This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Moot |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Kiefer, quick question for you, and this is not intended as badgering nor necessarily for you to change your opinion, I am just trying to understand your opinion a little bit better. A week or two ago, during BDD's RfA, there was some concern about his content creation. Someone asked someone on someone's talk page (and if I could remember who and where I would link it...I checked the most common talk pages I stalk and couldn't find it, perhaps someone could find it and post a link if they remember reading what I am about to talk about). So as you can imagine, I am roughly paraphrasing, but this editor, who classified himself as a content creator, was talking about what he finds the traits of a content creator. He said something to the effect of "once you have articles that you have poured your heart into sent to AfD by an American teenager without any legitimate reasoning, then you can call yourself a content creator". Would you agree to that statement? If so, isn't that roughly what happened here five years ago? Again, I am sorry if I misinterpreted a) what the person who said this was trying to say or b) I misinterpreted what you were saying, but that link reminded me of what whomever originally posted that was saying, and I was interested to see if you shared his view. Before I confuse myself to the point I have lost track of what I am trying to say, I am going to stop now . Thanks. Note: I was originally going to post this in the RfA itself, but decided your talk page might be a better venue for me to understand your view. Thanks! Go Phightins ! 19:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
My question is answered, so I am fine. Thanks again, Kiefer. Let's not let this turn into anything more than a question and an answer. Thanks. Go Phightins ! 20:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC) |
Pierogi Award | |
Thanks for your support of my RfA. It didn't succeed this time, but that's no reason not to have some nice
pierogi. Cheers, --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
14:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)|}
|
}
RfA |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
First and foremost, I wanted to let you know that I've seen many of your edits (all of them constructive) around Wikipedia, and I really appreciate them and admire your dedication. I hope that someday I can have your edit count (through the positive means that you've used) and the respect that you've garnered around here. With that said as well as an acknowledgement that I lack the experience that you do, I was very disappointed when I saw some of your comments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pjoef. While I agree with your vote, I noted that when users questioned you, you seemed to take offense and resorted to what I perceived as personal attacks. Now, obviously, nobody is going to come in here and yell Wikipedia policies at someone of your stature, but, as I admire many of the approaches you've taken in the past, I thought that this was in deep contrast to your norm and that your points could have been better made without resorting to condescension towards other experienced editors. Please feel free to delete this note after you read it, and please also know that I mean no offense. I just think you set a better example through reason and calmness. Cheers, and happy editing! -- Jackson Peebles ( talk) 04:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC) 10:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Guitar acquisition syndrome
|
---|
My choice for a new guitar, see this.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Here's the sound.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Bridge popped offI bought the Russian guitar already having steel strings. Today, the bridge popped off. I think that I'll reglue the bridge with superglue and then restring it with nylon, which should be easier for my daughter to strum. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC) |
Resolved apparently
|
---|
I noticed you mentioned some swedes on your user page. Do you happen to speak Swedish? Carl Emil Pettersson is an unfinished translation and it doesn't have inline citations. I can get the book Kung Kalle av Kurrekurreduttön – en resa i Efraim Långstrumps fotspår through an interlibrary loan and scan pages, but I can't read it to help fix the citations. I'm looking for a Swedish editor to help out. Ryan Vesey 5:49 am, 17 January 2013, Thursday (9 days ago) (UTC+1)
|
On
17 January 2013,
Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article
Alfie Fripp, which you recently nominated. The fact was
|
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 9:02 am, 17 January 2013, Thursday (9 days ago) (UTC+1)
| ||||
|
Moving on... | |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||||||||||||||||
Administrator Giant Snowman repeatedly applies "Nationalist Socialist" but warns me about "personal attacks"
Please do not use edit summaries attack other editors (better still, do not attack other editors anywhere) - calling somebody else a "piece of shit" is too far. Giant Snowman 20:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Fatuously and maliciously, to what does National Socialist refer?Honestly, to what did National Socialist refer?Administrator Giant Snowman, in his repeated smearings of Lihaas as a "National Socialist", asked to "what does National Socialism link", an irrelevant question. The relevant question is to what did Lihaas refer with his user box, even before he outed himself as a liberal interested in reducing Eurocentrism on Wikipedia. A pity that Giant Snowman spent more time smearing Lihaas, repeatedly, than investigating Lihaas's contemporaneous edits to the Wikipedia article on National Socialism. Of course, it is a violation of WP:NPA to make false allegations or to present edits out of context. Of course, administrators with backbone to discipline the Giant Snowmans and Frams are in short supply, if any exist. I suppose that ArbCom hypocrites signed off on the "Civility Enforcement"'s plaintive complaint about "uneven enforcement of civility" without intending to do anything about malicious administrators misusing their batons. The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I quote from the Civility Enforcement circus Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC):
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC) On administrator privileges
Administrator Fram on "National Socialist" from fellow administrator Giant SnowmanFram's blockPlease explain! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 08:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Considering your previous blocks for personal attacks and disruptive editing, and because you still can't drop a dead horse from two years ago (which lead to your first block then) but continue to bring it up at unrelated discussions, I have blocked you for one month. Personal attack, more personal attacks, and more. Fram ( talk) 08:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I suppose that 30 days should be a badge of honor in standing up to "National Socialist" abuse, which is so much easier for non-cowards than to stand up to the real thing. After all 5 > 3. Kiefer .Wolfowitz
Take home message
Outside views on Fram's behaviorDouble standards and WP:Involved
Fram's personal attacks: A selection
Fram's revisionist historyFram is just fabricating fantasy on his talk page.
It is a pity that administrators making false allegations and bad blocks face no consequences for their NPAs and harassment. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Moved from below
You will respect my autoritah!Earlier history. C.f. South Park's Eric Cartman's "You will respect my autoritah!" Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz now blocked for 24 hours for continued discussion of the "national-socialist" issue after ample warning. Fram ( talk) 10:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Kiefer.Wolfowitz, drop the whole "Lihaas was smeared" thing [7], or you'll get blocked for disruption. This has been discussed to death, no action is going to be taken, no one is going to do anything about it. Rehashing this over and over again is disruptive. Fram ( talk) 09:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
You have been blocked for 24 hours. What was so hard to understand about "drop it"? Fram ( talk) 10:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
blocking policy).
Kiefer.
Wolfowitz
10:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Request reason: This seems like a punitive block, given my acknowledgments: * I had just acknowledged that it was unproductive to discuss the "double standard" issue at ANI. * I had not responded to the latest mention of "national socialist" at ANI. * I had just written at ANI that discussion of the "national socialist" issue should be limited Wikipedia venues, e.g. RfCs, RfAs, ArbComm elections. This seems like a punitive block, given my acknowledgements that future discussions of "national socialist" were improper except perhaps at these venues (and only in rare circumstances, which I would imagine would only involve 2 editors). Decline reason: Right up to your last edits before being blocked you were persisting with your disruptive editing. Saying "I acknowledge that it might be a good idea to beat something other than this dead horse" while beating the dead horse is not putting the stick down and walking away from the dead horse. JamesBWatson ( talk) 13:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. I shall format the diffs outside the appeal box, because the diffs choke the compiler.
Changing this section's header from "Lihaas" to "Double standards: "Bitching and moaning" gets a block" [10], and starting the following section on "free speech", doesn't give me confidence that unblocking would be wise, but I'll let another admin decline or accept the unblock request as they see fit. Fram ( talk) 13:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I quote the disruption-section of the blocking policy:
How was I disrupting anything? I agree that I was drawing attention to the double standard at ANI, but this was not in any way disruptive. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 15:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lord Sjones23
Lord Sjones23 would do better to develop his reading before again violating talk-page guidelines or wasting Dennis's time further. Don't edit this page again. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC) "You will respect my autoritah" IIHis "I have an exceptionally low tolerance with regards to uncalled for disrespect or incivility obviously" is funnier than Fram's statements above. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The community of Wikiputzia
Quotation from DB's talk pageThe 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. Disable talk page access? Hi. I don't know if you are aware of the recent activity at User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz. There's a probable issue going on in his talk page especially with regards to his disruptive editing since he is blocked for 1 month by Fram and he has posted a copyvio link to a Youtube video on his talk page. Can you please do something about this? I would rather not get myself blocked over trivial matters and I have an exceptionally low tolerance with regards to uncalled for disrespect or incivility obviously. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 21:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unblock?
This unblock request is in danger of being lost given the chaos of the formatting on this page. To increase visibility, I've commented on the bottom of the page. Could everyone please try to keep that discussion focused. Thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Teething babyAll else aside: I had one of those around the house about 9 years ago, and it wasn't much fun, except that she was mine, so it's all fun, and special. I want to tell you not to worry, because it's all downhill from there, but you're a very bright guy, and you have a fully functional bullshit detector (and maybe previous babies), so I won't. Now I'm less concerned about her crying and keeping me awake (that still happens, but it's bimonthly rather than daily now), and more concerned about other things like education, and impending teendom and such. I'm lucky - she's an exceptional kid, and bright, so problems are minimal. It's all priceless though, so enjoy every frustrating, sleepless minute while you can. I'm at a loss as to how you're still blocked - seems bizarre to me, but then I remember where I am. Good to see you're still active, even while blocked, and hope to see your signature around more widely again soon. ttfn. Begoon talk 14:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Block reviewI see that there is a pending unblock request on this page, which is in danger of being completely lost given the formatting of the page. The gist of the blocking rationale is personal attacks on other editors and one can understand why some of your edits might be understood in that fashion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz, I don't ask you to make any insincere confessions of wrongdoing or promises you can't or won't keep, but I do ask if you might be able to sand down some of your sharper edges if this block were to be lifted or reduced. Thank you for your response. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
That being said, I have no intention of breaking policy, and I shall strive to respond to personal attacks, falsehoods, This block has long become punitive in its duration, which again was explained to be based on two falsehoods; it would be late in the game (but unsurprising, alas) for Fram to state new reasons for the 30-day length of the block. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Unblock
You can remove anything from your talk page that you want, I promose. Please be kind enough to want, if only because I'm asking. I assumed we are moving past yesterday, and moving on to tomorrow.
Dennis Brown -
2¢ -
© -
@ -
Join WER
22:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
You should review rhetoric: The beginning of a sentence is not the climax of a sentence (c.f., Wayne Booth, or Kenneth Pike and Alton L. "Pete" Becker, for example). I began with humor and ended soberly. Either Kurtis or My76Strat is welcome to link to my response, or copy it---whatever is simpler. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC) |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Fram, please revert this . The "trivial" theorem uses the axiom of choice. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Doin' the CharlestonMalleus, Morgan Freeman paid for a desegregated prom. I recommend the documentary Prom Night in Mississippi [13]. Mike Wallace had an interesting profile and interview with Freeman on 60 Minutes. Swedish television loves to show documentaries about the Klu Klux Klan in the USA, where they profile e.g. an old man whose daughter had been raped by a Black man and who is filled with hate, and who is pitied by the other residents, including the Sheriff. A subvariety of " Orientalism", perhaps. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 08:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC) |
Thanks again, INeverCry! :) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Would somebody please upgrade the diagrams in Guitar chord from pdf to cropped svg? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 08:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Somewhat streamlined, the translation is now a featured article on the Russian WP. Well done! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to INeverCry and Nikkimaria |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please delete the trivial proposition that Elizabeth Kucinich has a tongue stud, which does not belong in an encyclopedia. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The lede has a statement of "extraordinary bravery" of Belgian soldiers, but omits a discussion of far greater French and British casualties (90 and 68 thousand) in defending Belgium or of Churchill's condemnation of the capitulation, so there's a definite problem of WP:Lede (inadequate and POV summary of article). There's no criticism of pro-Nazi and anti-liberal reaction and cowardice, such as contained in Yves Simon's criticism of French decadence. The article is overly militaristic and has little on Belgian society Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Rare books arrived sooner than expected, necessitating quick updating of articles.
