to my rough treatment of Peter. He noted that it was going to cause trouble, but (I note now) that he did not reproach me for it.
5. He has previously tried to establish peace, including giving me criticism, in an ANI/AN discussion.

All of these facts suggest that Carrite's statements deserve great consideration. None of the other editors have shown such principled evolution, changing their opinion as new information became available, demonstrating their independent thought. None.

Sodin/Sasha made a personal appeal to WTT on his home page that this RfC was a bad idea, I note, a month or so back.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Intersting that KW should be assigning so much weight to Carrite's statement, when so few people endorsed it. Perhaps that's because few people agreed with it? I'm sure TParis has the ability to assign due weight to each person's comment. Regarding Sasha/Sodin's personal appeal - that is available to read in my archives. I agree the RfC was a bad idea, but in my opinion, KW left me with no other viable options. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

KW, I didn't mention votes. Not at all. The only person who did, was you - just now!

I'm glad that you resolved your differences with Carrite, and that he saw fit to encourage you with some praise. However, when you say that he noted "my rough treatment of Peter" and "did not reproach me for it" then I would say this was a mistake on his part. (From what I remember, he described it, at the time, as a "food fight" - admittedly no individual editor should feel they always have a responsibility to correct perplexing or infantile behaviour by another, but if he is "the only person knowledgeable about the articles on American socialism" who has the inclination to participate in discussions about user conduct, then it would have been very valuable if he'd addressed these problems at an earlier stage.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Carrite writes serious articles as do I, and is focused on writing a truthful encyclopedia. You have never contributed to the articles where you have hounded me, so why should he care about you any more than he cares about a fly on his computer screen?

You are just a nuisance to his work. He shares my estimation of you and this RfC, apparently.

However, I have been wrong before, and I suggest you ask him. I would find his response entertaining. ::: Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments on Round 2 by KW

(Procedurally, I object to the format. I believe that the summary should be much more constrained by the stated goals, and that it would benefit from the disciplined approach I suggest below. However, in the spirit of cooperation, I will comment on Tim's proposal.)

The later parts were fine (at least check). Let me suggest alternative wordings for the first paragraph:

• Kiefer Wolfowitz is a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia,

  strike "to the encyclopedia" (redundant)

• however, at times his communication habits have tended to learn toward incivility in the least and personal attacks at worst.

  Substitute: "at times he has written uncivil comments and sometimes personal attacks." (Comment on behavior, not persons. I shall suggest alternative wording.)

  I see no problems with TParis' wording here - it's not commenting on persons, it's commenting on how participants in the RfC/U have said that you behaved. The use of the word "habits" is indicative of the frequency of the problems, and perhaps it's that you object to? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• No matter a person's excellent contributions, all editors are treated with the same rules.

  STRIKE! (Nobody has claimed this the contrary; in other words, nobody has denied this. Stating this suggests that I have, which is unfair.) 01:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

  No, in fact several of the outside views on the RfC have claimed this, and been very widely endorsed. That's why TParis' summary gives weight to their comment, and the endorsement of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, many have mentioned this truism, but nobody has denied it. I have never denied it. That's why it's unfair to suggest that I have. (I corrected my mis-statement.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• KW's opinion of young editors, especially in RFAs, is not necessarily wrong but the way his opinion was communicated was inappropriate. DGG had some wise words about that when he said "With respect to younger editors ... I find that they respond very favorably to being treated as equals." As much as Wikipedia needs established editors with strong content contributions, it also needs new editors who bring fresh breath and new ideas to the project. Incivility and rude behavior does not encourage new editors to participate.

  UGGH! This is a large section that, like DGG's statement, lacks warrant. The tone of a 1st grade teacher explaining behavioral expectations while congratulating themselves for their wonderful work with children should be avoided. (Sorry for the bluntness, but the combination of self-congratulation and Church-Lady condemnation is repugnant.)

  It gains its warrant from the endorsements of other editors (most or all of them uninvolved in the disputes concerned). The striking of a large section of this was at my suggestion to lighten the criticism, and TParis has struck a little more than I suggested as well. You may dislike his writing style or tone (would it help if we replaced "had some wise words about that" with "made a widely endorsed statement"?), but you are not going to be able to strike everything that's critical when that was the view of the editors that commented in the RfC/U. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  Another reason to ignore DGG's statement is that he spent at most 11 minutes reading 103 kilobytes before writing his outside view about his wonderful work with youth. This was irresponsible.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  My views on that subject have been formed though many previous discussions--I did not have to think out the issue from the starting point. And I'd never claim my approach succeeds always, but it does succeed sometimes. I further think that trying to shift the discussion to the speed at which other commentators respond is an attempt to derail any rational conclusion by complicating and ramifying the issue beyond possible solution, Evidence and argumentation having failed, it's banging on the table. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• It has been noted several times that KW seems willing to 'dish out' but has trouble receiving constructive criticism while not perceiving it as a personal attack against himself.

  GRRRRRRR! Did you bother to read my reply to Demiurge1000 and TWW's complaint, which denied that I had been attacked or had my GF questioned? I quoted Demiurge1000 using his diff.; I quoted about 5 statements by Rd232 using Du's diffs.

