User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 → Archive 30

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

DYK nomination of Hans Rådström

Hello! Your submission of Hans Rådström at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I made some comments on the talk page of the DYK nomination, which is closed following its appearance.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thomas L. Rhodes article

Can you do something to resolve or have admin resolve whatever the copy vio was with the article? Thanks.Capitalismojo (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall look at it. If I rewrote the article then the problem was probably fixed. if not please wait for the 11th and a few days later.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Reviewing the discussion page of the article, I read my pithy prose, which stated that I had fixed the copyright violation problems of the present article. I believe that 2-3 old version should be deleted, per our copyright policy.
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
When I go to the article there is an enormous warning that says only admins can remove. Can that be done?Capitalismojo (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry that I cannot help you this week. Search for "need administrator to help" or look at the information when you were welcomed to WP to see how to post a distress signal. Good luck!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC) I cannot add a banner because Twinkle doesn't seem to be Opera friendly.

Wide-ranging discussion with TPC

TPC is one of the most principled and innovative intellects on WP, and I enjoy our conversations.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The weirdest personal question

You may decline to comment or answer in any way, of course! But ... does something in your off-wiki life recur at intervals of [insert number] weeks? (Adding: of course I realise that because of your gender at least one of the possibilities inherent in the question is going to be a non-starter!) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

My life conventionally has biorythms of 1, 3, 5, 15, 45, 60 minutes, 3-4, 6, 12, and 24 hours, 7 days, 28-31 days (1 month), and 1 year (365.24 days (roughly 52 weeks).
The last two years I've spent weeks Lviving it up for happy reasons, which (besides the deadline for evidence) explains my recent immersion in editing. :)
Now duty calls!
Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I spent too much time thinking about harmonics and Illinois data on electricity use for 156 days (every hour). ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No hurry - another question!

I think you and I have very different view of what RFAReform is trying to achieve.

The way I see it is that we're trying to prevent candidates who are clearly not ready / not yet ready from appearing there, to deal with "repeat offenders" who appear to see it as an excuse to play at Lord of the Flies, and to rein in the violations of NPA and CIV which make that arena so gory,

How do you see it? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I shall welcome when anybody from RfA Deform suggests that personal attacks against e.g. Malleus are inappropriate at RfA. Indeed, at the current RfA, the most recent possibility for RfA Deformers to demonstrate good-faith and fairness was missed....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
[sigh]. RfA is the WikiCesspool, no doubt about it. I haven't even poked my nose through that door for quite a while now, not even to the extent of seeing who the candidates were. It's a disgusting demonstration of the worst sides of many Wikipedians, and I've found that only in very few instances can one walk in there and back out again without feeling in some way smirched. It's a dirty environment of which we should all be thoroughly ashamed. Personal attacks against anyone are inappropriate, there and elsewhere, but if we as a community can come down hard on that one area the effect may spread. Some people do have the most disgusting, bitchy, back-stabbing, and violent sides to their nature, and whether or not swearing is included is wholly beside the point. I shall go take a look at what happened there; whether I have the resilience to risk saying or doing anything, in the light of not-so-recent events, remains to be seen. And, by the way, you mis-para-quoted whomever it was, not necessarily Churchill ... should be "up with which I [did] not put." Heh, hateful granny, eh?! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
My mother attributed that example to Winston Churchill, without indicating originality by WC, which works for me. Have you heard the one about the visitor to the green-grass campus of Cambridge, MA, who asked a Professor, "Where is the library at?".
Where the library at?
At Harvard, one does not end sentences, even questions, with prepositions.
Okay, can you tell me where the library is at, asshole!
I heard this from a graduate of Harvard who became a specialist in groups (social work); maybe he could do group therapy for the present ArbCom case. :P
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
ROFLMFAO! That is brilliant!
Just taken a look - was it Mabdul's comment you referred to? If so, I know a little of Mabdul, and noticed the wink which immediately followed the comment. From what I do know of Mabdul, that comment would have been intended in a light-hearted (laugh with you, not atyou) manner and certainly not intended to cause hurt or offence. Just, obviously, open to misinterpretation, and as such, at best, unwise in that arena. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Mabdul may be kind human, but I think my point about civility double-standards, particularly regarding Malleus and regarding RfAs, and especially regarding Malleus at RfAs, stands.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, as a generality, it certainly does, and it's a good point. But in this instance I remain certain that Mabdul mean no nastiness at all; with typed words it's all too easy to mis-read someone's intent, someone's mild humour, and so on. I know people have mis-read you and your intent in many places (it becomes more obvious to me the more I know of you). I'm fairly sure that in most instances, if I were say something similar to / about you, you would know me well enough by now that my intent was friendly and fun and comes with an auto-granny-hug attached (at least I hope you would!) One of the real benefits of idling in IRC a lot (not that I've done so recently, I've been focussing on hugely obsessively in-depth analyses) is that one slowly builds up a picture of people when they're not on guard to the same extent that they are here in the 'pedia. It's a bit like seeing people schlepping around happily in their PJs as opposed to formally dressed up for posterity. I observe their little whims and ways, and almost certainly see a rather different side of people than is readily apparent on wiki pages. I suppose it may help that for the vast majority of my working life I've dealt in-depth with non-human animals, and slow observation over time is the only way one can really get to know them. It all spills over; every area of our lives impinges on every other area. I judge people, on the whole, very slowly, and in ways that other people possibly don't do it, simply because of who and what I have been for so long. In some cases I've seen people interpret someone as irascible, arrogant, dismissive, unstable ... and have made my own observations and questioned them privately, discovered that my suspicions about being on the autism spectrum and / or bipolar were well-founded! I discovered someone I included in a working brainstorming team, many years ago, who was both bipolar and autistic, but what they term "high functioning autism". His IQ must have been sky-high; to begin with, intensely hard to communicate with, but, having once discovered his level of genius in particular areas, I subsequently included him in every working team in that environment that I put together. His input was always invaluable. Sometimes the oddest of our quirks can be the most effective and useful thing we have to offer; it just needs someone to seek the potential and not be deterred by what others see as "the problem". God, I'm waffling again .... women! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 15:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Missed semicolon ;) wink!

You were right and I was wrong (again!). I missed the semicolon of the "It had to be you! Nobody else gave me a thrill ... wonderful you, it had to be you". ;)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Monty Hall choice!

Me being me, with my background (dealing with huge numbers of non-verbal animals), I would add a level of detail beyond the statistical probability here.

Knowing that the host / controller knew which door was which, I would personally put my entire focus onto the host at the times they opened the door and asked the question (mainly the point of asking the question). I would be looking for minute non-verbal cues from them, which might give me a way of "reading" from them whether, to their certain knowledge, I would be better off switching or sticking. If I couldn't get the non-verbal hint I was looking for, then I would switch on the basis of the probability. ;P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 17:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

And here's a bit of potentially-useful information for you: the dog barking at you "Woo, woo, woo" is anxious, whereas the dog barking at you "Rar, rar, rar!" is aggressive. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 17:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If you don't know this, you should :o)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=FJzjjnjluHE#t=78s

Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Very nice, but I've had trouble listening to British choirboys ever since The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover and my RfC! ;)
I was an acolyte, btw! ;D
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hehe! My brother was one of the shining lights of the London Boy Singers in his youth. He's in the backing voices in this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OREM7kXDycc

... and I can still pick his voice out from it, even after all these years. It's the treble with the bell-like quality. I too, have "singing in the choir(s)" in my strange and varied background. Tenor, once I was over 14 .... ahem. hmm. Tenor is a little high for me now - I'm closer to baritone! [very strange granny]. I was also a campanologist!