Moot
| |||
---|---|---|---|
Patt studied under George Russell, [1] [2] whose (1959) The Lydian chromatic concept of tonal organization for improvisation he edited. [2] [3] [4] [note 1]
|
Please read this: http://www.thedp.com/article/2012/11/cornel-west-lectures-on-socrates-democracy-and-social-responsibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsoMorpheus ( talk • contribs) 04:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Not a forum. (Banned users contribute here, too, sometimes with the acquiescence of ArbCom members.)). BIG STATEMENT. WP:REDFLAG. Got evidence of this? Russavia ( talk) 17:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The Drmies chronicles...but I was on the other line, a couple of 'em. You're unblocked now, I saw a few days ago; good. I'm sorry you were blocked in the first place. Much discussion has passed me by in the last few weeks since it's been a busy time. In other news, baby Liam can stand for ten Mississippis, and he enjoyed being in the sea this past weekend. All the best Kiefer. Drmies ( talk) 14:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
In place of a taser or chains
Art for Art's sake
Future RfAs
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Gotta ask, how does Asimov feature on Wikipediocracy? Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Wikipediocracy
| ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wikipediocracy
Corrections needed"Organization" is imprecise, and fits better a cub-scout den or a Wikipedia administrator-wannabe/"adoption" school. "Corporation" is more precise, and should be reinstated. (This issue has been discussed already, in edit summaries.) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Wikipediocracy DYKRegarding these points: I wasn't actually suggesting that those things be put in the article as is, because I know I don't have a source for them. Those are just my impressions about Wikipediocracy based on what I've heard around here, and I assumed there would be sources for them and that, if there were sources, it would be good information to have in the article. If there aren't sources for that then of course there's nothing to be done. I don't know much about Wikipediocracy; I've just heard people say things about it here, and those are the impressions I've been given. As for focusing the DYK on a specific controversy, that's actually what I was suggesting avoiding. Like I said about the Russian Wikipedia bong controversy, I think a hook like that draws more attention to the links regarding the controversy than to the link to the Wikipediocracy article. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 12:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
From the talk page of Volunteer Marek
(Copied from talk page of Volunteer Marek. I just contributed a bit of copy-editing and expansion.... Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC) ) |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jazz guitar may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Please read this: http://www.thedp.com/article/2012/11/cornel-west-lectures-on-socrates-democracy-and-social-responsibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsoMorpheus ( talk • contribs) 04:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Student newspaperWhat's the reliable source that says the U-Penn student newspaper is an unreliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsoMorpheus ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Would somebody please revert the redlinking of dab pages with explanations, which at least informs the reader? (This is a unconscious EW-violation of the BRD cycle, by somebody using semi-automatic tools). It might be better to link it to George McGovern's politics. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hey, I thought I'd drop by and say I'm sorry I was a jerk to you before, you are an asset to wikipedia, good luck, IRWolfie- ( talk) 01:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
|
A reasonable start...
|
---|
AN discussionSuggested interaction banI have started a discussion about you and some others at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive249#Interaction ban proposed. Fram ( talk) 13:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
|
Discussion at AN | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||||
Interaction ban proposed
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
These were "good closing comments" in the sense that they were very diplomatic, in that they made the rights nods in the right directions, that they were worded in a way which made sure that no one can accuse the closer of wrong intentions or bias, in that they were a well designed to end drama and in that they made an appearance of "resolving" the situation. But it was still a bad close.
But you strip away all the rhetoric and fancy language and what it boils down to is this:
What that means is that Horologium's indefinite block stands, until such time either Horologium or another uninvolved admin (after consulting with Horologium per our blocking policy) are convinced that the behavior (i.e. accusing another of misconduct without evidence and in such a way that reasonable people may infer an accusation of sexual misconduct) will not be repeated
You can put all kinds of nice words on it but what it amounts to is 1) Kiefer is indef/infinitely blocked and 2) you authorize the interpretation of his comments as suggesting sexual misconduct (please, look up the difference between the words "imply" and "infer" in a dictionary!) which was not supported by many of the commentators and by not unblocking him and, more importantly, making it very difficult for ANY admin to unblock him you imposed consensus where there was none.
Was it a good close? No, despite all the ass kissing above. Was it well played? Yes, yes it was. Volunteer Marek 01:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I have blocked you indefinitely for [26]. That edit (and the edit summary) is far out of the bounds of acceptability. I will be posting on the noticeboard thread in a minute about this block. Horologium (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I've now protected the page for one day. This is to try and stop this spiralling and rather pointless argument. People really need to read Wikipedia:No angry mastodons and understand none of this is helping build an encyclopaedia.-- Salix ( talk): 23:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
|
AN is putting on quite a show. We've had calls for blocking me indefinitely unless I apologize for the edit. Above, I already asked for somebody to strike the phrase that evoked hysteria.
Ironholds should correct his falsehoods, e.g., his fabrication of "young boys", which I never wrote. Similarly, The Rambling Man should remove his misrepresentations of what I wrote, in which TRM alleged man-boy grooming, and try to behave according to WP:NPA and WP:Civility.
As I understand it, I am indefinitely blocked because an administrator misunderstood what I wrote, and tried to guess at my intentions.
Soon thereafter, AN has been hit with persons trying to ban me from RfAs, using this block, clearing abusing process. If they want to ban questions about grammar or about writing on encyclopedic topics from RfAs, then they should ask the community through an RfC. Good luck with that!
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Side topic
|
---|
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Did you ever look at my RfC/U. Worm That Turn and Demiurge1000 quoted you in their beginning. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
|
At AN yesterday, WTT cited this diff as evidence that I was using "grooming" with connotations of sexual predation. In fact, the diff and his citation yesterday demonstrate a limited vocabulary. WTT should have reviewed "groom" and "preen" and understood their consonance, before and yesterday. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
A crucial turning point in that earlier history occurred when men and women of good will turned aside from the task of shoring up the Roman imperium and ceased to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of that imperium. When they set themselves to achieve instead—often not recognizing fully what they were doing—was the construction of new forms of community within which the moral life could be sustained so that both morality and civility might survive the coming ages of barbarism and darkness. If my account of our moral condition is correct, we ought also to conclude that for some time now we too have reached that turning point. What matters at this stage is the construction of local forms of community within which civility and the intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new dark ages which are already upon us. And if the tradition of the virtues was able to survive the horrors of the last dark ages, we are not entirely without grounds for hope. This time however the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time.
"I'd like it here if I could leave" Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I've gotten the impression you'd rather do the right thing rather than suck up to "powers that be." Sort of a the coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave man dies but once. While I can't be certain -- there's a temporal element to AN & ANI where the "pitchforks" tend to show up first, and then the more reasonable folks later -- if not this time, then the next time, or the time after that it's likely you'll get banned. You should be savvy enough to know what kind of phrasing is going to get you in hot water, and which won't. I'll be the first to admit WP is a messed up, political place but despite that it's produced the best encyclopedia ever -- it'd be a shame if your contributions to it were lost, but I don't think my minority sentiments and that of a few others can continue to turn the tide of the reactionary types who are just gonna react to anything provocative you post. If you were more of a newbie I'd suggest phrasing for an unblock request but I don't think you need that -- bottom line is I think you have a choice to make very soon now if you want to continue to participate on-wiki or be content limiting your efforts to 'cracy and the like. NE Ent 13:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Drive by shooting off the mouth |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
KW, I've read what you've written above and I have a suggestion. If I understand you correctly, young men and boys are impressionable and easily led and that the misleading of this youthful set was what you were referring to. I'm willing to AGF and accept that statement and doubtless there are others who would do the same. But, clearly, the statement has been misinterpreted, and not without reason. Would it kill you to make a clear statement that both explains what you meant and also apologizes for the poor choice of words that have lead to giving people offense? I know we Americans can appear to be way too eager to be politically correct but one reason why we thrive in social settings is that we realize that giving unintended offense is not just well worth an apology but is also a good way to keep moving forward. And that's not going to happen if you think there is nothing to apologize for or that the people taking offense are merely out for your blood. Right or wrong, there is a way to survive on Wikipedia and a way to self-destruct, the choice (as NE Ent above also says) is yours. -- regentspark ( comment) 14:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Strange comments. How should an improperly blocked editor "move on"?