  I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. Responding to constructive criticism by demanding sanctions for "AGF violations" has indeed been a major problem on your part, and responding to constructive comments made on this talk page by making even worse personal attacks (have you retracted those yet, by the way - have you apologised for them?) has not exactly advertised your ability to cope with constructive feedback. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be fair to say that:

• • There is a remarkable absence of conflicts of editing in the mathematical sciences, where KW's editing has received accolades from leaders of WikiProjects in Mathematics and Computer Science.
  • Conflicts appeared in a minority of the articles on American political history, an admittedly contentious area,

**(Continued) where KW argues for his views passionately and with extensive use of reliable sources, often the highest quality most reliable sources. It should be granted that he has cleaned up many articles in these areas in the last 6 months. His edits seem to have always prevailed or been incorporated in the consensus using another competent editor's views (e.g., Carrite, RJensen).

• • This is self-praise, but it is true. I have done a lot of work of very high quality, for which some recognition is due, before we move to criticism. (This can be shortened.)

  • Like other editors on those pages, KW needs to work on ignoring provocations, such as questioning his good faith or near personal attacks. KW acknowledges that such provocations are ignored by sensible editors, and that his past retaliations have wasted time and probably encouraged future provocations. KW and other editors should become leaders in re-establishing civility rather than artists of retaliatory put-downs.

• • I commented elsewhere on the minors at RfA question. Briefly, I have been criticized for my first swims in the RfA pool, many many times, and it is a violation of RfC policy to focus on old events that have not been repeated.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer's workspace Proposal for subcommittee

(Remember I have bad eyes. The edit-conflicts are driving me crazy and it is again late.)

Proposal for a committee of 3

I suggest that Worm and Geometry guy be appointed as champions of WP and champions for the critics and loyal opposition (Geometry guy for me). The two champions should work out language with TParis.

Suggested procedure (structured programming/judicial decisions)

Geometry guy, or David Eppstein, or another person can represent me adequately by just reading the concerns about a closing statement and by reading the goals stated at the beginning of the RfC. Neither would have to read the whole danged thing.

1. Please start on (consensus) goals for the future. I assume you need to check off for each goal listed in the RfC, whether the discussion (I would trust by the outside views) has established that there was a sufficient problem to warrant discussion. If the problem has been established, then write down what you want from me in the future. Then connect the two with a brief statement.

This is the way judges write decisions (or programmers write algorithms in the after-Dijkstra era)---by finding the minimal general principles that justify the conclusions.

My concerns

1. Goals of the RfC: Procedurally, the summary should focus on the outcomes listed in the beginning. (Please see my previous note, above).
2. General principles: Nobody denies the general principles, so it is odd to list them here.
3. I object to sweeping statements about me, my difficulties, or my habits when only a few of you, notably 28bytes, have acknowledged doing any digging around the diffs, to understand the context of my worst edits. This seems like a minimal demand to have participated in this RfC responsibly, and I should hope that TParis and others would look around in at least one sequence of diffs. (06:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC) TParis took 8 hours reading the documents and looking around before writing. Another administrator, DGG, took 11 minutes reading 103 kilobytes and writing about his wondrous approach to young editors.)
4. The question I asked 28bytes and others was whether my diffs had occurred only after Demiurge1000 or somebody else had first breached civility. I wrote not to defend my incivility, but (again) to complain about partiality of this RfC and the atmosphere: An RfC on us both (or better mediation or best an immediate interaction ban) would have been much more productive, and certainly would have been viewed quite differently by me. (I am pleased that Demiurge1000 and I had avoided conflicts in the last 2 months, before this RfC, and that we had some productive and honest discussions in the last 24 hours.) TParis, before you write about my "difficulty receiving criticism", you should understand the history and context of these conflicts, and of having Demiurge1000 appear in many, if not most, of the conflicts that occured in the last year, without him ever editing the relevant pages.
5. Apparently none of you has stated that you have done any scrutiny of my normal editing. Under these conditions, it would be grossly unfair to make sweeping statements about me or my editing. WTT can provide examples of my being nice to young people, or trying to spare them from the wrath of irritated writers (particularly if I saw that they had identified themselves as having a disability or two), I would trust. Again, before you make any sweeping statements, you should give me the scrutiny that you give a candidate at an RfA.
6. Speaking of RfAs, please avoid any sweeping statements about my discussions at RfAs unless you examine a fair sample, preferably those occuring after previous criticism. You can imagine that I am tired of criticism for my participation in my first few RfAs, which I have answered on my page, at AN, at ANI, etc. etc. Please look at my response 2 months ago, where I asked WTT and Demiurge1000 to please drop the fixation on the first RfAs. If you mention these, or make them the focus, then you are violating the policy guidelines that RfCs are supposed to improve editors and be forward looking, you need to hear.

Certainly, at this stage, it is hard to listen to requests (which may sound like demands) from me. Nonetheless, these expectations about looking at 200 or so edits are stated for participants at RfA, which is not a big deal. An RfC is a big deal, which an editor like Charles Matthews has described as a potential "pile on" (to an editor who was hounding me, etc.) or "humiliation" ritual by Malleus. I suppose that many have complained about the wisdom of this RfC knowing that many (perhaps most) RFCed-editors leave Wikipedia immediately.