And the boy on the skateboard in the Odessa file was my very good friend Sebastian; talent-spotted performing stunts on his skateboard in our local neighbourhood. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

... and from the other end of my musical-tastes scale, this is amazing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=BxrFXDyfltg#t=93s Try dancing to it; one of these days I'm going to put together a track including this for my beautiful flashy pony to dance to. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I mean it!

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Workshop

Scope and instructions

The scope of the case is a big question. The decision to accept may have some clues:

Accept
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/0/4/3)
Accept to examine the behavior of all parties. PhilKnight (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Accept. This is a long running dispute, highly divisive even amongs administrators, and thus it behooves us to accept this case. SirFozzie (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Just so it's clear, I'm planning on looking at the whole package, (MF-Civility, the second mover/third mover wheel war issue, all nine yards. This is not going to be a quick, easy case (as evidenced by the sheer amount of people commenting). SirFozzie (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Accept Per SirFozzie, I'm less inclined to look closely at Malleus' own behavior (unless someone provides credible evidence that it's recently changed for the worse), but rather how admins are dealing with each other over a matter of good-faith disagreement. Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
    • The outpouring of opinion here is quite large. I'd caution folks to avoid investing large amounts of time arguing over whether a case should be opened or not, and instead save some of that energy to compile and present evidence appropriately if and when a case is opened. That, more than many electrons expended here, will help us come to the best conclusions. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
    • While what Hawkeye7 did has every appearance of a wheel war, Malleus has repeatedly been helped by the second-mover advantage, which has historically given him a free ride as long as someone, anyone, is willing to unblock him. If we sanction Hawkeye by motion, and leave the second-mover advantage issue untouched, we will have done nothing to address the community's concerns. Anyone can block Malleus, but no one can make it stick, because of the second-mover advantage. Perhaps it's time to admit that "wheel war", like "edit war" is not limited to a specific bright-line, but can take place in an initial reversal of an admin action? For these reasons, I do not believe this morass can be untangled by simply pounding down the most convenient nail, Risker. Jclemens (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Definitely recused. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Recuse; even were it not uncomfortably close to the end of my term, I intend to submit comments. — Coren (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Point of order: it was suggested that the incoming arbitrators comment on matters that could be on our agenda after our terms begin, although until 1 January we do not accept or reject requests. With respect to the request as framed, I see three issues: first, Malleus' incivility; second, dealing with problematic "vested contributors" (which is not to say I characterise Malleus as such); and third, the ostensible wheel war.

    On issue one, I do not see how the issue is ripe for arbitration: other than disparate discussions, no prior dispute-resolution was sought for Malleus' conduct. (However, I could be convinced at a later date that we must arbitrate the issue, if these steps are sought in future but do not succeed.) On issue two, I do not think we can be of assistance: the committee has already issued guidance on vested contributors, and policy is clear that the merits of one's contributions does not mitigate unprofessional conduct. On issue three, I think we must open a case to consider whether Hawkeye7 was correct to reverse John's unblock. If a wheel-war did take place and there was no consensus to re-block, then there has been administrative misconduct - of which we should and always have taken a dim view. AGK [•] 02:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

  • @Scott MacDonald, I reject the idea of opening a case to talk about vested contributors because the resulting decision would be waffle. We would just re-state what everybody knows: that experience does not mitigate unprofessionalism. We could offset the apparent gulf in policy with practice by sanctioning Malleus, but my additional worry is that the community hasn't really tackled the issue except with pitchforks-and-torches threads here and there: where's the community-wide RFC? Arbitration would be messy and the issue should go to the whole community first (which has not happened yet). Regarding Hawkeye7, you misunderstand me: I'm not saying he did wheel-war, and I wouldn't judge that in a preliminary thread like this. However, if he did reverse the unblock without waiting for a consensus, then that's wrong: we don't allow wheel-warring because it's a slippery slope, not just because "policy says so". AGK [•] 03:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Accept Comment - given queries about other people and whether they can be considered "involved", I've interacted fairly regularly with Malleus. Am happy to recuse if folks think I I should do so. considered input from others, ok let's sort this out. The scope is (1) planning a way forward on the civility dilemma as put forward by the two main sides, and (2) review admin actions of those involved. I was criticised for trying to deal with a predecessor to this case by motion, and think therefore this needs a case.Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
@Wehwalt, I did think long and hard (and oscillated), but I've been observing the evolution of a fair few of these civility dustups recently including antecedents, and I don't think my relationship is hugely familiar with Malleus to preclude me trying to work a solution. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline as a case. With respect to Malleus Fatuorum, there is no valid reason to skip the RfC phase. With respect to the so-called wheel war, there were intervening edits by Malleus which an administrator may have considered sanctionable (indeed, I do wonder about the speed of the unblock to some extent, it could easily have waited longer while further consensus was developed and the blocking admin's indepth rationale was posted). I am also concerned that any administrator would make a comment like this about someone he has just blocked; it did more to inflame the situation than to calm it. I would consider some motions in respect of this request: 1) Banning Malleus from WT:RFA until the completion of a community RfC and 2) a suitable sanction on Hawkeye7. Risker (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Accept - That the community, many members of whom have commented here after (literally) years of complaining about Malleus, cannot be bothered to even try to do an RfC in this area is a poor reason for accepting a case; however, at the end of the day, this is simply too divisive to continue as is. Risker (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have strong feelings of deja vu about this request; didn't we just have pretty much this exact same case request a month or two ago? Only the names of the blocking and unblocking admins seem to have changed between last time and this time. When I voted to decline the previous case, I expressed the forlorn hope that that particular block/unblock cycle might be the last such incident and that Malleus Fatuorum might moderate his tone of expression to prevent further bickering. Needless to say, that hasn't happened, and since I don't see the issues here being addressed by any means short of arbitration, I am leaning toward accepting the case. Caveat 1: This case shouldn't drag on for weeks as often happens; that will just poison the atmosphere on-wiki for everyone. We would need to pick strong hands-on drafters committed to keeping things moving. Caveat 2: Over the past couple of years I've had my share of disagreements with Malleus, most recently on my talkpage when he reacted there to my comments on the prior request. I am considering whether recusal is warranted; my current inclination is that it is not, but if anyone has a view on this, please feel free to share it with me in the next 72 hours. Caveat 3: I will continue to have minimal time on-wiki until after New Years. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. After looking at Malleus' block record - [1], this case appears to fit Unusually divisive disputes among administrators. I'd be interested to explore the reasons for such a long history of wheel warring. The usual reasons given for blocking Malleus are Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Harassment. The reasons given for unblocking are varied and sometimes not clear. There are interesting aspects to this case - why do contributors who are a significant asset to the project, and clearly want to improve it, sometimes engage in uncivil behaviour that leads to blocks? Are they being poked unreasonably into responding testily? If so, can we protect them? Are they by nature crusty people? If so, how far do we tolerate such behaviour from valued contributors? Are they emboldened by their position as a valued contributor to feel they can "get away" with being uncivil? If so, what should we do? If we take the case it would be hoping too much to get a clear answer to these questions, but the investigation would be worthwhile. Hawkeye7's unblock was a clear case of WP:WHEEL which ArbCom are expected to look into. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Begrudging Accept; this falls under the realm of divisive disputes and plenty of prior words have been spilt without any meaningful result. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Accept: per Cas basically.  Roger Davies talk 11:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Recuse. –xenotalk 14:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Instructions were hard to find.