|
---|
K-Wolf, there comes a time when one needs to accept that one has made their case and move along. I personally think your concerns are overblown, which is not to say that scrutiny is altogether unnecessary. But that's not going to be your department moving forward, nor is Wikipedia the place. You've made your case. Move along. Radar screens are now being watched, trust in that. Any such radar watching is not gonna be your department, however, because if you try to make it your department you're going to get banned off for good. Let it go. You very nearly immolated yourself at AN by implying way too much backed by way not enough. I don't want to piss you off, but it felt sort of like the anonymous phone calls an early campaign of Richard Nixon is said to have made against his stamp-collecting opponent asking voters, "Did you know that Richard Nixon's opponent is a known philatelist?!?!" If not an actual accusation, it was an unseemly implication and a smear. A major, major mistake. At some point we shall see the dialectical transformation of quantity to quality and the sum of previous small dramas becomes sufficient for the executioner's axe. Read again the long list of hearty endorsements for an indefinite block at AN and tell me I'm wrong. I tell you this as a friend, as does Eric — you've GOT to disengage here and trust in others. Accept this reality, get unblocked, write a completely new article and take a true vacation from the drama circus. I appreciate your commitment to your beliefs. Trust others. Best regards, as always. —Tim /// ShoeHutch@gmail.com /// Carrite ( talk) 16:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer: I haven't looked for this at Wikipediocracy, so I know I'm missing some of the spelling out. But let me make a confession. I didn't understand what the heck you were on about with that statement at AN. Its opacity was ... too much for this admittedly tired and literalist PhD holder in the humanities. (I also find Henry James impenetrable.) Whatever the demographics of en.wikipedia - and I happen to believe the WMF know less about that than they collectively know about nuclear physics or Wolfram's Parzival - there are a lot of EFL editors around the place, as well as whatever my demographic may be .... and also a lot of Americans, who are known to be hair-trigger on certain subjects, both because American English is more formulaic and having fun with style and vocabulary far less common, and simply because it's a Whole Other Country. We are after all divided by a common language. Your expat status in a country where English is not the first language may have caused you to forget how easily things can be misunderstood even between dialects of written English. And you and Eric do tend to forget that intellectual conversation sometimes goes over people's heads - I have sat around faculty meetings but I still don't always get what you're on about, and this was, I'm afraid, an example of that. I wonder whether you've overestimated the ability of those at AN to figure out your meaning? Yngvadottir ( talk) 20:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
|
KW...in my mind there is an easy way to move forward...simply state you're going to avoid the dramaboards and places like Rfa for at least six months and concentrate solely on article improvements and stick with that. One thing I have noticed here is those that simply state their opinions with calmness and coolness and avoid threaded arguments end up having the louder voices and more say as a result. The back and forth and stonewalling rarely succeeds in doing anything but getting blood pressures up. I hope you'll not just remove this or hat it off because even though we haven't always agreed, you should know that I value your general edits in article space and would like to see you return to that fold. What gets accomplished at the dramaboards anyway? I'm a strong supporter of freedom of speech but also freedom from speeches...and thats my speech to try and bluntly offer what I think is the best way forward.-- MONGO 16:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer, Mongo has given you excellent advice above. The way you're going about it now, right or wrong, no one is going to unblock you (unless Horologium chooses to do so). Even admins who are favorably inclined toward you need a reason to unblock and you're not giving us any. Looking at the current trajectory of this affair, the prognosis, I'm sorry to be brutal about this, is extremely negative and you're likely to end up amongst the heap of departed and forgotten editors. You might want to think about that. Read Mongo's suggestion at the top of this section carefully and take a day off to think about it before posting anything. -- regentspark ( comment) 15:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Improper discussion of RfA during improper block | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Let me see if I can help with the current situation in some fashion. I'll put to the side for the moment the specific comment for which you were blocked and take your suggestion of looking at the broader situation that led up to your making the comment. I've just read again through Mattythewhite's RfA page and its talkpage. You of course had the right to oppose his candidacy, whether or not other voters agreed with your rationale. However, several of your comments explaining your opposition were, in my considered opinion, appalling. In the context of a comparison of numbers of pageviews of the candidate's articles and your articles, your observation that "more persons still suffer from HIV" was gratuitous and objectionable. Telling another editor that "your broken-record false witnessing jeopardizes your soul" damages the collaborative environment. While it was clearly suboptimal for someone to refer to your "having gotten your knickers in a twist," characterizing this cliche as "your fantasies about my underwear" did not help matters in the least. Telling an editor younger than yourself to "run along and play nice somewhere else" was obnoxious, as was the suggestion that younger members of a wikiproject should be "flipping burgers" instead of editing. (I do, however, agree with your explanation of the "Andy Capp" comment. It was a bit obnoxiously dismissive of editors who work on sports articles, but it was not a personal attack on anyone. On the other hand, I also have to agree that your rewrite of his prose plainly overlooked some conventions of British English and British football parlance.) I do not consider myself any form of "civility cop" (in my six years as an administrator, I have never blocked anyone for "personal attacks" and I have supported such blocks only in extreme circumstances). However, the RfA pages, of which Mattythewhite's is the most recent example, are a forum in which you have made many of your most intemperate comments that have led to bickering, drama, and blocks. As I expect you will sooner or later be unblocked, would you be willing to agree either to stay off the RfA pages for awhile, or at least to some reasonable limit on your comments on these pages? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
(with apologies to Kiefer) Brad, I had the opposite impression from reading that RfA. Kiefer gave a simple, one sentence, neutrally stated oppose !vote. The immediate reaction to that was the comment "pure snobbery" following which the discussion deteriorated to quite an extent. The question one should be asking is whether Kiefer was responsible for the mess or whether the comment in response to his !vote was responsible for the mess. In recent RfAs, and I'm sorry to say this, the comments made by people who don't like certain oppose !votes has been the principal problem. Reasoned reactions and comments are fine, but the pure snobbery comment looks like it was made with the intention to rile. If it was, it succeeded. -- regentspark ( comment) 15:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
(Responding to RegentsPark above) My issue here is not with Kiefer's original oppose !vote and its rationale. I happen to disagree fairly strongly with the rationale that an administrator candidate is less qualified because he or she edits mostly sports-related articles rather than music articles or mathemtatics articles or legal-history articles—but my personal opinion counts no more nor less than Kiefer's does; he gets one !vote and so do I. So far there was no user-conduct issue involved. And, I would not have personally have characterized the oppose rationale as "snobbery." But, I understand what was meant by the description: Kiefer was presumably saying that some Wikipedia articles are more valuable than others, and hence by extension that contributors to those articles are less valuable to the project than others. That can credibly be cast as a snobbish argument, for at least some connotations of "snobbish." So I don't see that response to Kiefer's oppose as a user-conduct issue, and it certainly didn't justify everything that came afterwards. From that point, things spiralled downwards fairly rapidly, with more than one person modeling poor behavior. I've cited above the comments that Kiefer.Wolfowitz made which I would prefer not to have seen. And I don't think that the references to HIV, or going out and playing, or damaged souls, or undergarment-related fantasies, were reasonably proportionate to any provocation that occurred. That being said, I welcome Kiefer's comment above that he's prepared to address the tenor of his RfA participation in due course. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Brad is well known as a (automatic?) supporter of child administrators. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
|
Links have accumulated at Wikipediocracy.
I still don't see an indefinite block for the on-Wiki advice on avoiding parental monitoring of IM/email. WP:CHILD forbids editors asking minors for personal information, such as IMs and email addresses. Advising a child how to avoid parental controls on computer use requires an immediate indefinite back with email access removed and talk page access removed.
Kiefer
.Wolfowitz
10:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Evidence or retraction requested; KW's statement above contains the text "Demiurge1000 has been manipulating inexperienced persons found among WP's editors".
I'd been led to believe that making accusations about other editors without providing evidence, is unacceptable.
So, where's the evidence?
(And I don't just mean "you posted a notification on another editor's talk page and that editor happened to be under the age of 25", or "you gave a barnstar to someone after an argument". I mean actual evidence to categorically support what's being alleged.) -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
You all have been asking for it. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Forget about emailing me. My stupid parents just went through and deleted most of my contacts. Instead, I'll be at Playcrafter sometimes. See you. Loudclaw ( talk) 21:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Well.....Look on the talk page of WP:Warriors. Loudclaw ( talk) 23:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC) (I left a little treat)
Well I did find a new member. That member can be found here, at User talk:Silverspirit. Loudclaw ( talk) 01:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, uh.... I can improve Metroid Prime 3: Corruption because I now own the video game. I'll also use GameFAQs. Loudclaw ( talk) 20:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Demiurge, I'm not allowed to IM anyone or I'll get into trouble. Sorry, Loudclaw ( talk) 05:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
No access to email. Can't think of another way to tell you this, my IM might be screwed too. Loudclaw/ Hey, let's collaborate!/ Desk/ WP:Warriors 21:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep. It's screwed. Loudclaw/ Hey, let's collaborate!/ Desk/ WP:Warriors 21:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
...
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.
If you are a younger editor and feel that another person on Wikipedia is behaving in a way that you feel threatens your personal safety, or worries you in any way whatsoever, please tell a responsible adult, and ask them to look at this page. Do not continue to communicate with the other person – ignore them completely. Never give out personal information to anyone, including people who say they are trying to help you.
Any administrator may block an editor for the conduct described in this policy. When an editor is blocked for such conduct, the blocking administrator is instructed to use neutral block summaries, and disable the editor's ability to edit their talk page as well as their access to the on-site user email interface. Blocking administrators should inform the blocked editor that any appeals or further discussion may be addressed only to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org, and then notify the Committee immediately.
NYB's double standards about civility at RfA and his coddling of The Rambling Man after his last badgering episode have born fruit, e.g., the latest badgering at the current RfA.
It's time to bar The Rambling Man from threaded discussions at RfA. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
"Rationalization" would be more apt.
notice the past tense "has had" rather than "has", and notice the "advocates of" rather than "practitioners of".
such as administrators who have blocked me recently?
Horologium et alia are the ones misinterpreting my remarks as an "allusion to pedophilia", a word that I have never used on Wiki. Others have explained my intention and English. (Of course, discussions of violations of WP:CHILD should be made to the WMF Foundation....) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 08:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Horologium's block for one comment violated the blocking policy, as discussed by IRWolfie at AN. The discussion here and at AN clarifies why large segments of the community question the misinterpretation by Horologium of my edit, which has been asked to be struck by me and which has been clarified by me many times. Thus, the block was improper.
In his most recent posting (above), Horologium clarified his political agenda. If he wants to change the rules of RfA, he should use a community RfC, not his administrative tools. He should discuss matters (possibly filing an RfC/U if he wishes) and not use his block tools, if he wishes to discuss other issues. It is at best confusing and raising the appearance of impropriety for Horologium especially (and for other administrators, from the civil NYB to the mob at AN) to mix other concerns with a discussion of this block.
Also, given the concerns about IRC canvassing noted at AN by
User:Nick and the blocking administrator's few edits, the blocking administrator should declare how he learned of my edit and whether he was on IRC when he blocked me.
Argument in the alternative/
Alternative pleading: Even if some block can pass the laugh test for some reasonable person, the indefinite length of the block has been harshly criticized at AN also. At very least, the block should be reduced to a definite time, perhaps time served.
Decline reason:
The discussion at AN showed no consensus at AN to lift the block or reduce its length. Assertions that the block is unfair will be inadequate to overturn this consensus. Assertions that the blocking admin had a political agenda will not be adequate to overturn this consensus. Whether the blocking admin first learned of your post at IRC or happened upon it by chance is irrelevant to the unblock. What has to happen for you to be unblocked is that an uninvolved admin, in consultation with the blocking admin, has to be convinced that the behaviour in question will not be repeated. The behaviour in question was "accusing another of misconduct without evidence and in such a way that reasonable people may infer an accusation of sexual misconduct". The unblock request herein and your other posts on this page have not been adequate to demonstrate that the behaviour will not be repeated. Convenience link to discussion at AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive249#Interaction ban proposed. Dianna ( talk) 13:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
See above. Dianna has years of WP friendship with Demiurge1000 and has just given an "attack kitten" to the new account of the Gwickwire, and she failed to identify her conflict of interest. An independent administrator should review the petition, without being prejudiced by the partisan administrator's improper review.