I acknowledge that the participants are tired. I had predicted that essentially these people would be the participants, months ago, and I have been delighted by Geometry guy's appearance and by David Eppstein's quick statement of appreciation. Nonetheless, this is the most important part of this process, and it should be done carefully.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

KW writes above, "You have to focus on the desired outcomes stated at the beginning". Kiefer, would you like to tell us where this alleged rule comes from? I'm tolerably familiar with the RFC/U guidelines, and I assure you that this is news to me. RFC/U is a "whatever it takes" kind of dispute resolution. It is not a formal or legal debate, in which failing to mention some point at the right moment bars you from ever bringing it up later, or from introducing new points later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

See below.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Three comments regarding the above. I'm not opposed to working in tandum with several editors like Worm and David (if they like). I also want to point out that I have dug through the diffs and that's why it has taken me nearly eight hours to write the first draft of the proposed close. As the RFC/U is about you, we're addressing concerns about you. If it were an RFC/U about Demiurge1000, I would address concerns about him. Thirdly, my responsibility as an uninvolved closer is to summarize the discussion. I'm not supposed to perform my own scruitiny or judgement, other than to verify and contextualize the claims made. I've actually done my best to refrain from making a judgement or adding my own opinion into this. As far as sweeping statements go, I can certainly rephrase them if you'd like to propose an idea. Keep in mind though that I am certainly not as well educated as you, and while I think I am pretty smart, I like to keep things I am involved in dumbed down and short.--v/r - TP 01:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi TP!

Thanks for the open mind.

The edit conflicts make this impossible to work on now. Also, there are too many cooks and not all are meeting the standard of WTT (or in the last 24 hours Demiurge1000), in terms of working towards a consensus summary.

I am confident that the three of you would treat me fairly, if you reflect on what I have written. I believe that you would write better by yourselves, over the next week. Please understand my directness in respect for your integrity and ability to overlook my bluntness.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Polite requests regarding KW's editing behaviour on this RfC/U

I added a separate heading to try to keep these in one place.

Hidden comments

KW, please could you refrain from putting hidden comments within your posts on this page? I'm aware that there are occasions when such comments are appropriate within articles, but in a dispute resolution process such as this, it's not helpful for those who view the page to see one thing, and those who view diffs or the source to see something else. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Writing on many levels enables different audiences to read what suits them. Have you heard of Meno's paradox?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Changing comments after they have been replied to

This is something that has been raised before, and something similar was raised as a concern in the RfC/U itself. KW, would you please refrain from substantially editing your own comments after others have replied to them, as you did here, without indicating that you've done so? It can often end up being misleading. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a special indentation of that paragraph, which begins with an emboldened UPDATED and a time stamp, three different signals to alert the reader.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding DGG and "11 minutes"

KW, I see you've mentioned in 3 places[19][20][21] (including this section, which is why I put it here) that DGG took at most 11 minutes to read 103kb and post his reply. I'm curious to know where 11 minutes came from - admittedly it was 6 minutes between his post at the blocking policy page and his view here... but the RfC had been running for 9 days at the time. I would assume that he had read the the information previously. Even if he focussed on small areas of the RfC and only commented on them, I find the accusation of irresponsibility three times to be unfair. Also, since we're discussing DGG specifically, I shall leave a note on his page. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, of course I have been following the discussion after my original comments. As is my usual practice, I revisit it occasionally, but not continually--it is not my major concern here. Whether I or anyone understands completely all the possible ramifications here is another matter, especially as some of the participants are trying to bring in as many side issues as possible. I consider questioning my actions to be an rather far-out attempt at increasing that sort of diffusion of the issues, and i consider the purpose of it probably to avoid coming to a conclusion which might not be considered satisfactory. A skilled controversialist in a multi-party discussion given enough time and space can confuse anything beyond hope of resolution. Something like that happens in many Wikipedia discussions, leading to either the inability to bring about needed changes in policy or the attempt to avoid it by rash changes made before any real discussion can get started. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

and as for what i wrote, I must admit some of it has been written previously--how to deal with young editors is a continuing issue, and I said here basically what I've said elsewhere. I try to refine my wording a little each time I say it, but i do not start from scratch. It's not a new issue. (For new issues I'll normally make a very short comment and first, and reserve further discussion till I see what others have to say.)

Rereading the comments above, I do not regard this as an attack on me. My private opinion is that most of what has been said here by everyone should be quickly forgotten, and collegial relations built up again without rancour. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

DGG,

do you understand

• my concern about your cutting and pasting your essay as a comment on my RfC, and that
• my concern and feeling of unfairness increased when TParis's draft quoted it at length?

Please strike anything that was not written about me. (I acknowledge that we all can benefit from reading your essay, as I have benefited from reading NYB's, Fetchcoomms's, etc.)

Thank you for you honest disclosure of the source of your comments.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

nonsense, to put it mildly. The question of abruptness or rudeness to new contributors is a very common problem, As with other things I need to say often, I have some wording I use whenever I see it. As i always do, I adapt it to the circumstances. What I said here I consider directly applicable to the matter being discussed here, which is, among other things, your behavior to contributors you think less informed than yourself. Something which is not as frequent is your eagerness to get involved in any side issue whatsoever, such as this, rather than face the actual problem. The only think I have to apologize for is that I did not perceive the seriousness of the problems here initially. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Rudeness to new users?

On the contrary, you accused me of being rude to new users on the basis of reading for at most 6 minutes, and your misfeasance was picked up and used in a draft summary of the RfC.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Question for DGG, Where was I rude to new contributors?

I asked this before, but nobody has responded.