Instructions
Directions from Arbitrator Hersfold

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thoughts on evidence

It seems there is some general confusion - or perhaps lack of understanding - about what sort of evidence we're looking for here. The Arbitration Committee is working on setting up some clearer guidelines for submitting evidence in general, but my thoughts on this are thus (subject to being overridden by the Committee as a whole):

  • The evidence page is for direct evidence - demonstrating actions that have been taken, preferably through diffs or log entries, or providing a faithful timeline of one's perceptions of events.
  • The evidence page is not for:
    • Responding to others' evidence. It's common for evidence to be posted to contradict evidence provided by another party. Provided it fits into the above category, that's fine, but just stating "So-and-so's evidence is obviously wrong" belongs more on the evidence talk page.
    • Interpreting evidence. Your evidence submissions should state only facts: "Editor 1 posted a personal attack towards Editor 1: [diff]. Later that day, Editor 2 posted a personal attack towards Editor 1: [diff]". Analyzing the cause or effect of these facts ("Editor 2 was retaliating and normally wouldn't post such attacks") isn't for the evidence page, and belongs in the Analysis section of the workshop page.
    • Asking questions. The parties can be asked questions in the appropriate section on the workshop page; general discussion can also take place at the bottom of the workshop. Questions specifically to the arbitrators can be directed to our individual talk pages or the mailing list (as above, use the -b list for this case please).
    • Soapboxing. If you believe that the Committee should focus on a certain aspect of a certain policy in the case, post a workshop principle to that effect. Long-winded speeches to that effect on the evidence page are difficult for arbitrators to get through when determining their votes, and distract from the actual facts of the case.

In this particular case, what I'm interested in seeing is evidence focused around the following points:

  • How civility has been enforced in the past, and the varying degrees of community support in regards to those attempts
  • Inconsistencies in how civility has been enforced
  • Administrative disputes that have arisen that center on civility enforcement
  • Specific difficulties with the civility policy as it currently stands, and how those difficulties have impacted the above three points

While the incident that prompted this case did focus primarily on Malleus's conduct and that of the administrators involved in that situation (and there will likely be some user-specific remedies with regard to that situation), this is intended to be a broad case that will clarify aspects of existing policies or recommend to the community ways the policy can be improved. Evidence submitted that focuses on the Malleus incident should, as much as possible, be framed to fit within at least one of those four points.

Again, however, this is what I'm looking for, and other arbitrators may wish to see other evidence, and as I mentioned my general thoughts on evidence in particular are subject to being overridden in the near future. In the meantime, though, hopefully this serves as a helpful clarification for everyone involved. I'll point the Committee to this section and ask them to add to this as needed. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion removed here by KW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Responding here both to what Hersfold said and what Sandy said.
    (A) On the point Sandy raises about how she wishes "the arbs had gotten a handle on this sooner", re-read what I said a few days ago here (point iv). I said:

    "Please define the scope of the case early on - some will wish to examine every entry in Malleus's block log, others will say some of the entries are too old, others will want to do a cost-benefit analysis of Malleus's contributions, some will want to examine past actions by the two admins named in the case, others will try and drag other admins into this. So please try and keep on top of things as regards the scope - the best thing to do would be to have arbitrators stating clearly whether evidence submissions are within scope or not, and to get some early proposals up to help define the likely scope of the case."

    What is probably best now is for arbitrators to direct whether evidence should be rewritten, removed, or consolidated. That is the only way to get the case back under control.
    (B) On the point about inconsistency in enforcing civility standards, one question that could be asked is not only why are others not blocked (or warned) for comments similar or worse to those Malleus has made, but why some of the comments Malleus has made did not lead to blocks (though they may have led to warnings). There is one example I can think of straight away (because I was the one on the receiving end). This examples is indirectly in evidence, but difficult to find as it is lost in the crowd somewhat. But would such examples be helpful? Would examples of others getting blocked for similar actions to those of Malleus be helpful (i.e. examples of consistency, rather than inconsistency)? The point is that there are examples of many types of inconsistencies, to the point that it is probable that there is inconsistency everywhere (both in terms of harsh blocks and lenient warnings or inaction). But how do you show that inconsistency is greater for some editors than others? That is much harder to prove.
    (C) There is also the issue of degrading the editing environment - a kind of social incivility (or lack of sensitivity to how others might react). Somewhere on the evidence page is a section mentioning two userboxes. I noticed the use of an image in the earliest versions of one of those userboxes (warning: NSFW image, includes nudity). I felt strongly that use of this image was not appropriate and felt justified raising it on the editor's talk page even though this was days later and another editor had persuaded them to remove the image. My post was swiftly removed, followed by a discussion on my talk page, but it did lead me to ponder just how much standards differ between editors. It is not strictly civility, but it was spawned by the events that led to this case. Would that sort of example be useful in evidence?
  • On a general point, if you want details of everyday enforcement (or lack of enforcement) of civility, the arbitrators could do worse than ask for or devise an automated way to find examples and/or do surveys that involve more than just the people following this case. I think bot-generated or script-driven searches based on certain keywords have been done before. At the least, it should be possible to search recent block summaries for variants of the words 'civility' or 'incivility' or 'uncivil', though that might not be helpful as I suspect the arbitrators want examples involving established editors. Carcharoth (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • One of the significant factors about incivility is how it's not just words -- it's about construction, intent, and context . I've seen indicated some editors were far more offended by a targeted "star collector" description than banal naughty words. Therefore this is not a bot job. 03:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody Ent (talk • contribs)
  • Agreed. Which is why I brought up other examples and am asking if any arbitrators think they would be useful in evidence. The three examples I have in mind are: (a) A comment Malleus made to me where he was warned but not blocked - is that inconsistent or not? Others are asserting in evidence that Malleus gets blocked for things that others don't get blocked for, but the converse is also true, Malleus fails to get blocked for things that others would get blocked for. (b) Inappropriate image use degrading the editing environment and an inconsistent response to that. Is it more offensive for naughty words to be used or for images involving female nudity that are supposed to be used for educational purposes being used for shock value in a form of political protest? (c) The third example (which I raised elsewhere on this talk page) is editors calling the writing of others 'shit' or 'primary school level'. To me, that is a far more corrosive form of incivility than any number of naughty words. It may be true, but the bright-line rule here must be to improve articles and help others improve their editing without ever needing to resort to insults or promoting an 'us and them' mentality (good editors versus crap editors). If someone is editing poorly, try and help them and then work out where to go if that doesn't work. Don't resort to invective and insults in an attempt to 'drive them off'. Carcharoth (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd appreciate it if you made it clear that it wasn't me who made the comment about "primary school level writing", as its inclusion here makes it seem as though I did. Similarly with the female nude image you mention. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not actually in evidence (and might never be). I'm happy to clarify here that the "primary school level writing" and image issue was both nothing to do with you, though they are both indirectly connected (the former originated from a section on your talk page, and the latter was one of two userboxes created to support you). Personally, if I was you I'd have been embarrassed to have a userbox like that, with that image on it, created with my username on it and I'd have said so to the userbox creator.

    If you are willing to discuss the other example, the comment you made to me where you didn't get blocked, I think that can be usefully compared to comments you made at WT:RFA that did get you blocked. In the former case, it was between two editors (you and me) and I think only one other, late at night (in our time zones) on someone else's talk page, and the editor whose talk page it was (SandyGeorgia) swiftly removed the whole thread, so less people would have seen it than if that had happened elsewhere. In contrast, lots of people were following the WT:RFA thread and lots of people watch that page anyway.

