Revision as of 02:33, 15 June 2013 view sourceDrmies (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators406,266 edits →Fifths← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:44, 15 June 2013 view source Drmies (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators406,266 edits →UnblockedNext edit → | ||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1,215: | Line 1,215: | ||
:From their data, one could tune a 7 string guitar to (e' a d G C F' A"#) with moderate (~13 lbs/string) tension using 9, 13, 20(or 22w), 32w, 49, 74, and 115 strings. That leaves room to tune up to g' or down to c' as a starting point. One could also tune a 7 string to (g' c' f A# D# G'# C'#), with about 15 lbs tension, using 8, 12 18(or 20w), 30w, 44, 66, and 100 gauge strings, leaving room to tune up to a' or down to e' as a starting point. ] (]) 01:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC) | :From their data, one could tune a 7 string guitar to (e' a d G C F' A"#) with moderate (~13 lbs/string) tension using 9, 13, 20(or 22w), 32w, 49, 74, and 115 strings. That leaves room to tune up to g' or down to c' as a starting point. One could also tune a 7 string to (g' c' f A# D# G'# C'#), with about 15 lbs tension, using 8, 12 18(or 20w), 30w, 44, 66, and 100 gauge strings, leaving room to tune up to a' or down to e' as a starting point. ] (]) 01:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
::Kiefer, maybe it's time to archive this talk page. ] (]) 02:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC) | ::Kiefer, maybe it's time to archive this talk page. ] (]) 02:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
== Unblocked == | |||
Kiefer, you are hereby unblocked. You are well aware that not all members of the community will agree with this decision, and it can only be hoped that the following editing restrictions, based on discussions held on-wiki prompted by email contact which I sought with you, will ease their mind somewhat. | |||
#You should not interact with Demiurge. Given the nature of the diff that led to the block in the first place, I cannot really impose a two-way interaction ban, but I have no doubt that Demiurge will ''not'' seek you out or bait you, and I hope that they will refrain from commenting on you elsewhere. "No interaction" includes you won't mention them or their conduct anywhere on-wiki, including by allusion (added for us literary types). You won't visit their talk page or follow them around. Obviously I cannot (nor do I wish to) block you from the dramah boards etc; you ''must'' let common sense (mine, and I hope yours) prevail--stay out of discussions that they're involved in. This does not mean that Demiurge can, for instance, block you from continuing a discussion you've already engaged in by merely placing a comment, but I trust this won't happen. I have seen your efforts (some after your block, but still) to undo the damage caused by the remark, and I believe that you are sincere and won't repeat this; Demiurge appears to be of the same mind. At any rate, practically speaking it is not likely to be tolerated. | |||
#You must stay away from threaded discussions in RfAs. A number of editors/administrators have made this clear, and I will log it as a formal restriction. For now, I will interpret this fairly narrowly: if there is a thread (two or more comments), you cannot add to it. You cannot, for instance, respond to a comment on your comment. At the same time, editors are not allowed to ''bait'' you--a term that is difficult to define, but a practice that is not hard to discern. While I cannot "ban" the community from responding to your comments, I think it is no more than fair that admins look carefully at any such responses to see if they are above board, and violations thereof should be reverted and followed by a warning (and perhaps more, if that behavior continues). Baiting is never OK, of course, and it goes for you as well as for others: no baiting, no leading questions, etc. | |||
#(Now comes the fatherly advice--which I can give, since I have more children than you, I think.) You have said you will focus on article editing: that is a good idea since, and I think there was a consensus for this on AN, it is outside of mainspace that trouble starts (and I am not saying that this is always your fault).<p>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.<p>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. ] (]) 02:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
*RfA restriction logged. I would like to thank {{U|Horologium}}, {{U|Demiurge1000}}, and {{U|RegentsPark}} for their input and advice. ] (]) 02:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:44, 15 June 2013
Kiefer.Wolfowitz is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon. |
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Collection of dead fingernails |
no archives yet (create) |
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
12 December 2024 |
|
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sennecaster | 221 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Open | 17:20, 25 December 2024 | 23 hours | no | report |
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
You rang
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The Drmies chronicles...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
|
Foundation, 2nd foundation, and empire
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Gotta ask, how does Asimov feature on Wikipediocracy? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
|
David Russell
See 2:35 , this guy is one of the most beautiful sounding guitarists ever, in my top 5 list of greatest guitarists.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC).
- Yes, he is wonderful. Here's a guy I discovered about 2 years ago. He has some lovely stuff. And he's really into bat boxes!! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Enjoy these!