Also, you have failed to deny that you only took 6 minutes to read the RfC and write your homily. Would you finally admit your lack of preparation, at long last?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Replace "new" with "other" then I think you're fine. I'm sure there's also a temptation to quibble over "contributors you think less informed than yourself". No, of course it's not that way every time. Sometimes you think them less informed, sometimes you think them less competent, sometimes you just think they're "malevolent" or "dishonest" or part of a "clique" or "cabal", or that they're a "contemptible shit". Whichever one it is on each particular occasion, that it happens so often is a problem. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please let DGG answer the question: DGG, you spent only 6 minutes reading and cutting-and-pasting your reply, didn't you?

Demiurge1000, so you admit endorsing a statement that I was rude to new contributors, which was going to be the closing statement, even though that was a falsehood?

How do you explain your failure to acknowledge this latest mistake (and to apologize)?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Since User:Chegitz guevara has a grand total of 118 edits, and a diff of your rude behaviour towards them is in the RfC/U, then yes, I believe you're as capable of being rude to new editors as you are of being rude to established editors, and indeed retired editors.

However, you should re-read the statement by DGG which I endorsed. It says, inter alia, "Even more than Wikipedia need[s] excellent work by the currently active contributors, it needs to recruit and develop new ones who will do similarly good work. Comments like [41] (Aug.6, 2011) will discourage the participation of not just the person to whom they are directed, but anyone who sees them".

You should then re-read the uninvolved closing statement by TParis, which I also endorsed. It says, inter alia, "As much as Wikipedia needs established editors with strong content contributions, it also needs new editors who bring fresh breath and new ideas to the project. Incivility and rude behavior does not encourage new editors to participate."

Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment, and it requires a collegial approach. New editors - and even people who are not editors and perhaps have not yet considered becoming editors - will see the way that established editors treat others on Wikipedia. That is the additional problematic aspect of your behaviour that DGG's statement throws light on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Chegiz Guevara:

Please examine User:Chegitz Guevara's activities on Wikipedia, to understand my concerns. Of 198 edits, apparently 190 are devoted to Socialist Party USA.

Updated  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC) : Chegitz Guevara has another account, which identifies himself as an officer of the SPUSA again with edits concentrated on the Socialist Party USA---in fact, the new account continues the old account's astonishing record of outing WP editors as Socialist Party members, (revelations that have often led to terminations of employment in the USA); the details cannot be discussed here, and I have alerted Oversight (!)! The new account is still very active, having edited in the summer. An IP made coordinated or at least very similar edits, including reference to the internal workings of the SPUSA/SP of Florida. The contributors to the Socialist Party of Florida should be familiar to any conscientious participant in this RfC, who can recognize the names and IPs; please examine their behavior and public avowals of party politics and compare problems, RfCs, and ArbComm decisions related to the pro- and anti-Scientology groups.

I should have written more civilly there, but good editors familiar with WP:COI would be alarmed by the number and content of these edits. (Again, your discussion here reveals your real concern about protecting Wikipedia as a good encyclopedia, when faced with such POV-pushing, and your eagerness to abandon quality to score points against me in the name of civility.)

Is that all you got?

Your other stuff is just apologetics for an erroneous statement. Learn what is true, and try too write the truth. Don't write the worst stuff you can and then back-pedal, when mis-statements are made.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There's obviously some difficulty in communication here.

Please quote the "mis-statement" that you believe I "endorsed". Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, Demurge1000 and especially DGG: You accused me of being rude to new users:

'Where am I rude to a new user (besides the case of the old account of Chegitz)

Space for DGG's answer. (reserved by  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC))

Moved

KW deleted this comment from the RFC page:

KW, the point is that we do not decide at Wikipedia which one is correct, and the attempt to resolve conclusions by trying to see what side is right instead of expressing all responsible views is not in keeping with NPOV. There is no other way to right a neutral encyclopedia. Your attempt to start elaborate discussions regard the use of individual words--especially when it is evident that the word has multiple meanings and connotations--has been typical of your argumentation here, and seems designed to prevent, not achieve, consensus. Too many others have fallen into this booby trap for it not to be very evident. I admire your skill, but you're relying on skill for cover. It's clear you'd rather argue with people about words indefinitely than deal with your own behavior. I started out here with a relatively sympathetic view towards you, as i have towards any expert, but the course of this discussion it has changed quite radically. (Being human, I admit that it might have changed a little less radically had you not chosen to personally attack me in the course of it. Nobody like being made fun of, even when the attempt is readily perceived as foolish.). Elen asked me to revisit this, but I'm not sure it was good advice, for it has not increased good feelings. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

KW is correct that no one should be placing comments within the section reserved for his exclusive use, although it would have been best for him to move the comment here, rather than merely deleting it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It would have been better to move it here. It would have been even better to move it above, where there is a discussion of DGG's edits.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

6 minutes: Plenty of time to read the RfC and write homily

DGG had 6 minutes between his edit elsewhere and his first edit here.

DGG total contributions, including signing other "outside views", took another 5 minutes, for a total of 11 minutes.