    But I didn't mind what you actually said (it made me laugh more than anything), what I really minded was that the focus would be on what you said and not what I said. You obviously disagreed with what I said, but I was really hoping that some of the issues I touched on in that post would get discussed (I may write it up in an essay at some point). As it turned out, you swearing and Sandy swiftly removing the whole thread, was about as effective a hiding of what I'd said as is possible. Of course it's not really hiding it, as I can restate my argument from there (and have done so since then), but it was more the brusqueness of it all.

    Anyway, one of the ideas that I might have mentioned there, or elsewhere, is that it would be useful for Wikipedia to have a real 'pub' location, or the equivalent of 'Speaker's Corner', where people can argue and engage in back-and-forth in colourful language, and where long (and sometimes rambling) posts (like the one I made there and am making here) are tolerated more. That might ease some of the pressure on locations such as article talk pages and village pump, and formal community discussions, where more moderate language and focused postings would be expected. Currently, lots of the banter and social elements (and aggravation) spill over to user talk pages, and I'm serious when I say that this isn't the best set-up. Think of the difference between a house party, a pub, and a crowd in the village square. Possibly, long ago, the village pump served this function, but it got split up into sections and is now more like ad hoc discussion groups than water cooler talk. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the right locations existed on Wikipedia, some of the tensions would end up in places more suited to resolving such tensions. Carcharoth (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request for information from Arbitrator Risker

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requests for further evidence - Collaborative evidence collection

The name of this case was selected, in part, because many of the comments in the initiating request strongly put forward that there is a widespread problem with applying and enforcing community standards based on the civility policy, particularly when experienced editors are the subject of the enforcement. The evidence provided to date does not bear that out. In order to better review this situation, I am asking all participants in this case to work collaboratively to provide the following additional information:

  • Permanent links to discussions from 2011 only where an experienced editor (i.e., more than 3 months of editing and more than 500 non-automated edits) was blocked for violation of the civility policy (or related behavioural policies such as WP:NPA or WP:Harassment) and where the block was considered controversial. "Controversial" in this sense would include reversals of a block, blocks imposed after other dispute resolution methods (e.g., discussion with editor, warnings) appeared to have been successful in addressing the problem behaviour, situations which proceeded to other forms of dispute resolution such as RfC/U or a request for arbitration. For the purpose of this exercise, exclude users Malleus Fatuorum and TCO. Please sign any additions you make.
  • Permanent links to discussions from 2011 only illustrating obviously uncivil behaviour on the part of an experienced editor on an article talk page or on any page in the Wikipedia namespace that appears to have gone completely unaddressed. (Note that I have specifically excluded user talk pages.) For the purpose of this exercise, exclude Malleus Fatuorum and TCO. Please verify that there is nothing (i.e. warnings or objections to that behavior) on the talk page of the user before including. Please sign any additions you make.
  • Given that much of the evidence provided to date involves the various blocks imposed on Malleus Fatuorum, I think there is benefit to everyone to review these blocks specifically. With Courcelles' assistance, we have created a chart with all of Malleus Fatuorum's blocks, and filled in date and time, blocking admin, unblock information if applicable, original length of block, and actual length of block. I am hoping that the participants in this case will work collaboratively to provide the following information for *each* block in Malleus' block log:
  • Issue that led to block. Include all relevant links, including any discussions on user talk pages.
  • Length of time between last discussion of precipitating issue and the block. (For example, was the last related comment several hours before the block?)
  • Any other dispute resolution attempted before block (warnings, discussion with user, discussion on noticeboards or elsewhere, etc). Links to these attempts.
  • Whether or not any other users were also asked to change behaviour/warned/blocked in relation to the same issue. Links to those dispute resolution steps.

This is intended to be a factual review of the various blocks, and there should be no editorializing in the chart itself. The chart will be hosted on a separate evidence page for ease of editing and so that it will not disrupt the use of Hersfoldbot on the remainder of the evidence page; a link will be placed on the evidence page.

I hope this will assist the community as well as the Arbitration Committee in establishing the extent to which incivility is a problem. Risker (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Principles"

Hello, Kiefer, can I please ask you to tone your language down a bit? Edit summaries like this are unhelpful and can only serve to inflame the discussion further (though I have to point out that your edit in and of itself was not over the top. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Salvio,
You are right, and I shall now double-check the edit summaries as well as the edits. Thanks for your gracious note.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Now, really? Look, you're smart and I'm certain you were perfectly aware that such an edit was inappropriate and inflammatory. Please, try to be constructive. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Salvio,
On this, we disagree (unless you are referring to the linking of WP:RfA to Holy of Holies, which may offend some).
I think that edit summary conveyed the gist of that edit. Are you objecting to the edit?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Removing the principles suggests that the summary itself was not the whole problem.
I wrote the following. (KW 18:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC))

Wikipedians cannot tolerate prolonged conflicts

1) Wikipedia exemplifies authoritarianism. Wikipedians with personalities have authoritarian personalities; when stressed, they sustain themselves by imagining themselves to have a personal relationship with an all-powerful and all-knowing ruler, his appointed guardians, and a cadre of supermen.

Thus, Wikipedians cannot tolerate prolonged disagreements, particularly conflicts, especially when its leaders are criticized and mocked. Protecting Wikipedians from the stress of observing disagreement and protecting its administrators from ridicule and criticism is therefore an imperative.

Alas, ordinary Wikipedians have proved themselves in practice to be incapable of restoring the necessary conformity of the ruled. Even Administrators have been unable to restore the conformity of the ruled.

Therefore, our enlightened despots need to remove editors who do not conform to the majority's wishes.

(C.f. Jantelagen, Sterilization in Sweden, and Involuntary commitment in Sweden.)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

The Administrators Corps cannot be ridiculed publicly, particularly not at Requests for Administrator

2) In addition to authoritarianism, insecurity and sadism thrive in Wikipedia's administrators; feelings of inadequacy can be temporarily alleviated by the frisson of punishing the scapegoats, particularly in public, where the punishment intimidates the population for years to come. Vicarious punishment of the scapegoats temporarily alleviates ressentiment.

Alas, ordinary Wikipedians and even administrators have proved themselves to be incapable of maintaining the esprit de corps of the rulers.

Plebians who criticize administrators in public, rather than on the talk page of a non-administrators (which is read only by those interested in writing quality articles), threaten the majesty of the administrators and, hence, the social fabric of the cosmos.

Therefore, our enlightened despots need to remove editors who do not conform to the majority's wishes.

(C.f. Jantelagen, Sterilization in Sweden, and Involuntary commitment in Sweden.)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Discussion ....?

I understand that these principles may be "inflammatory", but in this case inflammation is needed. The Committee and the community must choose whether we are tolerant of Malleus's occassional lapses (after weeks or months of heroic editing and mentoring) or of Keepscases idiosyncratic questions at RfA, or of Badger Drink's occassional (but usually hilarious) abrassive comment while removing junk from Wikipedia.

This is an encyclopedia that tolerates plagiarists, coi self-promoters, pov pushers, and all sorts of jerks. It seems to tolerate me, even!

As long as people do not criticize administrators, they seem not to be threatened with blocks and bans. (An oversimplification, but apparently the most plausible explanation of why TCO has not being threatened with the fires of Hell, while MF has; and I am a fan of both, despite and partially because of their humanity.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You should have been unblocked, now, so we can continue our discussion.