Decline reason:
I reach essentially the same conclusion as is expressed here: namely, that the Bureaucrat closing the discussion wrote that Administrators should only change the length of your block if they become convinced that the sorts of actions which led to the block will not recur. To my mind, the contents of your User Talk Page do not demonstrate this. It Is Me Here t / c 14:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I was blocked for one sentence, whose objectionable intention I disavowed and asked that it be struck. What on this page makes you think that I would repeat that sentence (or a similar sentence)? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Please read my statement again, carefully. I did not block you because of your contributions at RFA. I disagree with them, but that is beside the point entirely. I blocked you because of your allusions to pedophilia in your post on AN. The only connection RFA has with this block is that the AN discussion resulted from the dispute there. While there was a fair amount of suboptimal contributions from several editors at that RFA, nothing said there was block-worthy. It was the attack on AN, and the specific verbiage employed, that earned the block. As I (and others) have said, you chose wording that was deliberately inflammatory, rather than neutral wording which would have conveyed the same idea, and even your revision of the first sentence wouldn't fix the problem with the rest of the post. Horologium (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The indefinite nature of the block has been criticized by some, yes, but while the blocking admin intended that it be indefinite only until the community decided on a proper length of time, there is also significant support for it to remain indefinite. That aspect may be somewhat unfair to you unless one were to successfully propose a proper community ban, but it certainly exposes a rather high level of disatisfaction with both the attack that preciptated the block and your followup responses, which can best be described as unrepentant, coupled with your history of being rather abrasive. It lends itself to questions: If the block were lifted, what is the likelihood of you making similar comments that cast such aspersions (whether intended or thoughtlessly, it doesn't matter) in the future? How do you plan to address the concerns of those who do believe that indefinite is the proper time frame for this block? Reso lute 16:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This wall of text is giving me a headache and making my eyes go fuzzy, so just one question: is there clear and incontrovertible evidence that Demiurge1000 asked a minor for their personal details? Eric Corbett 23:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Quotation from talk page of Horologium
|
---|
Notice the diffless wall of accusations from Horologium, the blocking administrator. The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Perhaps you should unblock him. He has explained that there was no sexual intention behind his statement and indicated his willingness to strike it out. AGF perhaps? The way this discussion has gone, you're about the only one who can unblock him drama free so that might just be the fair thing to do. -- regentspark ( comment) 03:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Let me address the points raised, most of them irrelevant to the question at hand, his block.
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Horologium, the administrator who blocked me for allegedly making an allegation without evidence, makes many allegations without evidence, violating WP:NPA. (Dropping the passive aggression would help, also.) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer, just for information: you've mentioned WP:CHILD a few times on this page and claim to have quoted it, but you're linking to the wrong page. The page you've been quoting is WP:CHILDPROTECT, a different page. Another paragraph of it states (its bolding, italics and linking, not mine):
Reports of editors engaging in such conduct should be made to the Arbitration Committee for further action, and should not be the subject of community discussion, requests for comment or consensus. If you are concerned about the behavior of another editor, please contact Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org, but please read the Communications and privacy section of the Arbitration Committee page before doing so.
-- Stfg ( talk) 11:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer, you are hereby unblocked. You are well aware that not all members of the community will agree with this decision, and it can only be hoped that the following editing restrictions, based on discussions held on-wiki prompted by email contact which I sought with you, will ease their mind somewhat.
But let me add something based on my own observations, of this case and of many others (too many to mention; somehow they always end up on Jimbo's talk page). Bringing up the past, and drawing inferences from editing behaviors of others about their motivations, is rarely a good thing. I know (believe me, I know) it is exceedingly difficult to treat other editors fairly after they have been unfair to you. This ("fairness") is a matter of perception, everyone can admit to that, and I'm speaking in the general, not about this case, this block, this blocking administrator, etc. One must not say, "admin x is abusive" and say that to mean "always abusive", in the same way that one must not say, "editor y is a disruptive asshole" as if that is all they are (there aren't that many trolls here, I trust). This is not to say that every hurt and every wrong must be forgotten completely; it is, however, to say that one should be sparing with digging up the past. I wish I could say this to a lot of people, including myself. Such generalizing leads to dramah, and dramah leads to blocks, to anger, to misunderstanding.
Human nature is a difficult thing. If you run into trouble, let someone know--an admin you really trust, for instance, if there is one. You may find that they are sceptic; if so, there may not be much you can do but to find another one. But we're not all bad--bad as me, Tom Waits might say.
I've said all I can. Maybe one more thing. This may be controversial, but it wouldn't be the first controversial thing we have to live with here. I wish Newyorkbrad could translate this into proper Bradspeech, but lawyers are in the cocktail bar Friday nights. I wish you well. You are a fine editor, I think most people agree on that, and I trust that you will regain the community's trust, even if not every single member's. Drmies ( talk) 02:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Horologium made the following statements on his talk page:
Please rectify these violations of WP:NPA. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 07:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Drmies, the block was for an AN comment. You do not have the authority to impose a restriction on my participation on RfAs. Please start a community discussion at AN or an RfC is you wish to suggest such an imposition, but kindly remove it from the restriction log.
I remind you that no restriction on RfA participation was mentioned by 28bytes in his close of the AN discussion,
28bytes's closure of AN discussion, which ignored RfAs |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
"This thread has been running for more than three days, and I don't think it can be argued that the community hasn't had a chance to weigh in here. (As Bishonen notes below, the number of participants here is quite extraordinary.) Setting aside GiantSnowman for a moment, I personally think Fram's suggestion that Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Demiurge1000 disengage is an extremely wise one, and in fact I told KW as much almost exactly a year ago on my talk page. However, the proposed interaction ban seems to have been rendered moot by subsequent events, namely KW's unfortunately worded comment about inappropriate behavior towards younger editors. While KW has, to his credit, clarified that he meant nothing sexual about the comment, accusing other editors of inappropriate contact with younger editors – sexual or not – is not something do be done lightly, and certainly not something to be done on a public noticeboard without evidence in the middle of a heated discussion. If KW is genuinely concerned that there is inappropriate recruiting (whether political or otherwise) of younger editors, I suggest he instead contact either ArbCom or the WMF with evidence backing up his concerns and they will act accordingly. Now, regarding the block. Many people have weighed in, but I simply do not see a consensus (1) to unblock KW, (2) to adjust the block to a specific period of time, or (3) to keep KW blocked forever (i.e. a defacto ban). What that means is that Horologium's indefinite block stands, until such time either Horologium or another uninvolved admin (after consulting with Horologium per our blocking policy) are convinced that the behavior (i.e. accusing another of misconduct without evidence and in such a way that reasonable people may infer an accusation of sexual misconduct) will not be repeated. That may happen tomorrow, it may happen two months from now, or it may not happen at all. I hope it happens quickly and KW is able to return to productive editing, but if it does, I strongly recommend he stay away from, and avoid commenting on the activities of, Demiurge1000. I offer the same recommendation to Demiurge1000 regarding comments about KW. I suspect both will enjoy contributing to the encyclopedia much more if they do so." |
It is particularly improper to log your restriction as a "community restriction" since 28byte's (multiply endorsed) close ignored RfAs.
You and other administrators should have a word with The Rambling Man and New York Brad,
I would suggest working on administrators' and bureaucrats' failures to enforce civility, particularly the failures to enforce civility evenly, at RfA. A joint restriction on TRM and myself would also be premature, but would not seem one-sided.
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 07:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
And now I'm going to go do something else. Getting consensus to unblock you took considerable time and effort, and to get nothing but a "fuck you very much" and "you abused your authoritay" out of it makes me want to never do this again. Again, I thought what I was proposing was in accordance with your own wishes, and I think it was proportionate since you got blocked indefinitely. There is no need to email me anymore: you win, admin loses. Good luck. Drmies ( talk) 14:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I hope that you will concentrate on writing or improving some articles. If you are interested in level-headed work instead of drama, I am thinking of submitting George Meany for Good Article review. As you were the editor most interested, other than I, in this essential mid 20th century U.S. labor history topic, I hope that you will take a look at the talk page. I bid you peace. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
ArbCom and AN discussions have the authority to set community restrictions. Administrators cannot set community restrictions. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment on getting bannedI saw you comment about getting banned at ANI and just wanted to let you know your not alone in that sentiment. I am in the same situation and frankly I think its only a matter of time before my outspoken criticism of admin abuses, the us and them mentality, problems with Arbcom, and various other contentions with how things go on here will get me banned. It don't think its a matter of if but when. Until that happens though I am going to continue to edit and contribute and speak out vocally about the problems in the hopes that eventually they will be fixed. I don't honestly hold out much hope because the admins hold all the power and generally will do whatever they have to do to keep it. Good luck though. Kumioko ( talk) 18:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Legitimation CrisisBeavis, this article ( Legitimation Crisis (book)) sucks. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Help?Hi KW, I notice that you edited here for 2.5 years, approximately, without any blocks, then in November 2011 you started getting a lot of action on your block log. Are you upset about something in particular? Would it be possible for us to resolve the underlying injustice that's leading you to be outspoken (perhaps so much so that you're getting blocked)? Please give me the nutshell synopsis if you'd like any help. Jehochman Talk 00:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I closed the ANI threadI wanted to let you know I closed the ANI thread. It just isn't going to get the support to pass. I also didn't want you to get blocked again, some of the folks are clearly looking for a reason. Believe me I know all too well how hard it is to let things go but some of your comments aren't helping your cause. I just wanted to let you know I didn't do it to squelch your voice. I did it more for your benefit than anything before it devolves. I half expect someone to revert it just because I did it but I wanted to let you know my reasoning anyway. Good luck and I think if you try again in a few months you'll have amuch better chance of removing the ban. Kumioko ( talk) 17:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I have a suggestion. Step away from your browser window, put Larks Tongues in Aspic on side two, track three and crank it up to full volume. You'll annoy the neighbours, but you'll feel a hell of a lot better. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I rather like the guitar tuning articlesThat is when I met you and started to watch your talk page. You seemed level headed then and seem it now. I wonder if you would appreciate a thought from me since I refuse to get involved in wikipolitics and refuse to be an admin Wikipedia is better when editors create articles. All else is fluff and flummery. That was the thought. I neither support your block nor oppose it. I honestly don't mind either way. What I like and support is your ability to create decent articles. It woudl be a shame if you ended up unable to do that. Fiddle Faddle 22:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
User nameNot just the abbreviation, but the whole user name: "An aphrodisiac". :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Good catch on the name Kiefer, one that does open up a host of interesting questions. But, better to leave it to time to figure out the answers methinks. Still, just thought I'd pop a note here because it reinforces my conviction that we need people like you on RfAs. -- regentspark ( comment) 14:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
|
Back on the chain gang... |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This (link works as of this moment): http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=48680#p48680 Not acceptable. Given its much the same as what you got blocked for previously its apparent that you aren't going to stop doing it in the short term thus I've blocked you for one year. For what its worth I know its hard to believe but the denizens of wikipedia IRC are mostly 20+ adults. Geni ( talk) 09:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Just to let you know I have opened an WP:ANI thread on not only this block, but the wheel-warring around the block settings. As always, you can participate by posting the text you want, plus {{ helpme}} requesting the copy ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 12:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
{{ helpme}}Please remind Geni that WTT and another posted concerns about WP:CHILDPROTECT at Sue Gardner's WMF talk page, and obviously WMF has a toothless child-protection policy, which shall be commented on by the community on- and off-Wiki. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Just in case you weren't aware, you have been unblocked following strong consensus at ANI that the block was unsupported by policy. EdChem ( talk) 14:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank all of you for your suggestions and advice. Praise Bishonen, not usually thought of as the "Amen corner" for yours truly, for her efforts to uphold policy. :) I knew she had it in her, but it's a pleasure to thank her, BWilkins, etc.! Somedays, one can imagine growing tired of Wikipedia's internal politics. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 14:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
|
Dubbed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