Thank you, WTT, for catching the error, and for linking WP:AGF.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC) I quote the following conversation:

Quotation from Logic Project

Principle of explosion and my RfC My Request for Comment now has a discussion of whether I am wrong to assert that at most one of two contradictory statements can be correct. My statement of this consequence of the principle of explosion is misquoted and judged to be incompatible with WP policy.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Sadly in real life it rarely turns out that two apparently contradictory statements are in fact contradictory. It is amazing the amount of spin people can put onto what appears to a neutral observer to be a clear cut fact. Be interested to see a further theoretical discussion, but I think if this focuses on the RfC, participants risk causing problems for KW (see [22]) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Giving just a little background, I understood the comment to not be about the theoretical issue, but about what should be the contents of Wikipedia articles or the outcome of discussions at Wikipedia . As Wikipedia articles do not seek to establish the truth but just to state fairly the status of the topic, in proportion to all non-splinter current opinions, it certainly does not apply to what we do here. In the context of the particular rfc, it was a side issue, but not totally unrelated to being the possible basis behind an overly argumentative approach. With regard to the general proposition in the abstract, it only applies to properly posed questions or propositions. Most discussions in real life are not of that nature. Whether any proposition can be truly such in the real world, as distinct from a subset of the real world abstracted for the purpose of discussion, is an interesting question & I do not think one to which there is any general agreement. I decided long ago in college I would not pursue such issues, because I prefer to discuss matters which need a practical conclusion of some sort in order for humans to take action. I see no reason to change my mind, but those who want to discuss it are certainly welcome to do so. I agree with Elen that it should be pursued without connection to the current rfc. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Dear logicians. I request assistance. RE the apologia of Elen and DGG: On the contrary, the RfC concerns i.a. my correction of many falsehoods in the Socialist Party of America article, where biased falsehoods had been introduced e.g. by using a 4-page "history" published by the contemporary Socialist Party USA. One falsehood asserted that event A preceded event B, while reliable sources assert that event B preceded event A. The event was the exiting of Michael Harrington (A) and the SDUSA-majority having control (B). These statements do not involve the uncertainty principle or the failure of bivalence in game-theoretic semantics or Topos theory. Their assertions about "the real world" would have greater authority if Elen and DGG had ever bothered to contribute to the articles in questions, before lecturing me about irrelevancies. In DGG's case, his investing all of 11 minutes in reading the 103-kilobyte RfC (and writing his self-congratulatory sermon) and his logical fluency are responsible for the quality of his contributions. Would that his decision "not to pursue such issues" had induced due humility and caution here or in his writings at RfC. Elen neglected to quote her being threatened with a block, I add "for context". For more context, please see the discussion of administrators' treatment of article writers, and concern for civility over content, on the talk pages of User talk:Malleus Fatuorum and of User talk:SandyGeorgia.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Kiefer.Wolfowitz, please stop repeating the personal attack on DGG. He has already stated that he had been reading the bloody RfC for several days before he decided to comment. The time between his previous post and his post at the RfC is therefore irrelevant, and your continued assertion is nothing but a smear.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Elen, On the contrary, you misread him. DGG has already stated that AFTER HIS INITIAL CONTRIBUTIONS he has read the RfC as it progresses. (He acknowledged that he had written much of his "outside view" before viewing the RfC, also. 21:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)) Honestly,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC) On the contrary, you have a serious problem with following a threaded conversation in the English language. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC) And that second diff that you added AFTER I had responded to you (and how many times now have you been asked not to refactor your posts after people have responded), just illustrates the problem even more. I don't believe you can even make an attempt at understanding what most people say to you in conversational English. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC) The second diff was made with a time stamp, showing the 3 minute gap between your response and mine. Please stop speculating about my intentions.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Where have I speculated about your intentions in my post relating to you refactoring your post? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC) " I don't believe you can even make an attempt at understanding what most people say to you in conversational English."  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Email

I have sent the following email to User:Worm That Turned and User:Geometry guy. I post it here for transparancy.

Geometry guy/Worm that turned,

If you are willing, Kiefer.wolfowitz has asked me to involve you and Worm that turned in developing a closing for the RFC/U at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz. If you have some time and the inclination, could you let me know a time we could discuss? What I imagine is that we can meet together on IRC to coordinate a quick discussion but that the discussion can actually take place on Wiki for open and transparancy sake. IRC could help us avoid repeated edit conflicts and frustration.

v/r, TParis

--v/r - TP 00:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I have received an email as above, and replied that if I can help, I am willing to help, but I'd like to know in more detail what is proposed. Geometry guy 00:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggest reading summary suggested by KW

Hi! Neither TParis nor Geometry guy has acknowledged the closing summary written by me, above. It does seem to address the issues raised by TParis's suggested close.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Goals of this RfC

KW quotes this for convenient reference:

• User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz (KW) voluntarily agrees
  • to be more aware of civility in interaction with other editors, and to refrain from innuendo
  • to restrain himself when it comes to discussing younger editors, emailing oversight if he feels there is inappropriate personal information on wikipedia, and avoiding taking matters into his own hands
  • to state his views clearly and succinctly at RfA, instead of engaging in extended arguments, even if he feels strongly that a particular outcome is not acceptable
  • to be more careful when expressing concerns about copyright, taking any issues to the relevant noticeboards or contacting a trusted administrator privately, instead of making repeated public accusations.

Your continued restatement of this misses the point - and misunderstands the RfC process. An RfC may quite legitimately come to the conclusion that the goals need modification. The question was never 'should we enact these'. They represent merely a starting point for discussion.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen,

Please link policy to support your claim.