Kiefer, for most thing we're on the same page. I believe that sometimes civility blocks are used as a club to silence one's opponents. And I understand that, sometimes, a disruptive or incompetent user can frustrate even the calmest editor into using a "fuck off". As a matter of fact, I believe I've never blocked anyone due to incivility and only a handful of people for personal attacks; I've often found that a word whispered on their talk page can be enough. But I'm digressing, I'm sorry.

The point is that the gist of your principles may be material to the case – provided they're supported by evidence, of course –: incompetent users are tolerated, whereas productive editors who criticise admins are blocked. Had this been the principle you proposed, I'd have left it alone. The problem is that you chose to phrase it in an extremely inflammatory way. I know you were looking to shock your interlocutors to better get your message across, but that would have turned the case into a mess, because it would have encouraged other users to respond in kind and a flame war would probably have ensued.

I know I appear bureaucratic and tedious, but it's the only way to keep things on track (which is also the best way to ensure that nobody gets scapegoated or railroaded; a disorderly case serves nobody). Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Salvio!
Thanks for writing.
I was confident that you had been invested with the appropriate cudgels to keep order at the talk page, so that my restoration (if it was a disruptive) would not long cause problems at the workshop. I also invited you to move the stuff to the talk page.
Now that the talk page has my note, with a link to the principles' diff, it is less important that they appear on the workshop page.
I've already received comments that Scott's block made my point better than my original principles. Hmmm....
I apologize that I don't have time now to read properly and to respond to your comments. I have just returned from weeks abroad and have many obligations.
Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
This specific issue aside: don't edit war with an Arbitrator or an Arbitration Clerk on the Workshop page again. You can discuss it with them, but edit warring is flatly forbidden. The next time, it will result in an indefinite case ban. NW (Talk) 19:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I think we've seen quite enough of the threat posturing now. Salvio seems to be handling the issue perfectly well and reasonably in any case. Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Malleus, but I understand NW's comment and the wish to leave a clear notice (in case of a future problem).
Also, NW postures so well, it reminds of Michelango's David.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll take that as a compliment :) NW (Talk) 19:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't; he's got a very small dick. Giacomo Returned 19:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Or, perhaps, Kiefer is portraying himself as Uriah to NW's David?--Scott Mac 19:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Now I'm losing my monopoly on esoteric references.... Whom do you think you are, Norm MacDonald? ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Calling authorities "cunts" ...

From Wikipedia's article on Sidney Morgenbesser:

Morgenbesser was leaving a subway station in New York City and put his pipe in his mouth as he was ascending the steps. A police officer told him that there was no smoking on the subway. Morgenbesser pointed out that he was leaving the subway, not entering it, and hadn't lit up yet anyway. The cop again said that smoking was not allowed in the subway, and Morgenbesser repeated his comment. The cop said, "If I let you do it, I'd have to let everyone do it." Morgenbesser replied, "Who do you think you are, Kant?" The word "Kant" was mistaken for a vulgar epithet and Morgenbesser had to explain the situation at the police station.[1][2]

Quotingly,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You know I love you, but ...

Hey KW [pre-emptive hugz](>**)> I think it would be a really good idea for you to prioritise here: which is more important to you, getting the right outcome, or your need to express yourself in a particular way? (Don't smack me please! I mean well!) You may need to wind-down your personal passion a notch or two to have your very valid points given the weight they deserve. P.S. If you tell me to bugger off, could you clarify whether you mean bugger off from your page forever, or do you just mean bugger off for now, on this subject? ;P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pesky,
I wrote the "principles" quickly, as I have been writing quickly since resuming after a few weeks away. I certainly regret some things.
Nonetheless, I may revise and shorten the principles and perhaps post them again. Enough persons have written that there has been a history of conflict with Malleus, with no resolution in sight, and therefore (ugh!) ArbCom should ban him
(by hook or by crook)
---a very authoritarian position in my book.
I wish that ArbCom reject the authoritarian/totalitarian temptation of a Wikipedia without disagreement or occasional expressions of irritation by our best writers and most helpful mentors/masters.
Of course you are welcome anytime. If I knew you were coming I would have baked a cake.
Best regards,
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
But I'm trying to lose weight! I hope you've had time to look through some (at least!) of my various inputs over there. As always, I'm steering in from the principle-centred approach, because, for me, the fundamental principles of the whole thing are far more important than the peripheral symptoms of dysfunctionality. On the outside chance that we get a mandate for a team to re-write for total clarity and uniformity of enforcement application, if I had any say in the choosing of the team, take a look at this page; you are one of the people I'd like to see included in that team. (For perspective, I've actually done team-choosing stuff before, so know what I'm doing with it, and why; I'm also entitled to various letters after my name on the subject of supervisory management, etc., though I choose not to pay the subscription to the relevant professional bodies in order to be allowed to splat letters around!) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 15:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I have to run.
I would be happy to comment, but my available time is shrinking fast, happily. We need to move to a culture of focus on developing WP editors, which means pushing/hoisting problem-laden hominids (ie. editors) up the ladder of disciplined editing. Non-vandals need to be looked upon as resources to be developed, each with particular gifts and problems. The goal is to improve our practice as individuals and as a community, while refocusing on the encyclopedia.
This view, common to adult workplaces and organizations, is very different from the rule-oriented monomania of playgrounds and Kant; c.f. After Virtue.
A vanity story from another admirer (RIP) of the contemporary one-man Scottish enlightenment: When a NYC police officer asked Sidney Morgenbesser, who had committed some minor infraction (like sitting on a milk crate outside of the Strand Bookstore), "what if everybody broke stupid laws?". Morgenbesser replied, "Whom do you think you are, Kant?", and was promptly arrested for having called an authority figure a cunt.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I think my most valuable contributions are probably in one of the areas I love most - broadcasting tips, help, refs help and welcome cookies onto newbies' and relatively-newbies' talk pages. Many fall on infertile ground, but it only needs a few to take root and grow. I love finding an enthusiastic newbie who really wants to learn! But then I suppose I've always been a teacher at heart, not just in fact, in many areas. Teaching is quite incredibly rewarding stuff; not least when the pupil begins to outshine the teacher. Adding: just as a point of interest, one of the most amazing and extraordinary people I've ever had on a team (on several teams, actually) was a staggeringly-high-IQ bipolar-autistic. There are many, many areas where what is viewed as dysfunctionality by most people can suddenly be transformed into superfunctionality. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Paul Heaton and The Beautiful South

C.f., I Love You But ... You're Boring!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Playing with blocks....  ;)

18:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

blocked

I've blocked you for an indefinite period, since ou are evidently out of control. I've posted to ANI to let other people decide what to do. I will personally remove my block you in a few minutes, and let others take it from there. I'm not going to post a long explanation, because it is self evident from your contributions.--Scott Mac 18:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You are wise to leave the decision to ANI, because an indefinite block was utterly unwarranted. I had tried to address Salvio's concerns.
My recent edits on a real-algebraic topologist and at Strata's page seem to be counterexamples to your statement about out of control.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Another bad block

In my edit summary, I invited Salvio to move the principles to the talk page, per usual practice. I then stored the principles directly above. Now, my being blocked prevents me from deleting the material from the workshop, as I had intended to do. (And my previous edit was responding to Salvio's concerns.)

This block seems to have disrupted my good-faith attempt to deal with Salvio's concerns by discussion.