Musical discussion with Dr. Blofeld | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
Hive of knuckle-dragging malice
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Yo Kenard, you tell it like it be
Please do not abuse edit summaries in this fashion. That goes for AutomaticStrikeout as well. Thanks. — Scott • talk 22:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Wikipediocracy
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I've lost track of how many reverts you have made to this article in the past 24 hours, not to mention WP:OWNership issues. This needs to stop. Now. Otherwise you will probably find yourself at AN/EW. - MrX 14:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussionHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 18:57, 25 May 2013
ApologiesKiefer, I want to apologize if I have added more heat than light to the editing flurry at Wikipediocracy. At least two respected admins disagreed with my AN/EW report, which suggests that my judgement was flawed. It was not my intention to create more drama. I hope that we can move past this without any hard feelings. Best wishes - MrX 19:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC) |
Corrections needed
"Organization" is imprecise, and fits better a cub-scout den or a Misplaced Pages administrator-wannabe/"adoption" school. "Corporation" is more precise, and should be reinstated. (This issue has been discussed already, in edit summaries.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
May 2013
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jazz guitar may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
|
Cornel West Democracy Cafe Thing
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Please read this: http://www.thedp.com/article/2012/11/cornel-west-lectures-on-socrates-democracy-and-social-responsibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsoMorpheus (talk • contribs) 04:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
|
SDUSA and New Politics (McGovern)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Would somebody please revert the redlinking of dab pages with explanations, which at least informs the reader? (This is a unconscious EW-violation of the BRD cycle, by somebody using semi-automatic tools). It might be better to link it to George McGovern's politics. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
|
Hey
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hey, I thought I'd drop by and say I'm sorry I was a jerk to you before, you are an asset to wikipedia, good luck, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
|
June swoon
AN discussion
Suggested interaction ban
I have started a discussion about you and some others at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive249#Interaction ban proposed. Fram (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I appreciate your equitable suggestion, which should reduce argy pargy particularly at RfAs. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- KW, I would support the interaction ban, but I believe that it would do little good if either of you have retain fora to carry on commenting on the other. Would you be amenable to not commenting on Demiurge off wiki either? Worm(talk) 13:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am glad that you support an interaction ban. I share your concern about any misuse of Misplaced Pages's IRC. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- My thoughts were not so much regarding IRC, though I had intended to mention it as a concern as part of my support. I'll ask one more time - Should an interaction ban be passed, would you be amenable to not commenting on Demiurge off wiki either? Worm(talk) 14:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Check your email, please. One concern needs addressing. If that is addressed, then there is not a problem. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- My thoughts were not so much regarding IRC, though I had intended to mention it as a concern as part of my support. I'll ask one more time - Should an interaction ban be passed, would you be amenable to not commenting on Demiurge off wiki either? Worm(talk) 14:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am glad that you support an interaction ban. I share your concern about any misuse of Misplaced Pages's IRC. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:10, 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)
- A decent close would have at the very least outlined the conditions for Kiefer to resume editing, particularly since it's pretty obvious from the discussion that the original block did not have overwhelming, or even "strong" support. It didn't do that. All it did, in practical terms, was turn the word "indefinite" into the word "infinite". Without justification, against policy, against consensus. There was some nice words in the closure, there was some "on the one hand, on the other hand" sops to the parties involved, there was a lot of "cover my own ass when I do this", but at the end of the day... it gave one side of a contentious dispute (the "hang him high and humiliate him" side) everything they wanted without even leaving a crack of an opportunity for Kiefer or the people who think that this is a person whom the encyclopedia needs.
- That's pretty much the definition of a "bad close". Nice words and all.
- How exactly does "KW hold the keys to resuming editing"? There was nothing in the wording of the closure which would indicate a willingness to undo that or to actually hand him these "keys". You can say false things like that but... they're... just... not... true. So stop it. That's actually called "lying".
- .... Volunteer Marek 02:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
I have blocked you indefinitely for . That edit (and the edit summary) is far out of the bounds of acceptability. I will be posting on the noticeboard thread in a minute about this block. Horologium (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- You have no idea what you're talking about. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Read what I wrote. I accused nobody of being sexually used by DU1000---certainly not WTT. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comprehension seems low today, Kiefer. I, for one, understood what you meant. Intothatdarkness 21:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- "Is he behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men?" How did you expect that to be interpreted? AutomaticStrikeout ? 21:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- When read in the full context of what was going on there, I take it to be a question as to whether an experienced user should be encouraging new users to fight his battles for him. But people will read what they wish into things. That's always (IMO) been one of KW's written weaknesses. His style is opaque at times and easy to misunderstand or twist. Intothatdarkness 21:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- So substitute "young people" if it makes you happy, and strike the offending phrase. Please focus on the issue, which is recruiting pawns. Should he have been advising Luke to pursue an RfC targetting me? Should he have been egging on gwickwire? etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- One of the "young boys" Demiurge has, according to Kiefer, been questionably behaving towards is a member of the arbitration committee. That sort of undermines the argument, here. The fact of the matter is that grooming was immediately surfaced as a possible interpretation of your statement - and instead of doing anything in response, you goaded people. You either knew full well what you were saying or just fancied poisoning the well a tiny bit more. Neither attitude is appropriate. Ironholds (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- When read in the full context of what was going on there, I take it to be a question as to whether an experienced user should be encouraging new users to fight his battles for him. But people will read what they wish into things. That's always (IMO) been one of KW's written weaknesses. His style is opaque at times and easy to misunderstand or twist. Intothatdarkness 21:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Space reserved for apology by WMF employee and administrator Ironholds for alleging "young boys" falsehood, etc.