You can have one if you want. ★ ★ Retro Lord ★★
|
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Moot |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Kiefer, quick question for you, and this is not intended as badgering nor necessarily for you to change your opinion, I am just trying to understand your opinion a little bit better. A week or two ago, during BDD's RfA, there was some concern about his content creation. Someone asked someone on someone's talk page (and if I could remember who and where I would link it...I checked the most common talk pages I stalk and couldn't find it, perhaps someone could find it and post a link if they remember reading what I am about to talk about). So as you can imagine, I am roughly paraphrasing, but this editor, who classified himself as a content creator, was talking about what he finds the traits of a content creator. He said something to the effect of "once you have articles that you have poured your heart into sent to AfD by an American teenager without any legitimate reasoning, then you can call yourself a content creator". Would you agree to that statement? If so, isn't that roughly what happened here five years ago? Again, I am sorry if I misinterpreted a) what the person who said this was trying to say or b) I misinterpreted what you were saying, but that link reminded me of what whomever originally posted that was saying, and I was interested to see if you shared his view. Before I confuse myself to the point I have lost track of what I am trying to say, I am going to stop now . Thanks. Note: I was originally going to post this in the RfA itself, but decided your talk page might be a better venue for me to understand your view. Thanks! Go Phightins ! 19:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
My question is answered, so I am fine. Thanks again, Kiefer. Let's not let this turn into anything more than a question and an answer. Thanks. Go Phightins ! 20:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC) |
Pierogi Award | |
Thanks for your support of my RfA. It didn't succeed this time, but that's no reason not to have some nice
pierogi. Cheers, --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
14:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)|}
|
}
RfA |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
First and foremost, I wanted to let you know that I've seen many of your edits (all of them constructive) around Wikipedia, and I really appreciate them and admire your dedication. I hope that someday I can have your edit count (through the positive means that you've used) and the respect that you've garnered around here. With that said as well as an acknowledgement that I lack the experience that you do, I was very disappointed when I saw some of your comments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pjoef. While I agree with your vote, I noted that when users questioned you, you seemed to take offense and resorted to what I perceived as personal attacks. Now, obviously, nobody is going to come in here and yell Wikipedia policies at someone of your stature, but, as I admire many of the approaches you've taken in the past, I thought that this was in deep contrast to your norm and that your points could have been better made without resorting to condescension towards other experienced editors. Please feel free to delete this note after you read it, and please also know that I mean no offense. I just think you set a better example through reason and calmness. Cheers, and happy editing! -- Jackson Peebles ( talk) 04:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC) 10:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Guitar acquisition syndrome
|
---|
My choice for a new guitar, see this.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Here's the sound.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Bridge popped offI bought the Russian guitar already having steel strings. Today, the bridge popped off. I think that I'll reglue the bridge with superglue and then restring it with nylon, which should be easier for my daughter to strum. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC) |
Resolved apparently
|
---|
I noticed you mentioned some swedes on your user page. Do you happen to speak Swedish? Carl Emil Pettersson is an unfinished translation and it doesn't have inline citations. I can get the book Kung Kalle av Kurrekurreduttön – en resa i Efraim Långstrumps fotspår through an interlibrary loan and scan pages, but I can't read it to help fix the citations. I'm looking for a Swedish editor to help out. Ryan Vesey 5:49 am, 17 January 2013, Thursday (9 days ago) (UTC+1)
|
On
17 January 2013,
Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article
Alfie Fripp, which you recently nominated. The fact was
|
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 9:02 am, 17 January 2013, Thursday (9 days ago) (UTC+1)
| ||||
|
Moving on... | |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||||||||||||||||
Administrator Giant Snowman repeatedly applies "Nationalist Socialist" but warns me about "personal attacks"
Please do not use edit summaries attack other editors (better still, do not attack other editors anywhere) - calling somebody else a "piece of shit" is too far. Giant Snowman 20:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Fatuously and maliciously, to what does National Socialist refer?Honestly, to what did National Socialist refer?Administrator Giant Snowman, in his repeated smearings of Lihaas as a "National Socialist", asked to "what does National Socialism link", an irrelevant question. The relevant question is to what did Lihaas refer with his user box, even before he outed himself as a liberal interested in reducing Eurocentrism on Wikipedia. A pity that Giant Snowman spent more time smearing Lihaas, repeatedly, than investigating Lihaas's contemporaneous edits to the Wikipedia article on National Socialism. Of course, it is a violation of WP:NPA to make false allegations or to present edits out of context. Of course, administrators with backbone to discipline the Giant Snowmans and Frams are in short supply, if any exist. I suppose that ArbCom hypocrites signed off on the "Civility Enforcement"'s plaintive complaint about "uneven enforcement of civility" without intending to do anything about malicious administrators misusing their batons. The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I quote from the Civility Enforcement circus Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC):
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC) On administrator privileges
Administrator Fram on "National Socialist" from fellow administrator Giant SnowmanFram's blockPlease explain! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 08:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Considering your previous blocks for personal attacks and disruptive editing, and because you still can't drop a dead horse from two years ago (which lead to your first block then) but continue to bring it up at unrelated discussions, I have blocked you for one month. Personal attack, more personal attacks, and more. Fram ( talk) 08:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I suppose that 30 days should be a badge of honor in standing up to "National Socialist" abuse, which is so much easier for non-cowards than to stand up to the real thing. After all 5 > 3. Kiefer .Wolfowitz
Take home message
Outside views on Fram's behaviorDouble standards and WP:Involved
Fram's personal attacks: A selection
Fram's revisionist historyFram is just fabricating fantasy on his talk page.
It is a pity that administrators making false allegations and bad blocks face no consequences for their NPAs and harassment. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Moved from below
You will respect my autoritah!Earlier history. C.f. South Park's Eric Cartman's "You will respect my autoritah!" Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz now blocked for 24 hours for continued discussion of the "national-socialist" issue after ample warning. Fram ( talk) 10:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Kiefer.Wolfowitz, drop the whole "Lihaas was smeared" thing [7], or you'll get blocked for disruption. This has been discussed to death, no action is going to be taken, no one is going to do anything about it. Rehashing this over and over again is disruptive. Fram ( talk) 09:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
You have been blocked for 24 hours. What was so hard to understand about "drop it"? Fram ( talk) 10:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
blocking policy).
Kiefer.
Wolfowitz
10:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Request reason: This seems like a punitive block, given my acknowledgments: * I had just acknowledged that it was unproductive to discuss the "double standard" issue at ANI. * I had not responded to the latest mention of "national socialist" at ANI. * I had just written at ANI that discussion of the "national socialist" issue should be limited Wikipedia venues, e.g. RfCs, RfAs, ArbComm elections. This seems like a punitive block, given my acknowledgements that future discussions of "national socialist" were improper except perhaps at these venues (and only in rare circumstances, which I would imagine would only involve 2 editors). Decline reason: Right up to your last edits before being blocked you were persisting with your disruptive editing. Saying "I acknowledge that it might be a good idea to beat something other than this dead horse" while beating the dead horse is not putting the stick down and walking away from the dead horse. JamesBWatson ( talk) 13:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. I shall format the diffs outside the appeal box, because the diffs choke the compiler.
Changing this section's header from "Lihaas" to "Double standards: "Bitching and moaning" gets a block" [10], and starting the following section on "free speech", doesn't give me confidence that unblocking would be wise, but I'll let another admin decline or accept the unblock request as they see fit. Fram ( talk) 13:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I quote the disruption-section of the blocking policy:
How was I disrupting anything? I agree that I was drawing attention to the double standard at ANI, but this was not in any way disruptive. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 15:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lord Sjones23
Lord Sjones23 would do better to develop his reading before again violating talk-page guidelines or wasting Dennis's time further. Don't edit this page again. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC) "You will respect my autoritah" IIHis "I have an exceptionally low tolerance with regards to uncalled for disrespect or incivility obviously" is funnier than Fram's statements above. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The community of Wikiputzia
Quotation from DB's talk pageThe 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. Disable talk page access? Hi. I don't know if you are aware of the recent activity at User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz. There's a probable issue going on in his talk page especially with regards to his disruptive editing since he is blocked for 1 month by Fram and he has posted a copyvio link to a Youtube video on his talk page. Can you please do something about this? I would rather not get myself blocked over trivial matters and I have an exceptionally low tolerance with regards to uncalled for disrespect or incivility obviously. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 21:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unblock?
This unblock request is in danger of being lost given the chaos of the formatting on this page. To increase visibility, I've commented on the bottom of the page. Could everyone please try to keep that discussion focused. Thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Teething babyAll else aside: I had one of those around the house about 9 years ago, and it wasn't much fun, except that she was mine, so it's all fun, and special. I want to tell you not to worry, because it's all downhill from there, but you're a very bright guy, and you have a fully functional bullshit detector (and maybe previous babies), so I won't. Now I'm less concerned about her crying and keeping me awake (that still happens, but it's bimonthly rather than daily now), and more concerned about other things like education, and impending teendom and such. I'm lucky - she's an exceptional kid, and bright, so problems are minimal. It's all priceless though, so enjoy every frustrating, sleepless minute while you can. I'm at a loss as to how you're still blocked - seems bizarre to me, but then I remember where I am. Good to see you're still active, even while blocked, and hope to see your signature around more widely again soon. ttfn. Begoon talk 14:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Block reviewI see that there is a pending unblock request on this page, which is in danger of being completely lost given the formatting of the page. The gist of the blocking rationale is personal attacks on other editors and one can understand why some of your edits might be understood in that fashion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz, I don't ask you to make any insincere confessions of wrongdoing or promises you can't or won't keep, but I do ask if you might be able to sand down some of your sharper edges if this block were to be lifted or reduced. Thank you for your response. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
That being said, I have no intention of breaking policy, and I shall strive to respond to personal attacks, falsehoods, This block has long become punitive in its duration, which again was explained to be based on two falsehoods; it would be late in the game (but unsurprising, alas) for Fram to state new reasons for the 30-day length of the block. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Unblock
You can remove anything from your talk page that you want, I promose. Please be kind enough to want, if only because I'm asking. I assumed we are moving past yesterday, and moving on to tomorrow.
Dennis Brown -
2¢ -
© -
@ -
Join WER
22:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
You should review rhetoric: The beginning of a sentence is not the climax of a sentence (c.f., Wayne Booth, or Kenneth Pike and Alton L. "Pete" Becker, for example). I began with humor and ended soberly. Either Kurtis or My76Strat is welcome to link to my response, or copy it---whatever is simpler. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC) |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Fram, please revert this . The "trivial" theorem uses the axiom of choice. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Doin' the CharlestonMalleus, Morgan Freeman paid for a desegregated prom. I recommend the documentary Prom Night in Mississippi [13]. Mike Wallace had an interesting profile and interview with Freeman on 60 Minutes. Swedish television loves to show documentaries about the Klu Klux Klan in the USA, where they profile e.g. an old man whose daughter had been raped by a Black man and who is filled with hate, and who is pitied by the other residents, including the Sheriff. A subvariety of " Orientalism", perhaps. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 08:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC) |
Thanks again, INeverCry! :) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Would somebody please upgrade the diagrams in Guitar chord from pdf to cropped svg? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 08:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Somewhat streamlined, the translation is now a featured article on the Russian WP. Well done! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to INeverCry and Nikkimaria |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please delete the trivial proposition that Elizabeth Kucinich has a tongue stud, which does not belong in an encyclopedia. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
|
The lede has a statement of "extraordinary bravery" of Belgian soldiers, but omits a discussion of far greater French and British casualties (90 and 68 thousand) in defending Belgium or of Churchill's condemnation of the capitulation, so there's a definite problem of WP:Lede (inadequate and POV summary of article). There's no criticism of pro-Nazi and anti-liberal reaction and cowardice, such as contained in Yves Simon's criticism of French decadence. The article is overly militaristic and has little on Belgian society Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Rare books arrived sooner than expected, necessitating quick updating of articles.