Geometry guy raised this concern on the main page: There he commented that you had no basis for claiming that this RfC had "comprehensively established" that there was not a problem of interaction with Demiurge1000. He has not corrected any mis-statement. Given Geometry guy's reputation for careful reading and accuracy, I and others would be surprised were he to have misunderstood RfC policy (in case that this policy is unreasonable); Geometry guy is certainly right that your claim has no rational basis.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Responding to both Elen and WhatAmIDoing

The summary is supposed to summarize the RfC. Most of the RfC was written in the first week, and it responds to the goals stated in the RfC goals. If the RfC summary is supposed to be based on the discussion then its future goals should be close to a subset of the original goals.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the goals at RfC, they're discussed as part of the creation, which matches the general RfC advice. They're also mentioned on the both the templates, where it says This summary of the dispute is written by the users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus. Other users may present their views of the dispute in the other sections below. It does not state that the scope may not change during the RfC, nor that the summary should only look at the desired outcomes. The rules on closing also says nothing regarding the desired outcomes, only that the summary should be agreed on by all participants.

KW, if you are unwilling to drop the link between the desired outcomes and the summary, I'm willing to add in the problematic point to the desired outcomes - which should solve the problem. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please write concretely. Which problematic point?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Trust me man, you don't want to see the problematic point.....:) And you can take that how you like. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen, just shut up if you cannot say something helpful and relevant.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright folks, ya'all are both adults and I'm pretty sure older than me. Pot shots and 'shut ups' arn't constructive. Let's work on closing this, not escalating it.--v/r - TP 23:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen and I have agreed to give ourselves a breather. It gets better.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll add to Worm's comment that it's actually critical that the summary not be bound by the initial desired outcome. What if the RFC/U was started by a troll? Having your name at the top of the page doesn't actually prove that you're the source of the problem. What if the initiators propose inappropriate, irrelevant, or even stupid outcomes? The community shouldn't be bound by such limitations. What if the initiators learn more about the issues at hand during the discussions and change their minds about a desired outcome, e.g., deciding that it's too harsh? Nobody should be stuck with the initial proposals.

The point of the summary is to write down what everyone agrees to (and sometimes to identify areas where disputes remain unresolved), so that in future weeks and months, we won't have one person saying "But he promised at the RFC/U that..." while the other person is saying "I agreed to no such thing!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Before the return to poor discussions in the last 16 hours, Demiurge1000 and I had been working to clarify an agreement.

However, your comments should be balanced with a recognition that the RfC was filed with those goals, and that most of the comments replied to that early version. Thus, suitable conservatism should respect those early contributions and be wary about innovations, unless those innovations have universal consent.

I have proposed two different closing summaries, and commented on at least two more (WTT and TParis), and my proposals and comments demonstrate that I accept reasonable summaries: I have suggested novel formulations in the spirit of fairness (and hopefully good English).

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no rule for or against conservatism: agreement among the involved parties is the only thing that is necessary.

If you and the initiators agree that the Sun appears to rise in the East, or that you have an excellent understanding of advanced mathematics, or that Wikipedia needs more subject-matter experts, or even that you all continue to disagree about the association between age and maturity, then you may include those statements in the summary, even if they were mentioned for the first time during the discussions about how to summarize what (if anything) was achieved during these discussions.

We do not require that the summary statement have any apparent connection to any prior stage of discussion. (In fact, it is often inappropriate to ignore issues raised later, because failing to address them significantly increases the likelihood of a second RFC/U or an ArbCom case being opened to address the ignored issues.) However, in the end, we require only that you all agree that the summary statement accurately describes the progress you all made in resolving this dispute. If you don't agree about later issues, then you obviously cannot accurately say that you have an agreement that settles that, but if you do, then they, too, should be included in the statement of what you have agreed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Attempts to thwart closing

[23] Kiefer.Wolfowitz continues to attempt to thwart a realistic close to this RfC and continues to make attacks on everyone around him. I intend to ask for a second uninvolved admin to attempt to close this, before he actually succeeds in digging a grave for himself (metaphorically speaking). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please cool the language, Elen. The RfC was written over 2 months, and I have not had a chance to respond to the issues it raises adequately.

It's been open for three weeks, during which time you've been editing nearly every single day! What else do you need to do? And why did you agree with closure some days ago, if you "hadn't had chance to respond" at that point (and still haven't)? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen, KW has succeeded in significantly slowing TParis' efforts to close this, but I don't think those efforts are dead in the water just yet. I'm aware that you prefer TParis' first uninvolved proposed closure, but would you be prepared to accept the second one (the "Round 2" proposal, as currently amended), as a compromise to get things finished? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I certainly would accept any neutral observer's good faith close based on their reading of the RfC itself. What is causing me concern is TParis's decision to attempt to broker a 'solution' rather than close the thing - while in the meantime KW is still riding around making the same kind of problematic edits that got us here in the first place, and in my opinion basically making a fool of both him and the process. However, if you think these efforts may yet achieve a satisfactory outcome, then I will delay for a short time.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

In theory, RFC/U pages stay open until either everyone agrees that the dispute is solved or until everyone agrees that they want to close it anyway (with a unanimously agreed statement on anything everyone agrees about, if possible, or without any statement at all, if there is no unanimous agreement on any point). This means that if KW does not agree to the closing, you cannot use the voluntary closing options (exactly like he can't force a closure over your objections).