A short block may have been non-laughable, but an indefinite block was unwarranted and laughable.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to stop, desist, and discuss things with the clerk, I will unblock you right now. The indef block was because there was no element of punishment, and so the time didn't come in to it. You were blocked until we got somewhere else, you calmed down and engaged, or some decision was made by others. --Scott Mac 18:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, I have unblocked you. I hope the discussion can bring some calm to you. I suggest you continue your discusison with the arbcom clerk about what is and is not appropriate and helpful to the arbcom case.--Scott Mac 18:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Please read what I have written before continuing to post on an editor's talk page, particularly when you are punching the (un)block button. I am glad that you have calmed yourself.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Scott argued for his block based on my use of "enforced sterilization", ommiting the qualification "Enforced sterilization IN SWEDEN", along with Involuntary committment in Sweden, and Jantelagen.
The point is that civilized authorities do terrible things to deviants/minorities, over and over again, because of an intolerance of deviance. The Swedish sterilization and forced commitment laws were changed c. 1974, although they were publicized by a somewhat less subservient press only in the 1990s.
The New York Times reported this weekend that finally, for the first time, a US state settled with victims of forced sterilization. The niggardly payment is 50,000 USD.
A consideration of the deviants thrown into horrible institutions or sterilized because they acted weirdly is useful to considering how much deviance is tolerable on Wikipedia, I suggest.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Psychologist Paul Meehl has a useful essay on the ethics and laws regarding involuntary commitment. 18:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I saw this too late, but I don't see anything wrong with your proposals - they're certainly less ridiculous (whether they're more or less inflammatory depends on your definition of "inflammatory" - in my book filing a false charge against someone while hypocritically smiling to their face is certainly extremely inflammatory, but apparently others think otherwise) than some of the other stuff on that page. Just remember that passive aggressive behavior is encouraged, but stating the obvious is not.VolunteerMarek 19:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Marek!
Thanks for your supportive words.
If my editing lifespan were longer, then I should have written more carefully. My intent was to throw a bucket of water on some sleep-walkers, and ask them what kind of community they really want, by forcing them to think about an ugly alternative. Unfortunately, the scarecrow principles I enunciated hit too close to home.
Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid this silly block was just an instance of Wikipedia returning the bully boy tactics employed by the Corps des Administrateurs in the past. Opening the "Malleus" case was bound to encourage these people and allow then to think a reawakening was possible; one fears that the Arbcom knew and encouraged this. Giacomo Returned 19:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
    Hi Giacomo,
    Thanks for your support!
    I would like to be more hopeful, but I'm afraid that a very bad decision is in the making, despite the crushing defeat of the two civility zealots at the ArbCom elections, which should have sent a clear message about the community's view of civility-monomania versus encyclopedia-editing among volunteers.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
    Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

And a bad UNblock ... ;)

Scott, you seem to have snafued the unblock. You seem to have unblocked me but maintained a block on my IP.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Try it now. 28bytes (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, 28bytes.
You soar every higher in my grateful eyes.
Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Glad to be of service. 28bytes (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Many admins forget that the MediaWiki software autoblocks the underlying IP unless you uncheck the box in the block form. Then they don't understand why you can't edit. :P Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I would like Elonka or Kaldari or the other wizards at WMF to construct me a death ray, like the one the evil (alternative universe) Captain Kirk had in Star Trek.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it should be called Medieval Wiki software?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, nearly enough to start building a tower with! ;P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My page

If what I said was an 'insult' to you, I don't know what to think of you. What I said isn't even offensive - it was a sarcastic remark to what I thought was a sarcastic remark. Malleus never informed me otherwise. Please don't try to pull that type of stuff on my page again. Toa Nidhiki05 00:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Toa,
You seem to have forgotten your abuse of Malleus at the current ArbCom case.
Why don't you make a sticky note when you insult editors, and put it on your computer screen. Then you don't need to tax your memory.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't appreciate you attacking me, nor my memory. I haven't attacked Malleus, and my proposals have all been fair and levelheaded. I know you feel an overwhelming urge to do this type of thing to anyone who mildly threatens Malleus, but I would really suggest you get under control before you get blocked again. Toa Nidhiki05 00:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Read what you just wrote,, where you ignored the possibility that I was responding to your comments at the ArbCom workshop.
Before responding further, please review what you wrote at the ArbCom case, e.g. about Malleus's incapacities, etc., but please take notes.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Stop insulting me, I know exactly what you said. I never attacked Malleus. Get over it. Lynching me isn't going to gain you anything. Toa Nidhiki05 01:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding "I never attacked Malleus",
Denial "is not just a river in Egypt]", sayeth an alter superego of the junior Senator from MN.
Before again comparing yourself to a lynching victim, particularly to somebody to the U.S., please read the article about lynching.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC) 19:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Charm school

I just spotted your witty aside at CE evidence talk. Thanks for that :)

I view pointed (i.e., less than charming) commentary in the much the same way as I view expletives (aka, "rude" or "offensive" words): both become rather pointless and drab if used on a regular basis, but add color and interest if used sparingly. Unfortunately this means I'm likely to be a fuckwit of a student at your charm school, as I aim to be polite and respectful in my use of words almost all of the time, and only forgive or allow myself the occasional lapse. Geometry guy 20:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Do as I say!---not as I do! ;)
Pointing out a logical error has never been appreciated, at least when I have diagnosed an error. In retrospect, I believe that my past diagnoses have violated the fundamental principle of coaching: Deal with people "where they are at"!
(P.S. I am still a fan.)
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you say, but would add that, with a bit of effort, pointing out logical errors can be done with subtlety and tact. Most discussions can be gently steered back on track, but an occasional screech of the brakes is also permissible! Geometry guy 22:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Civility enforcement Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 567 words and 1 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT(talk) 22:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hersfold or HersfoldArbClerkBot!
I archived the material, but now I'll remove it.
22:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Just a note that the bot was referring to the Evidence page; what you just removed was on the Workshop page. 28bytes (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
My logical unit and RAM need an upgrade. Thanks again. I'll fix it.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
On perhaps a side note, any chance you'd consider paring down some of the evidence and commentary about WTT? I ask simply because I respect both of you and it saddens me to see the conflict between the two of you extend to other venues. (Yes, I did observe that he has a mention of you in his evidence.) Paring it down would have the side effect of making the bot happier, of course. 28bytes (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi 28bytes,
I understand your concern and, despite my strong disagreement, I have sufficient respect for you to consider removing the diffs.
However, it seems to me that this material is substantially more relevant to a discussion of civility than Malleus. We have a case of an administrator preparing a one-sided RfC, where his summoner's abuse was ignored (despite it occurring often immediately before my diffs), and manipulating previous discussions in a way that drew protests from Carrite. I assume Black Kite, who is nobody's fool, was aware of what is going on. This administrator manipulated and distorted my edits on political issues, without ever getting off his ass and writing anything, and never doing anything about COI/outings/POV pushing/etc. You can also see his abuse of administrative tools in closing the discussion at ANI after my 1st bad block.
This guy is a leader in civility? This is a very bad and becoming a very old joke.
Seriously,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Your prerogative, of course. I'm a firm believer in the let-bygones-be-bygones philosophy, but of course we all must choose the philosophies which serve us the best. Incidentally, I did enjoy your reading from the Gospel of Jackson. I hope I am not the only one to get the reference. 28bytes (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi 28Bytes,
I am trying to force a discussion of civility, that recognizes the wider concept of civility, which is better described in policy than in practice (which focuses on incidents of rudeness, and not on helping Wikipedians construct the encyclopedia). It is imperative that editors, when discussing civility, strive to maintain the appearance of fairness and to avoid the appearance of partiality. I would be surprised if WP have no policy about impartiality for administrators.
Per various policies and WTT's request, I shall not further analyze why I am discussing his behavior in 2011 at ArbCom on Wiki, but I can do so by email. It probably doesn't help to say that this hurts me more than it hurts him....
After ThatPeskyCommoner's quote, I first thought of Grasshoper, Caine, a man of peace, but could not find the quote I wanted. But Caine inspired Jules, which worked for me.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Since your evidence is largely a rebuttal of my evidence, perhaps you'd like to move some of it to the workshop page, where the "Analysis of evidence" is designed for that very purpose. That would free up you to use your 500 words on fresh evidence, which I would be interested in. WormTT · (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Could I also ask you to tone down the aspersions on my character? It's one thing criticising my behaviour, it's quite another to attack my character. A civility case is not a place where you want to be crossing that line WormTT · (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
WTT,
I believe that I have phrased things about behavior.
You did manipulate evidence, distort the truth (e.g. about Carrite, Black Kite, etc.), and ignore wrong-doings by your RfA-reform clique and Demiurge1000. You were somewhat better behaved at BadgerDrink's RfC, but still it took CasLiber to remind you that conflict resolution rarely succeeds when one side is attacking the other, instead of trying to resolve issues. If you are upset that I noted the recurring pattern of RfA-opposition resulting in grief from your RfA-reform clique, then that's tough: Take it up with CasLiber, if you feel lucky.
Since then, you have explained the "failure" of the RfCs by imputing psychological defects to me. This is just denial and not serious.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