Moot
| |||
---|---|---|---|
Patt studied under George Russell, [1] [2] whose (1959) The Lydian chromatic concept of tonal organization for improvisation he edited. [2] [3] [4] [note 1]
|
Please read this: http://www.thedp.com/article/2012/11/cornel-west-lectures-on-socrates-democracy-and-social-responsibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsoMorpheus ( talk • contribs) 04:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Not a forum. (Banned users contribute here, too, sometimes with the acquiescence of ArbCom members.)). BIG STATEMENT. WP:REDFLAG. Got evidence of this? Russavia ( talk) 17:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The Drmies chronicles...but I was on the other line, a couple of 'em. You're unblocked now, I saw a few days ago; good. I'm sorry you were blocked in the first place. Much discussion has passed me by in the last few weeks since it's been a busy time. In other news, baby Liam can stand for ten Mississippis, and he enjoyed being in the sea this past weekend. All the best Kiefer. Drmies ( talk) 14:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
In place of a taser or chains
Art for Art's sake
Future RfAs
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Gotta ask, how does Asimov feature on Wikipediocracy? Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Wikipediocracy
| ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wikipediocracy
Corrections needed"Organization" is imprecise, and fits better a cub-scout den or a Wikipedia administrator-wannabe/"adoption" school. "Corporation" is more precise, and should be reinstated. (This issue has been discussed already, in edit summaries.) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Wikipediocracy DYKRegarding these points: I wasn't actually suggesting that those things be put in the article as is, because I know I don't have a source for them. Those are just my impressions about Wikipediocracy based on what I've heard around here, and I assumed there would be sources for them and that, if there were sources, it would be good information to have in the article. If there aren't sources for that then of course there's nothing to be done. I don't know much about Wikipediocracy; I've just heard people say things about it here, and those are the impressions I've been given. As for focusing the DYK on a specific controversy, that's actually what I was suggesting avoiding. Like I said about the Russian Wikipedia bong controversy, I think a hook like that draws more attention to the links regarding the controversy than to the link to the Wikipediocracy article. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 12:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
From the talk page of Volunteer Marek
(Copied from talk page of Volunteer Marek. I just contributed a bit of copy-editing and expansion.... Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC) ) |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jazz guitar may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Please read this: http://www.thedp.com/article/2012/11/cornel-west-lectures-on-socrates-democracy-and-social-responsibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsoMorpheus ( talk • contribs) 04:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Student newspaperWhat's the reliable source that says the U-Penn student newspaper is an unreliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsoMorpheus ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Would somebody please revert the redlinking of dab pages with explanations, which at least informs the reader? (This is a unconscious EW-violation of the BRD cycle, by somebody using semi-automatic tools). It might be better to link it to George McGovern's politics. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hey, I thought I'd drop by and say I'm sorry I was a jerk to you before, you are an asset to wikipedia, good luck, IRWolfie- ( talk) 01:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
|
A reasonable start...
|
---|
AN discussionSuggested interaction banI have started a discussion about you and some others at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive249#Interaction ban proposed. Fram ( talk) 13:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
|
Discussion at AN | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||||
Interaction ban proposed
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
These were "good closing comments" in the sense that they were very diplomatic, in that they made the rights nods in the right directions, that they were worded in a way which made sure that no one can accuse the closer of wrong intentions or bias, in that they were a well designed to end drama and in that they made an appearance of "resolving" the situation. But it was still a bad close.
But you strip away all the rhetoric and fancy language and what it boils down to is this:
What that means is that Horologium's indefinite block stands, until such time either Horologium or another uninvolved admin (after consulting with Horologium per our blocking policy) are convinced that the behavior (i.e. accusing another of misconduct without evidence and in such a way that reasonable people may infer an accusation of sexual misconduct) will not be repeated
You can put all kinds of nice words on it but what it amounts to is 1) Kiefer is indef/infinitely blocked and 2) you authorize the interpretation of his comments as suggesting sexual misconduct (please, look up the difference between the words "imply" and "infer" in a dictionary!) which was not supported by many of the commentators and by not unblocking him and, more importantly, making it very difficult for ANY admin to unblock him you imposed consensus where there was none.
Was it a good close? No, despite all the ass kissing above. Was it well played? Yes, yes it was. Volunteer Marek 01:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I have blocked you indefinitely for [26]. That edit (and the edit summary) is far out of the bounds of acceptability. I will be posting on the noticeboard thread in a minute about this block. Horologium (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I've now protected the page for one day. This is to try and stop this spiralling and rather pointless argument. People really need to read Wikipedia:No angry mastodons and understand none of this is helping build an encyclopaedia.-- Salix ( talk): 23:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
|
AN is putting on quite a show. We've had calls for blocking me indefinitely unless I apologize for the edit. Above, I already asked for somebody to strike the phrase that evoked hysteria.
Ironholds should correct his falsehoods, e.g., his fabrication of "young boys", which I never wrote. Similarly, The Rambling Man should remove his misrepresentations of what I wrote, in which TRM alleged man-boy grooming, and try to behave according to WP:NPA and WP:Civility.
As I understand it, I am indefinitely blocked because an administrator misunderstood what I wrote, and tried to guess at my intentions.
Soon thereafter, AN has been hit with persons trying to ban me from RfAs, using this block, clearing abusing process. If they want to ban questions about grammar or about writing on encyclopedic topics from RfAs, then they should ask the community through an RfC. Good luck with that!
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Side topic
|
---|
|
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Did you ever look at my RfC/U. Worm That Turn and Demiurge1000 quoted you in their beginning. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
|
At AN yesterday, WTT cited this diff as evidence that I was using "grooming" with connotations of sexual predation. In fact, the diff and his citation yesterday demonstrate a limited vocabulary. WTT should have reviewed "groom" and "preen" and understood their consonance, before and yesterday. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
A crucial turning point in that earlier history occurred when men and women of good will turned aside from the task of shoring up the Roman imperium and ceased to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of that imperium. When they set themselves to achieve instead—often not recognizing fully what they were doing—was the construction of new forms of community within which the moral life could be sustained so that both morality and civility might survive the coming ages of barbarism and darkness. If my account of our moral condition is correct, we ought also to conclude that for some time now we too have reached that turning point. What matters at this stage is the construction of local forms of community within which civility and the intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new dark ages which are already upon us. And if the tradition of the virtues was able to survive the horrors of the last dark ages, we are not entirely without grounds for hope. This time however the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time.
"I'd like it here if I could leave" Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I've gotten the impression you'd rather do the right thing rather than suck up to "powers that be." Sort of a the coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave man dies but once. While I can't be certain -- there's a temporal element to AN & ANI where the "pitchforks" tend to show up first, and then the more reasonable folks later -- if not this time, then the next time, or the time after that it's likely you'll get banned. You should be savvy enough to know what kind of phrasing is going to get you in hot water, and which won't. I'll be the first to admit WP is a messed up, political place but despite that it's produced the best encyclopedia ever -- it'd be a shame if your contributions to it were lost, but I don't think my minority sentiments and that of a few others can continue to turn the tide of the reactionary types who are just gonna react to anything provocative you post. If you were more of a newbie I'd suggest phrasing for an unblock request but I don't think you need that -- bottom line is I think you have a choice to make very soon now if you want to continue to participate on-wiki or be content limiting your efforts to 'cracy and the like. NE Ent 13:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Drive by shooting off the mouth |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
KW, I've read what you've written above and I have a suggestion. If I understand you correctly, young men and boys are impressionable and easily led and that the misleading of this youthful set was what you were referring to. I'm willing to AGF and accept that statement and doubtless there are others who would do the same. But, clearly, the statement has been misinterpreted, and not without reason. Would it kill you to make a clear statement that both explains what you meant and also apologizes for the poor choice of words that have lead to giving people offense? I know we Americans can appear to be way too eager to be politically correct but one reason why we thrive in social settings is that we realize that giving unintended offense is not just well worth an apology but is also a good way to keep moving forward. And that's not going to happen if you think there is nothing to apologize for or that the people taking offense are merely out for your blood. Right or wrong, there is a way to survive on Wikipedia and a way to self-destruct, the choice (as NE Ent above also says) is yours. -- regentspark ( comment) 14:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Strange comments. How should an improperly blocked editor "move on"?