Any single person can force a closing, however, by taking the dispute to the next dispute resolution process. In this case, that would likely be ArbCom. (The RFC/U typically stays open until it appears that ArbCom will actually accept the case.) So if you want it closed, you can ask ArbCom to take the case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Email from Worm to other closers

Hi both.

I am afraid that KW's recent false accusations (particularly that I refused mediation, but also that I have spent months drawing it up, that I'm full of malevolence and personal attacks) have strained any good faith I had left for the man.

I no longer feel I can objectively work with you two to come to an agreement - as I'm disgusted and fully expect to see this at arbcom within a short timescale, where the consequences for KW will be severe. I'm sure he will again put the blame on me.

I did however agree with both closing statements you suggested TParis. If they could be extended to mention KWs recent behaviour (refusing to drop it and throwing mud) I'd be happier, but will accept any close. I would prefer it was just your opinion without outside influence though.

I will be copying this email to the talk page.

Sorry Worm

Reply

TParis closed this RfC with a statement similar to his earlier versions. Despite the loss of WTT, the RfC is closed.

The reader should examine the draft-RfC prepared by WTT (linked at the beginning of my response to this RFC) to see him walking away from an informal mediation that he initiated, and whose public RfC-form he chose (against my advice). After having examined the misrepresentations in that RfC-draft and this RfC, the reader can draw their own conclusions about "mud-slinging".

I thank the impartial participants for their comments, especially for helpful criticism of me and other editors and suggestions for our future improvements.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Closing summary: Agreement with another critic and "young editors" (self-criticism with the same suggestions has not rejuvenated me or even stopped aging, alas, so is no sign of ageism; resolve to stop such comments, for goodness's sake)

I thank TParis, and his helpers, for closing this RfC with a fair summary.

My comments on are brief:

• In my final comment, I said (with original italics) that "I was criticized with some justification and ..."; I should have written "with substantial justification and ...".

Small caveats:

• TParis's fair closing summary neglected to mention my agreeing with criticism by LK also. (The close did mention my agreeing with criticism by Professor Bialy and by Fetchcomms.)
• I continue to register my disagreement with TParis's closing summary's allusions to my "attitude" toward "young editors".
  • Truly, besides opposing all minors at RfA on principle, I have commented on lack of experience, need for sleep, or poor scholarship in some edits (or for some editors at some hours).
  • Nonetheless, the primary target for such comments (and another comment that poor edits may be due to hunger) is myself; such paternalistic and condescending advice to myself appears (on talk pages and in edit summaries) frequently after I have been corrected or after I have corrected my own mistakes. Alas, advising myself to consult with more experienced editors, advising myself to come back another day after some rest, and advising myself to read more carefully---none of these incantations have rendered me younger!
  • Such comments may be misunderstood as ageism directed at others, I understand. However, I do not remember any of the recipients of such criticism ever raising the issue of ageism---but this may be another sign of senility!

Of course, given the ruckus here, I shall avoid such statements towards others. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Allegation about removing material from Penn Kemble because personal politics

In the RfC, WTT/David violated WP:AGF with a misleading summary, accusing me of my initial edit (A) having removed material because of my personal politics. This AGF violation was made despite my having restored the deleted material despite my having restored the deleted material. His accusation also was a personal attack, per WP:NPA's prohibition about making unfounded allegations about another editor's politics.

I asked WTT/David to remove the AGF violation and misleading account on my talk page:

WTT/David and Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Final message Hi KW. I hope you don't mind me leaving you a parting message here. I considered leaving something at the RfC, but as far as I'm concerned closed means closed and I've no wish to go back there. I'm sorry I didn't reply to your guide to IRC request, the coordination was never going to happen there due to the fact that TParis and I operate on opposite timescales - however if you'd ever like some tips, let me know. On the RfC itself, I'm glad it's over - I hope all the participants have learned something and will modify their behaviour based on what they've learned. I know that all participants have the ability to, I know I will. My hopes for the RfC weren't realised, which is a pity, but I think my goals were. In any case, I thought you'd like to know I'll be keeping a wide birth from now on, I doubt you'll see me except in my regular haunts. I've no interest in taking things further, as I can't see any positive outcomes if I do. However, I'd like to officially extend this hand of friendship for the future, if you ever need help that I can give, please don't hesitate to contact me. WormTT · (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Hi David/WTT, Thank you for your note, whose spirit of reconciliation I appreciate. In the same spirit, I did try to write more generous and good-humored comments in the last days, at least at the end of the RfC's talk page. I have been honest when I have said that I found it very difficult to read the RfC. I have tried to read the most egregious violations of civility or NPOV, presented in your selected diffs, and to deal with the issues you raised. A. I commented yesterday about my "rudeness" toward a "new user"---an SPUSA/SP-Florida officer, with 2-3 accounts and at least 2 cases of WP:Outing his party opponents. I had forgotten the details of the edits for which my righteous indignation violated WP:Civility. B. I have now written a note, with diffs, for talk page of the article on Penn Kemble. In the RfC, you quoted my removal of text, which you alleged was for political reasons. Reading this allegation, I was puzzled by the diff you quoted, because I spent years working against Kemble's Central-America politics and for human rights, and my edit seemed bizarre---at least until I took time to compare it with the source. In a (later) edit summary, I requested that an editor who lacked my horror at Contra terrorism examine the edits for POV, because that edit restored the (shameful) details of his supporting aid for terrorists. I really have trouble understanding how you could have failed to check that edit summary and to see that I had restored the legitimate content without the OR/BIAS problems., I would ask you to review that talk page Penn Kemble Quotation from Talk:Penn Kemble#Explanation of Central-America edits I wish to explain three edits (old A-B and new C). The initial edit (A) occured because the article had this sentence This article (before my edits): "Kemble alienated many activists in the Democratic Party by actively aiding the Reagan administration in its financial and moral support of the anti-communist "Contra" rebels in that country. (Holley) which was based on Holley's Washington Post obituary: Washington Post: "During the Reagan administration, he founded a group called PRODEMCA, or the Committee for Democracy in Central America. He caused consternation among many fellow Democrats by advocating support for the anti-communist contra rebels in Nicaragua. He sought a democratic middle way between communist Sandinistas and former supporters of rightist dictator Anastasio Somoza." (A) I removed the old text because the phrase "actively aiding the Reagan administration in its financial ... support" had problems: OR, because the source does not state that Kemble aided the Reagan administration in anything. It states only that during the Reagan administration, Kemble advocated support. (As usual, however, the OR problem is a real problem, rather than a formality, for which anybody can provide a reference, because of a content concern.) NPOV/BIAS: Kemble lobbied Congress, which has the power of the purse, under the U.S. Constitution. The ambiguous suggestion that Kemble helped the executive branch provide funding is at best an infelicitous paraphrase: The Iran–Contra Hearings featured subpoenaed testimony, given under oath, about illegal support and illegal solicitations of illegal support by members of the Reagan Administration and by its associates. (I think that Cameron's memoir discusses Kemble's shocked reaction on hearing about these unconstitutional crimes; I think Cameron wrote some kind of public belated apology to Kemble in his book.) (B) Having these concerns, I restored the legitimate content, which had been removed in edit A. (C) Today, I moved material on Central-American politics from a footnote to the main-text, and expanded the political context. Elsewhere, an editor recently raised a good-faith (public) concern that my initial edit (A) removed material because of my personal politics. Despite overlooking the middle edit (B) which restored the removed content, this public concern prompted my last edit (C). This sequence of edits exemplifies the complexity of editing political articles and our own limitations.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC) and then to consider whether that charge from your RfC deserve amendment. (Being familiar with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and his obligation to refuse to follow an order to murder civilians, TParis should understand my concerns about the Contras's terrorist attacks on civilians (in which c. 60 thousand were killed), and being upset by the allegation that I was removing evidence of Kemble's involvement; he might allow a change to the closed RfC.) On a positive note, revisiting these edits prompted me to make further edits to Penn Kemble, so some good has resulted from this charge, despite my feelings of its propriety. WTT and other readers, please reflect on the 6 1-2 hours I have spent responding to just one of the allegations today (Kemble), and the hours needed to respond yesterday to another (my indignation/incivility towards the SPA-Florida officer). These two allegations' diffs seemed to be the most severe violations of WP policy, so I spent time addressing legitimate concerns. I repeat my concern that the presentation of isolated diffs seemed sensationalistic; the number of diffs presented precluded any substantive response to more than a few. Some thoughts for posterity Before editors opt for filing a request for comment on another editor, they may reflect on points apparent in my RfC: Presenting my edit as a diff, and labeling it as a POV-pushing edit or a civility violation---these actions may have taken my critics roughly one minute each. Restoring my understanding of the context of each diff, even for the most dramatic diffs, has taken 5-10 minutes even for me, and I have been seriously engaged with these issues for decades. Explaining one diff, often takescan take (from 5 minutes) up to 3 hours, if the explanation is to be comprehensible to a general audience. (Updated, following WTT's correction 00:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)) This gross disparity between the time needed to make an accusation and that to explain a questionable edit suggests a practical conclusion: In the future, RfC filers should limit their complaints to 3-4 of the most serious issues, and the diffs to 10-20 (of the most severe examples). In general, I would advise editors to first attempt to use Wikipedia's formal mediation procedures before considering an RfC. I agree that time and space can reduce ill feelings, in the immediate future, more rapidly than further discussions. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC) I'm not certain where you got your times from - approx 1min and 1hour, though there does appear to be a disparity and I expect your figures do illustrate it well. Perhaps, to save yourself time you could have focussed on the themes, rather than the nitty-gritty and challenged a smattering, including any that were particularly raised? Just a thought. I would of course be willing to discuss anything from the RfC with you - I'm not keen on changing anything on the RfC itself, but we could always put a note in big letters at the top that links to further discussion and agreements we've come to? However, I do request a bit of a break from the drama, I've got 3 people running through adoption courses and I haven't written anything significant on the encyclopedia for months. Let me know when you've finished at Penn Kemble, and I'll wander over and review. Otherwise, I hope your enjoy your continuum. WormTT · (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Thanks for catching the time-dilation! I corrected the 6-hours error, leaving it struck-out, and time-stamping the most important updated sentence.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC) "hand of friendship" WTT "hand of friendship" included another AGF violation. "I've not commented even once on the National Socialism issue so far - except to inform Lihaas that it was going on, but in my opinion it was simply KW making a stink over a side comment to deflect attention from a long post about... KW's canvassing." (emboldening & italics added) With friends like these ....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Since one week has elapsed since my request, I post this here to set the record straight.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)