RfA statistics: Abuse at ArbCom case

The ArbCom case Civility Enforcement arose because of concerns about blocks against Malleus.

The misuse of RfA voting statistics to support gagging Malleus at RfA was especially disturbing. At the latest RfA, I noted that I was voting in the landslide supporting the candidate (partly) to avoid being gagged myself, because of a lack of conformity!

TParis replied.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Lies

This is a blatant lie. We wouldn't gag you. We'd ship you off to Amsterdam's red light district and have you tied up.  ;) --v/r - TP 02:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi TParis!
Funny you should mention rendition to European red-light district. In Lviv, there is a participatory statue of the curious Baron Sader Macher, with a front left pocket in which the curious may stick a hand, if she (or he) dares. I was surprised by seeing the statue again on New Year's Eve, which is the biggest festival/holiday (because of the half century of Communist secularization-engineering). The statue is outside a cafe/club in which the patrons are greeted with the question of whether and how hard they wish to be whipped.
I remembered that contemporary RfAs are not the best forum for (self-deprecating) humor, and I know from experience that self-deprecating humor is often misunderstood. So I struck the first phrase.
In fact, I had read the testimonials and looked at his list of articles, and I have long been a fan of the Indo-European languages' phylogeny recapitulating human phylogeny---as well as a fan of the Basques----and I was as happy to support the Sanskrit hero as a Swede is happy to watch Donald Duck on Christmas Eve or to watch Bingolotto (c.f., Madonna's Ray of Light, directed by a Swede, which shows the lady-charming Loket); our article on Ray of Light mentions a Sanskrit connection, I just learned. It's all connected!
I was afraid you were going caution me about the "lies, damned lies, and RfCs"---thinking to myself, "Self, maybe we should have noted our being a statistician..." ;)
I read with natural hope the discussions of a political peace in Afghanistan, thinking of you and your colleagues. Peace is the best we can hope for in our species, which is even more diabolically viscous (and awesomely compassionate and loving) than chimpanzees. Wishing for a "political solution" that ends conflict is usually a distraction and often a dangerous delusion. It does strike me that our country can be proud that Swedish women no longer have to read about little girls not being able to play soccer or go to school in Kabul, when reading Marie Claire.
2012 is beginning as a year filled with natural hope! :)
Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Ahem ...."diabolically viscous"? [vis·cous/ˈviskəs: Adjective: Having a thick, sticky consistency between solid and liquid; having a high viscosity.] Sounds like a very nasty case of catarrh to me ;P Alternatively (and even more disgustingly) I suppose the diabolically viscous chimpanzee could be one which has just been put through an industrial-scale blender ... ewwwwww ... Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The corruptibility of Ubuntu's software manager and my real laptop's corruption have left me with a handheld with the pea-brained Windows 7 Starter, the last weeks. So my reading and typing have really suffered.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

How can we end this?

Kiefer, given that I do not believe I have lied, made any deliberate misrepresentations or acted in a way which I felt was improper - how can we end this? The RfC is over and done with, I disagree with you about the outcome, but that's fine because "good people can legitimately disagree". I would like to know what is needed to move on here? We both believe ourselves to be right and I'm sure we could argue about it until the cows come home, so let's just stop. What do you say? WormTT · (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Worm That Turned/David,
Please read my previous discussion: Your behavior is relevant to issues discussed in this RfC, which is called "Civility Enforcement": Double standards regarding civility enforcement where administrators uses civility to punish their friends' opponents (apparently), improper ANI closings by involved parties, cherry-picking of evidence, apparently vindictive campaigns against scapegoats in which others' misbehavior is totally ignored, even egregious misbehavior directed at the scapegoat.
In particular, you and Demiurge1000's misuse of diffs was clearly prohibited by WP:Civility, which does more than prohibit naughty words and irritable expressions.
At my RfC, I mentioned that your apparent hypocrisy and dishonesty in preparing and certifying the RfC---those actions had resulted in my being unwilling to engage in further discussion with you and Demiurge1000, at that RfC. I don't waste my time engaging in doomed discussions.
ArbCom is a forum of greater visibility and participation by intelligent, capable, and principled Wikipedians than was my RfC, at least in its dismal second third. Thus, this ArbCom case, offers greater opportunity for fairness than my RfC. That is why I am more willing to discuss your behavior at ArbCom or at ArbCom Elections---for better or for worse, the best public fora we have.
You must agree that today was the first time---despite repeated, meek requests---that you tried to distance yourself from the accusation that I censored the Penn Kemble because of my politics. But you only tried to shift the blame to Demiurge1000, rather than apologizing for certifying that base falsehood.
Your "stress" explanation with Elonka, before she confirmed that she was opposing you, in the last ArbCom election, seemed to be a one-time stupidity. Your again suggesting that the stress of RfC gave BadgerDrink and me a choice between (only) two choices was surprising to me. I have explained to others on and off Wiki that I don't wish to enable any more denial (by wishful thinking) by failing to address your behavior.
I should have discussed your behavior at this ArbCom case earlier, given your behavior against BadgerDrink and your actions against Malleus, but I was abroad and lacked the latest provocation.
I naturally hope that others should view my failure to aid Malleus's until I (again) had been attacked at ArbCom, and resolve that they each shall display more backbone, and protect Malleus because of simple fairness. Malleus is only the first victim of which an example is to be made.
Sincerely,
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I see. I personally don't believe that our history is pertinant to the ArbCom case (though I see why you do) and since it has past it's deadline for evidence collection, I'm not keen on adding more. Would there by any other fora which you'd be willing to take this to? Something currently in place like mediation or fresh arbitration case (depending on the outcome of this one), or something a little more radical such as a joint RfC on our behaviours? I'm trying to look to the future. WormTT · (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
EC: Pesky (below) saved first. Positioned for readability
David,
Please review my New Year's greeting, which was sincere. I really was filled with my usual benevolence/cowardice until I read the repeated "stress" explanation of RfC.
You are the one suggesting banning Malleus from RfA etc. You still seem never to acknowledged that you were wrong to go into attack mode, like a U.S. prosecutor wanting to win a conviction, in my RfC.
Nonetheless, you still deny that your behavior in BD's RfC was wrong because it was so one-sided. That is wrong on procedural fairness grounds, and wrong because such one-sideness poisons discussions.
That much should be obvious, and I believe that Casliber wrote to you publicly to make the same point. But you seem to deny his concern, again today.
Granted, your behavior in BadgerDrink's RfC was better than in mine: This shows maturation and the usual (too slow) learning from experience plaguing non-Bayesians. Your behavior at BD's RfC was better than the conniptions raised by many, as I have acknowledged repeatedly; both your maturation and perspicacity display your obvious promise, as I have recognized repeatedly.
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
EC: Pesky saved first.
I'm afraid I'm not going to respond to many of these comments, because they just continue the argument, and that's what I want to stop. Is there any way, besides going over old ground, that we can move on? If not, please choose a forum to go over what has happened. I'm not afraid of scrutiny, I will be a willing participant. As I said at the ArbCom case, this feels like harassment and because I do respect you and I do not believe you are intentionally harassing me, I am coming to you to mutually agree the best way to end it. WormTT · (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
@WTT/David,
"Go and sin no more" is the best advice.
At risk of repetition: I have explained above that I have some natural hopes for ArbCom and ArbCom Elections as fora for discussing your 2011 behavior towards me, while I have no such confidence in RfCs. Mediation was offered a long time ago, repeatedly, by me, and rejected by you as an attempt to deflect from a community discussion of my allegedly problematic behavior---a discussion to be led by the paragons of virtue, you and Demiurge1000....
You do grant that you "can see" that the ArbCom case is a plausible forum for voicing my concerns about your behavior---and about others' behavior, in my drafts (and, if space permitted, in my finally submitted evidence).
Your reaction to such complaints does not suggest that further discussion of your 2011 behavior would be useful in 2012.
Nonetheless, let me offer a closing word. You might consider the administrative examples of Elonka (usual, not after having saved Wikipedia during her day job, and being tired), of Kaldari, of Charles Matthews, of GeorgeWilliamHerbert, of Ed Johnson, of Fetchcomms. Consider their usual conversational style of understatement, and of letting the editor in question draw desirable conclusions about behavioral improvement. As an exercise, you might rewrite your ill-fated notes to me and Badger Drink in 2011 emulating each of their styles: C.f., Marcel Proust's
  • 1919 Pastiches et mélanges ("Pastiches and mixtures"). Paris: Gallimard
    • English trans. of Pastiches portion: "The Lemoine Affair," trans. Charlotte Mandell
or Dwight MacDonald's collection of parodies. Such exercises in emulation are often recommended to help writers and composers speak with their own voices.
As an experiment, it might be worth erring on the side of understatement and collegiality for a bit.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I'm still not going to address anything regarding past events here, as pretty much anything I would say would re-ignite fires. However, if you can refrain from discussing my behaviour in 2011 further, I'm sure I can offer you the same courtesy. Finally, regarding "Go and sin no more", I certainly intend to take that advice to heart and hope that you will too. WormTT · (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I view ArbCom as the ultimate court of appeals. I certainly am not interested in depositing the heads or hearts of any leading Wikipedians as sacrifices on |the altar of the God Emperor, despite His "Will no-one rid me of this troublesome toxic-personality?".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Pesky comments