|
---|
K-Wolf, there comes a time when one needs to accept that one has made their case and move along. I personally think your concerns are overblown, which is not to say that scrutiny is altogether unnecessary. But that's not going to be your department moving forward, nor is Wikipedia the place. You've made your case. Move along. Radar screens are now being watched, trust in that. Any such radar watching is not gonna be your department, however, because if you try to make it your department you're going to get banned off for good. Let it go. You very nearly immolated yourself at AN by implying way too much backed by way not enough. I don't want to piss you off, but it felt sort of like the anonymous phone calls an early campaign of Richard Nixon is said to have made against his stamp-collecting opponent asking voters, "Did you know that Richard Nixon's opponent is a known philatelist?!?!" If not an actual accusation, it was an unseemly implication and a smear. A major, major mistake. At some point we shall see the dialectical transformation of quantity to quality and the sum of previous small dramas becomes sufficient for the executioner's axe. Read again the long list of hearty endorsements for an indefinite block at AN and tell me I'm wrong. I tell you this as a friend, as does Eric — you've GOT to disengage here and trust in others. Accept this reality, get unblocked, write a completely new article and take a true vacation from the drama circus. I appreciate your commitment to your beliefs. Trust others. Best regards, as always. —Tim /// ShoeHutch@gmail.com /// Carrite ( talk) 16:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer: I haven't looked for this at Wikipediocracy, so I know I'm missing some of the spelling out. But let me make a confession. I didn't understand what the heck you were on about with that statement at AN. Its opacity was ... too much for this admittedly tired and literalist PhD holder in the humanities. (I also find Henry James impenetrable.) Whatever the demographics of en.wikipedia - and I happen to believe the WMF know less about that than they collectively know about nuclear physics or Wolfram's Parzival - there are a lot of EFL editors around the place, as well as whatever my demographic may be .... and also a lot of Americans, who are known to be hair-trigger on certain subjects, both because American English is more formulaic and having fun with style and vocabulary far less common, and simply because it's a Whole Other Country. We are after all divided by a common language. Your expat status in a country where English is not the first language may have caused you to forget how easily things can be misunderstood even between dialects of written English. And you and Eric do tend to forget that intellectual conversation sometimes goes over people's heads - I have sat around faculty meetings but I still don't always get what you're on about, and this was, I'm afraid, an example of that. I wonder whether you've overestimated the ability of those at AN to figure out your meaning? Yngvadottir ( talk) 20:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
|
KW...in my mind there is an easy way to move forward...simply state you're going to avoid the dramaboards and places like Rfa for at least six months and concentrate solely on article improvements and stick with that. One thing I have noticed here is those that simply state their opinions with calmness and coolness and avoid threaded arguments end up having the louder voices and more say as a result. The back and forth and stonewalling rarely succeeds in doing anything but getting blood pressures up. I hope you'll not just remove this or hat it off because even though we haven't always agreed, you should know that I value your general edits in article space and would like to see you return to that fold. What gets accomplished at the dramaboards anyway? I'm a strong supporter of freedom of speech but also freedom from speeches...and thats my speech to try and bluntly offer what I think is the best way forward.-- MONGO 16:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer, Mongo has given you excellent advice above. The way you're going about it now, right or wrong, no one is going to unblock you (unless Horologium chooses to do so). Even admins who are favorably inclined toward you need a reason to unblock and you're not giving us any. Looking at the current trajectory of this affair, the prognosis, I'm sorry to be brutal about this, is extremely negative and you're likely to end up amongst the heap of departed and forgotten editors. You might want to think about that. Read Mongo's suggestion at the top of this section carefully and take a day off to think about it before posting anything. -- regentspark ( comment) 15:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Improper discussion of RfA during improper block | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Let me see if I can help with the current situation in some fashion. I'll put to the side for the moment the specific comment for which you were blocked and take your suggestion of looking at the broader situation that led up to your making the comment. I've just read again through Mattythewhite's RfA page and its talkpage. You of course had the right to oppose his candidacy, whether or not other voters agreed with your rationale. However, several of your comments explaining your opposition were, in my considered opinion, appalling. In the context of a comparison of numbers of pageviews of the candidate's articles and your articles, your observation that "more persons still suffer from HIV" was gratuitous and objectionable. Telling another editor that "your broken-record false witnessing jeopardizes your soul" damages the collaborative environment. While it was clearly suboptimal for someone to refer to your "having gotten your knickers in a twist," characterizing this cliche as "your fantasies about my underwear" did not help matters in the least. Telling an editor younger than yourself to "run along and play nice somewhere else" was obnoxious, as was the suggestion that younger members of a wikiproject should be "flipping burgers" instead of editing. (I do, however, agree with your explanation of the "Andy Capp" comment. It was a bit obnoxiously dismissive of editors who work on sports articles, but it was not a personal attack on anyone. On the other hand, I also have to agree that your rewrite of his prose plainly overlooked some conventions of British English and British football parlance.) I do not consider myself any form of "civility cop" (in my six years as an administrator, I have never blocked anyone for "personal attacks" and I have supported such blocks only in extreme circumstances). However, the RfA pages, of which Mattythewhite's is the most recent example, are a forum in which you have made many of your most intemperate comments that have led to bickering, drama, and blocks. As I expect you will sooner or later be unblocked, would you be willing to agree either to stay off the RfA pages for awhile, or at least to some reasonable limit on your comments on these pages? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
(with apologies to Kiefer) Brad, I had the opposite impression from reading that RfA. Kiefer gave a simple, one sentence, neutrally stated oppose !vote. The immediate reaction to that was the comment "pure snobbery" following which the discussion deteriorated to quite an extent. The question one should be asking is whether Kiefer was responsible for the mess or whether the comment in response to his !vote was responsible for the mess. In recent RfAs, and I'm sorry to say this, the comments made by people who don't like certain oppose !votes has been the principal problem. Reasoned reactions and comments are fine, but the pure snobbery comment looks like it was made with the intention to rile. If it was, it succeeded. -- regentspark ( comment) 15:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
(Responding to RegentsPark above) My issue here is not with Kiefer's original oppose !vote and its rationale. I happen to disagree fairly strongly with the rationale that an administrator candidate is less qualified because he or she edits mostly sports-related articles rather than music articles or mathemtatics articles or legal-history articles—but my personal opinion counts no more nor less than Kiefer's does; he gets one !vote and so do I. So far there was no user-conduct issue involved. And, I would not have personally have characterized the oppose rationale as "snobbery." But, I understand what was meant by the description: Kiefer was presumably saying that some Wikipedia articles are more valuable than others, and hence by extension that contributors to those articles are less valuable to the project than others. That can credibly be cast as a snobbish argument, for at least some connotations of "snobbish." So I don't see that response to Kiefer's oppose as a user-conduct issue, and it certainly didn't justify everything that came afterwards. From that point, things spiralled downwards fairly rapidly, with more than one person modeling poor behavior. I've cited above the comments that Kiefer.Wolfowitz made which I would prefer not to have seen. And I don't think that the references to HIV, or going out and playing, or damaged souls, or undergarment-related fantasies, were reasonably proportionate to any provocation that occurred. That being said, I welcome Kiefer's comment above that he's prepared to address the tenor of his RfA participation in due course. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Brad is well known as a (automatic?) supporter of child administrators. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
|
Links have accumulated at Wikipediocracy.
I still don't see an indefinite block for the on-Wiki advice on avoiding parental monitoring of IM/email. WP:CHILD forbids editors asking minors for personal information, such as IMs and email addresses. Advising a child how to avoid parental controls on computer use requires an immediate indefinite back with email access removed and talk page access removed.
Kiefer
.Wolfowitz
10:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Evidence or retraction requested; KW's statement above contains the text "Demiurge1000 has been manipulating inexperienced persons found among WP's editors".
I'd been led to believe that making accusations about other editors without providing evidence, is unacceptable.
So, where's the evidence?
(And I don't just mean "you posted a notification on another editor's talk page and that editor happened to be under the age of 25", or "you gave a barnstar to someone after an argument". I mean actual evidence to categorically support what's being alleged.) -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
You all have been asking for it. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Forget about emailing me. My stupid parents just went through and deleted most of my contacts. Instead, I'll be at Playcrafter sometimes. See you. Loudclaw ( talk) 21:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Well.....Look on the talk page of WP:Warriors. Loudclaw ( talk) 23:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC) (I left a little treat)
Well I did find a new member. That member can be found here, at User talk:Silverspirit. Loudclaw ( talk) 01:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, uh.... I can improve Metroid Prime 3: Corruption because I now own the video game. I'll also use GameFAQs. Loudclaw ( talk) 20:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Demiurge, I'm not allowed to IM anyone or I'll get into trouble. Sorry, Loudclaw ( talk) 05:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
No access to email. Can't think of another way to tell you this, my IM might be screwed too. Loudclaw/ Hey, let's collaborate!/ Desk/ WP:Warriors 21:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep. It's screwed. Loudclaw/ Hey, let's collaborate!/ Desk/ WP:Warriors 21:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
...
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.
If you are a younger editor and feel that another person on Wikipedia is behaving in a way that you feel threatens your personal safety, or worries you in any way whatsoever, please tell a responsible adult, and ask them to look at this page. Do not continue to communicate with the other person – ignore them completely. Never give out personal information to anyone, including people who say they are trying to help you.
Any administrator may block an editor for the conduct described in this policy. When an editor is blocked for such conduct, the blocking administrator is instructed to use neutral block summaries, and disable the editor's ability to edit their talk page as well as their access to the on-site user email interface. Blocking administrators should inform the blocked editor that any appeals or further discussion may be addressed only to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org, and then notify the Committee immediately.
NYB's double standards about civility at RfA and his coddling of The Rambling Man after his last badgering episode have born fruit, e.g., the latest badgering at the current RfA.
It's time to bar The Rambling Man from threaded discussions at RfA. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
"Rationalization" would be more apt.
notice the past tense "has had" rather than "has", and notice the "advocates of" rather than "practitioners of".
such as administrators who have blocked me recently?
Horologium et alia are the ones misinterpreting my remarks as an "allusion to pedophilia", a word that I have never used on Wiki. Others have explained my intention and English. (Of course, discussions of violations of WP:CHILD should be made to the WMF Foundation....) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 08:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Horologium's block for one comment violated the blocking policy, as discussed by IRWolfie at AN. The discussion here and at AN clarifies why large segments of the community question the misinterpretation by Horologium of my edit, which has been asked to be struck by me and which has been clarified by me many times. Thus, the block was improper.
In his most recent posting (above), Horologium clarified his political agenda. If he wants to change the rules of RfA, he should use a community RfC, not his administrative tools. He should discuss matters (possibly filing an RfC/U if he wishes) and not use his block tools, if he wishes to discuss other issues. It is at best confusing and raising the appearance of impropriety for Horologium especially (and for other administrators, from the civil NYB to the mob at AN) to mix other concerns with a discussion of this block.
Also, given the concerns about IRC canvassing noted at AN by
User:Nick and the blocking administrator's few edits, the blocking administrator should declare how he learned of my edit and whether he was on IRC when he blocked me.
Argument in the alternative/
Alternative pleading: Even if some block can pass the laugh test for some reasonable person, the indefinite length of the block has been harshly criticized at AN also. At very least, the block should be reduced to a definite time, perhaps time served.
Decline reason:
The discussion at AN showed no consensus at AN to lift the block or reduce its length. Assertions that the block is unfair will be inadequate to overturn this consensus. Assertions that the blocking admin had a political agenda will not be adequate to overturn this consensus. Whether the blocking admin first learned of your post at IRC or happened upon it by chance is irrelevant to the unblock. What has to happen for you to be unblocked is that an uninvolved admin, in consultation with the blocking admin, has to be convinced that the behaviour in question will not be repeated. The behaviour in question was "accusing another of misconduct without evidence and in such a way that reasonable people may infer an accusation of sexual misconduct". The unblock request herein and your other posts on this page have not been adequate to demonstrate that the behaviour will not be repeated. Convenience link to discussion at AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive249#Interaction ban proposed. Dianna ( talk) 13:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
See above. Dianna has years of WP friendship with Demiurge1000 and has just given an "attack kitten" to the new account of the Gwickwire, and she failed to identify her conflict of interest. An independent administrator should review the petition, without being prejudiced by the partisan administrator's improper review.