If you two guys could possibly find some way of working around these issues, very possibly with some really open, honest AGF'ing, extended conversation somewhere where neither of you feel s under the spotlight (or put on the spot), I would not only thing you could find a way to work together with the minimum of stress, but it would also make me, personally, very happy. Like an idiot granny, I'm fond of both of you, and it saddens me to see both of you clearly hurting and with an oozing sore instead of a clean scab, with or without associated scar tissue. It might pay to call a truce as far as is possible until both of you feel ready and able to discuss all the possible misunderstandings which may have occured, and so on. Pick a time in your lives when both of you are otherwise relatively stress-free (never easy, I know). Shame you aren't close enough to each other to go down the pub, share an evening of beers, and get to know each other in real life. You're both intelligent, sensitive, passionate people, and it would make my day if you can find a really good way of communicating with each other. I have enough faith in both of you to believe that some acceptable resolution is there to be found. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Pesky, I have very little time.
I have previously stated my concerns about this case, and about the possibly horrible decision forthcoming---which may be as catastrophic as the initial drafts of the Monty Hall Problem case.
Look up my previous citation of Paul Meehl's discussion of negative enforcement and learning, in an earlier talk page discussion.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it's more than likely that all three of us have very little time! However, if you two can see any way in which I might be able to help you both, please do ask; I would do my best.
I don't see that this issue between you would have to be resolved with any kind of deadline, so first both relax and say to yourselves "We can manage, this can wait a while; we can both relax and try not to make it any worse than it is." First have faith: there is, there will be, a way out of this locked-horns situation. All that is needed is to find it. It can be done. Meanwhile, take a breather, both of you. I'm sure that the intelligent will make sure they read everything properly; as regards the unintelligent, no amount of repetition on either side is ever going to make a difference. As they say: "For those who believe, no proof is required. For those who won't belive, no proof is sufficient." Let is rest, if you possibly can.
With regard to the ArbCom case, the only humane outcome I can visualise is a complete amnesty for all directly involved, a focussed re-write of policy to ensure that it is absolutely clear and without exception equally enforced (tricky, but possible, I'm sure), and then operate on a clean-slate basis. That, too, could be done. Any other decision is likely to cause harm; some possible outcomes being very much worse than others. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

TP's Comments

I'm not sure how this thread is progressing so I'll start my own little section. I understand you have very little time, Kiefer, but if the matter between you and Worm that turned can be settled, it might save you more time in the future. I'm willing to offer my help in solving this as an unbiased mediator if you'd like to discuss it over IRC. I'm only offering this if we do it in real-time communication though. Email and Wiki dispute solving is slow and impossible to manage as a mediator. Just throwing it out there.--v/r - TP 14:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi TParis,
As usual, your intervention combines good sense and good will.
I don't know of any outstanding issues between WTT and myself.
I stated concerns at the Civility Enforcement ArbCom case, receiving neither praise nor blame (apart from him), so I suspect that the community views my evidence as past-expiration-date chili---in my service or in WTT's 2011 content---of which they've had enough.
WTT has acknowledged understanding my (stated) motivation in discussing our history at the Civility Enforcement ArbCom case, which seems fair on his part.
For my part, I leave further discussion of WTT to the Olympians at ArbCom (although I reserve the right to comment on any related motions in the next phase).
I do not foresee Saint Peter or Lucifer raising this issue in the hereafter, either.
Sincerely and with respectful regards you have earned from the community and the personal best wishes you have earned from me,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Must I Paint You A Picture?
From my experience, both literally and metaphorically, if there's a cold abscess lurking evilly under a scab, it's often best to remove the scab and clear out all the old rubbish to let it heal cleanly. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, the first thing that a couple's therapist (or leader of a weekend retreat for relationship growth) must do is to confirm that both partners are serious about growth, because otherwise such activities increase the probability of ending the relationship, often with acrimony.
How many men do you know that enjoy discussing their feelings in public? Particularly British men? (Consider the probability that Worm That Turned is actually Prince Charles?)
Speaking of British men, I leave the final word to a man who helped save the youth of America, one of the many good deeds that earned a tribute by Bill Bailey: "The temptation to take the precious things we have apart to see how they work must be resisted for they never fit together again"...
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
"All your friends said "Come down, it will never fly" ;) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference independent was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference timesonline was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive_26&oldid=1142543798"