Decline reason:
I reach essentially the same conclusion as is expressed here: namely, that the Bureaucrat closing the discussion wrote that Administrators should only change the length of your block if they become convinced that the sorts of actions which led to the block will not recur. To my mind, the contents of your User Talk Page do not demonstrate this. It Is Me Here t / c 14:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I was blocked for one sentence, whose objectionable intention I disavowed and asked that it be struck. What on this page makes you think that I would repeat that sentence (or a similar sentence)? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Please read my statement again, carefully. I did not block you because of your contributions at RFA. I disagree with them, but that is beside the point entirely. I blocked you because of your allusions to pedophilia in your post on AN. The only connection RFA has with this block is that the AN discussion resulted from the dispute there. While there was a fair amount of suboptimal contributions from several editors at that RFA, nothing said there was block-worthy. It was the attack on AN, and the specific verbiage employed, that earned the block. As I (and others) have said, you chose wording that was deliberately inflammatory, rather than neutral wording which would have conveyed the same idea, and even your revision of the first sentence wouldn't fix the problem with the rest of the post. Horologium (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The indefinite nature of the block has been criticized by some, yes, but while the blocking admin intended that it be indefinite only until the community decided on a proper length of time, there is also significant support for it to remain indefinite. That aspect may be somewhat unfair to you unless one were to successfully propose a proper community ban, but it certainly exposes a rather high level of disatisfaction with both the attack that preciptated the block and your followup responses, which can best be described as unrepentant, coupled with your history of being rather abrasive. It lends itself to questions: If the block were lifted, what is the likelihood of you making similar comments that cast such aspersions (whether intended or thoughtlessly, it doesn't matter) in the future? How do you plan to address the concerns of those who do believe that indefinite is the proper time frame for this block? Reso lute 16:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This wall of text is giving me a headache and making my eyes go fuzzy, so just one question: is there clear and incontrovertible evidence that Demiurge1000 asked a minor for their personal details? Eric Corbett 23:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Quotation from talk page of Horologium
|
---|
Notice the diffless wall of accusations from Horologium, the blocking administrator. The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Perhaps you should unblock him. He has explained that there was no sexual intention behind his statement and indicated his willingness to strike it out. AGF perhaps? The way this discussion has gone, you're about the only one who can unblock him drama free so that might just be the fair thing to do. -- regentspark ( comment) 03:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Let me address the points raised, most of them irrelevant to the question at hand, his block.
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Horologium, the administrator who blocked me for allegedly making an allegation without evidence, makes many allegations without evidence, violating WP:NPA. (Dropping the passive aggression would help, also.) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer, just for information: you've mentioned WP:CHILD a few times on this page and claim to have quoted it, but you're linking to the wrong page. The page you've been quoting is WP:CHILDPROTECT, a different page. Another paragraph of it states (its bolding, italics and linking, not mine):
Reports of editors engaging in such conduct should be made to the Arbitration Committee for further action, and should not be the subject of community discussion, requests for comment or consensus. If you are concerned about the behavior of another editor, please contact Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org, but please read the Communications and privacy section of the Arbitration Committee page before doing so.
-- Stfg ( talk) 11:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer, you are hereby unblocked. You are well aware that not all members of the community will agree with this decision, and it can only be hoped that the following editing restrictions, based on discussions held on-wiki prompted by email contact which I sought with you, will ease their mind somewhat.
But let me add something based on my own observations, of this case and of many others (too many to mention; somehow they always end up on Jimbo's talk page). Bringing up the past, and drawing inferences from editing behaviors of others about their motivations, is rarely a good thing. I know (believe me, I know) it is exceedingly difficult to treat other editors fairly after they have been unfair to you. This ("fairness") is a matter of perception, everyone can admit to that, and I'm speaking in the general, not about this case, this block, this blocking administrator, etc. One must not say, "admin x is abusive" and say that to mean "always abusive", in the same way that one must not say, "editor y is a disruptive asshole" as if that is all they are (there aren't that many trolls here, I trust). This is not to say that every hurt and every wrong must be forgotten completely; it is, however, to say that one should be sparing with digging up the past. I wish I could say this to a lot of people, including myself. Such generalizing leads to dramah, and dramah leads to blocks, to anger, to misunderstanding.
Human nature is a difficult thing. If you run into trouble, let someone know--an admin you really trust, for instance, if there is one. You may find that they are sceptic; if so, there may not be much you can do but to find another one. But we're not all bad--bad as me, Tom Waits might say.
I've said all I can. Maybe one more thing. This may be controversial, but it wouldn't be the first controversial thing we have to live with here. I wish Newyorkbrad could translate this into proper Bradspeech, but lawyers are in the cocktail bar Friday nights. I wish you well. You are a fine editor, I think most people agree on that, and I trust that you will regain the community's trust, even if not every single member's. Drmies ( talk) 02:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Horologium made the following statements on his talk page:
Please rectify these violations of WP:NPA. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 07:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Drmies, the block was for an AN comment. You do not have the authority to impose a restriction on my participation on RfAs. Please start a community discussion at AN or an RfC is you wish to suggest such an imposition, but kindly remove it from the restriction log.
I remind you that no restriction on RfA participation was mentioned by 28bytes in his close of the AN discussion,
28bytes's closure of AN discussion, which ignored RfAs |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
"This thread has been running for more than three days, and I don't think it can be argued that the community hasn't had a chance to weigh in here. (As Bishonen notes below, the number of participants here is quite extraordinary.) Setting aside GiantSnowman for a moment, I personally think Fram's suggestion that Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Demiurge1000 disengage is an extremely wise one, and in fact I told KW as much almost exactly a year ago on my talk page. However, the proposed interaction ban seems to have been rendered moot by subsequent events, namely KW's unfortunately worded comment about inappropriate behavior towards younger editors. While KW has, to his credit, clarified that he meant nothing sexual about the comment, accusing other editors of inappropriate contact with younger editors – sexual or not – is not something do be done lightly, and certainly not something to be done on a public noticeboard without evidence in the middle of a heated discussion. If KW is genuinely concerned that there is inappropriate recruiting (whether political or otherwise) of younger editors, I suggest he instead contact either ArbCom or the WMF with evidence backing up his concerns and they will act accordingly. Now, regarding the block. Many people have weighed in, but I simply do not see a consensus (1) to unblock KW, (2) to adjust the block to a specific period of time, or (3) to keep KW blocked forever (i.e. a defacto ban). What that means is that Horologium's indefinite block stands, until such time either Horologium or another uninvolved admin (after consulting with Horologium per our blocking policy) are convinced that the behavior (i.e. accusing another of misconduct without evidence and in such a way that reasonable people may infer an accusation of sexual misconduct) will not be repeated. That may happen tomorrow, it may happen two months from now, or it may not happen at all. I hope it happens quickly and KW is able to return to productive editing, but if it does, I strongly recommend he stay away from, and avoid commenting on the activities of, Demiurge1000. I offer the same recommendation to Demiurge1000 regarding comments about KW. I suspect both will enjoy contributing to the encyclopedia much more if they do so." |
It is particularly improper to log your restriction as a "community restriction" since 28byte's (multiply endorsed) close ignored RfAs.
You and other administrators should have a word with The Rambling Man and New York Brad,
I would suggest working on administrators' and bureaucrats' failures to enforce civility, particularly the failures to enforce civility evenly, at RfA. A joint restriction on TRM and myself would also be premature, but would not seem one-sided.
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 07:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
And now I'm going to go do something else. Getting consensus to unblock you took considerable time and effort, and to get nothing but a "fuck you very much" and "you abused your authoritay" out of it makes me want to never do this again. Again, I thought what I was proposing was in accordance with your own wishes, and I think it was proportionate since you got blocked indefinitely. There is no need to email me anymore: you win, admin loses. Good luck. Drmies ( talk) 14:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I hope that you will concentrate on writing or improving some articles. If you are interested in level-headed work instead of drama, I am thinking of submitting George Meany for Good Article review. As you were the editor most interested, other than I, in this essential mid 20th century U.S. labor history topic, I hope that you will take a look at the talk page. I bid you peace. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
ArbCom and AN discussions have the authority to set community restrictions. Administrators cannot set community restrictions. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment on getting bannedI saw you comment about getting banned at ANI and just wanted to let you know your not alone in that sentiment. I am in the same situation and frankly I think its only a matter of time before my outspoken criticism of admin abuses, the us and them mentality, problems with Arbcom, and various other contentions with how things go on here will get me banned. It don't think its a matter of if but when. Until that happens though I am going to continue to edit and contribute and speak out vocally about the problems in the hopes that eventually they will be fixed. I don't honestly hold out much hope because the admins hold all the power and generally will do whatever they have to do to keep it. Good luck though. Kumioko ( talk) 18:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Legitimation CrisisBeavis, this article ( Legitimation Crisis (book)) sucks. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Help?Hi KW, I notice that you edited here for 2.5 years, approximately, without any blocks, then in November 2011 you started getting a lot of action on your block log. Are you upset about something in particular? Would it be possible for us to resolve the underlying injustice that's leading you to be outspoken (perhaps so much so that you're getting blocked)? Please give me the nutshell synopsis if you'd like any help. Jehochman Talk 00:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I closed the ANI threadI wanted to let you know I closed the ANI thread. It just isn't going to get the support to pass. I also didn't want you to get blocked again, some of the folks are clearly looking for a reason. Believe me I know all too well how hard it is to let things go but some of your comments aren't helping your cause. I just wanted to let you know I didn't do it to squelch your voice. I did it more for your benefit than anything before it devolves. I half expect someone to revert it just because I did it but I wanted to let you know my reasoning anyway. Good luck and I think if you try again in a few months you'll have amuch better chance of removing the ban. Kumioko ( talk) 17:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I have a suggestion. Step away from your browser window, put Larks Tongues in Aspic on side two, track three and crank it up to full volume. You'll annoy the neighbours, but you'll feel a hell of a lot better. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I rather like the guitar tuning articlesThat is when I met you and started to watch your talk page. You seemed level headed then and seem it now. I wonder if you would appreciate a thought from me since I refuse to get involved in wikipolitics and refuse to be an admin Wikipedia is better when editors create articles. All else is fluff and flummery. That was the thought. I neither support your block nor oppose it. I honestly don't mind either way. What I like and support is your ability to create decent articles. It woudl be a shame if you ended up unable to do that. Fiddle Faddle 22:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
User nameNot just the abbreviation, but the whole user name: "An aphrodisiac". :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Good catch on the name Kiefer, one that does open up a host of interesting questions. But, better to leave it to time to figure out the answers methinks. Still, just thought I'd pop a note here because it reinforces my conviction that we need people like you on RfAs. -- regentspark ( comment) 14:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
|
Back on the chain gang... |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This (link works as of this moment): http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=48680#p48680 Not acceptable. Given its much the same as what you got blocked for previously its apparent that you aren't going to stop doing it in the short term thus I've blocked you for one year. For what its worth I know its hard to believe but the denizens of wikipedia IRC are mostly 20+ adults. Geni ( talk) 09:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Just to let you know I have opened an WP:ANI thread on not only this block, but the wheel-warring around the block settings. As always, you can participate by posting the text you want, plus {{ helpme}} requesting the copy ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 12:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
{{ helpme}}Please remind Geni that WTT and another posted concerns about WP:CHILDPROTECT at Sue Gardner's WMF talk page, and obviously WMF has a toothless child-protection policy, which shall be commented on by the community on- and off-Wiki. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Just in case you weren't aware, you have been unblocked following strong consensus at ANI that the block was unsupported by policy. EdChem ( talk) 14:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank all of you for your suggestions and advice. Praise Bishonen, not usually thought of as the "Amen corner" for yours truly, for her efforts to uphold policy. :) I knew she had it in her, but it's a pleasure to thank her, BWilkins, etc.! Somedays, one can imagine growing tired of Wikipedia's internal politics. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 14:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
|
Dubbed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
You can have one if you want. ★ ★ Retro Lord ★★
|
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).