Back to business
- How about you put up or shut up? You pay me 500$ for every diff where Worm That Turned expressed surprise, etc., at how the RfC went? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Whatever the rights and wrongs here KW it's pretty obvious how this is going to end up, and it's going to start with you being denied access to your own talk page. For God's sake get a grip man. Eric Corbett 22:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please review "Truth and Probability" by Frank Ramsey. The Ramsey test is a way to evaluate claims/bullshit. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have a pretty good built-in bullshit detector, and I can tell you right now that you're going about this the wrong way. I'm no more in love with those such as Demiurge1000 than you are, but as they so rarely get involved in article development I find it relatively easy to avoid them. And as for RfA, that's a pit of snakes best kept clear of, whichever side of the divide you're on. Eric Corbett 22:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please review "Truth and Probability" by Frank Ramsey. The Ramsey test is a way to evaluate claims/bullshit. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Whatever the rights and wrongs here KW it's pretty obvious how this is going to end up, and it's going to start with you being denied access to your own talk page. For God's sake get a grip man. Eric Corbett 22:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- How about you put up or shut up? You pay me 500$ for every diff where Worm That Turned expressed surprise, etc., at how the RfC went? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages:No angry mastodons and understand none of this is helping build an encyclopaedia.--Salix (talk): 23:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
|
Quite a show of AGF
AN is putting on quite a show. We've had calls for blocking me indefinitely unless I apologize for the edit. Above, I already asked for somebody to strike the phrase that evoked hysteria.
Ironholds should correct his falsehoods, e.g., his fabrication of "young boys", which I never wrote. Similarly, The Rambling Man should remove his misrepresentations of what I wrote, in which TRM alleged man-boy grooming, and try to behave according to WP:NPA and WP:Civility.
As I understand it, I am indefinitely blocked because an administrator misunderstood what I wrote, and tried to guess at my intentions.
Soon thereafter, AN has been hit with persons trying to ban me from RfAs, using this block, clearing abusing process. If they want to ban questions about grammar or about writing on encyclopedic topics from RfAs, then they should ask the community through an RfC. Good luck with that!
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah I agree that AN is a shameful disgrace. I saw what you wrote and could see how it could be misconstrued but at the same time if they bothered to read the context of the discussion around it, it was clearly a misunderstanding and overreaction. That is unfortunately what I have come to expect from admins these days though. Indefinite block, ask some peers to gratify their actions, and continue trolling the discussion just to prove their point. Not much AGF anymore in this site. But hey, the new features make it a lot more like facebook every day! Kumioko (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- To be fair, I don't really think you can place all the blame on the admins. Much more culpable are the admin wannabes who hang around that place. Eric Corbett 23:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Side topic |
---|
|
Suggestion for BK
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Did you ever look at my RfC/U. Worm That Turn and Demiurge1000 quoted you in their beginning. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
|
Dictionary needs
At AN yesterday, WTT cited this diff as evidence that I was using "grooming" with connotations of sexual predation. In fact, the diff and his citation yesterday demonstrate a limited vocabulary. WTT should have reviewed "groom" and "preen" and understood their consonance, before and yesterday. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- KW, either you do not understand how the juxtaposition of "grooming" and "child" is problematic or you do understand and are chosing to quibble your way out of trouble. If the former, you should be removed from the encyclopedia due to intense naïvety and I believe you've exhausted many people's patience with the latter. There's really not much more for me to say. Worm(talk) 11:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- In the diff I quote, following you, I compared you to a student-government politician gaining votes by making friends with unpopular kids. You know that "groom" is used for such activities, in contemporary literature, as I have posted on Wikipediocracy.
- I am utterly uninterested in your patience or opinions. You are the same man who carried out Demiurge1000's RfC/U against me, and anybody reading that dishonest piece of work or your current postings can see what you are made of.
- You too offered the "hand of friendship" after that RfC/U.... Perhaps Dennis Brown can consider what such offers are worth. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- In a nutshell, you have successfully snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. GS was baiting you at RFA. I spoke out in the interest of fairness and GS reflected on it and admitted his wording was very suboptimal. You doubted his sincerity and couldn't resist making a point of it all. You are a clever wordsmith, perhaps too clever for your own good at times. My issue isn't what you said, even a dense fellow like myself could read through the opacity with a little extra effort. The comment was crafted specifically to cause drama, to fool the mind's eye and get people to misinterpret it. It wasn't your first use of the device, and you could easily predict the reaction although you may have underestimated the aftermath. You took it too far this time, and while that might not have been the intent, it would be foolish to not recognize it now. The solution here is simple and obvious. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 12:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
A crucial turning point in that earlier history occurred when men and women of good will turned aside from the task of shoring up the Roman imperium and ceased to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of that imperium. When they set themselves to achieve instead—often not recognizing fully what they were doing—was the construction of new forms of community within which the moral life could be sustained so that both morality and civility might survive the coming ages of barbarism and darkness. If my account of our moral condition is correct, we ought also to conclude that for some time now we too have reached that turning point. What matters at this stage is the construction of local forms of community within which civility and the intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new dark ages which are already upon us. And if the tradition of the virtues was able to survive the horrors of the last dark ages, we are not entirely without grounds for hope. This time however the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time.
— Alasdair C. MacIntyre, After Virtue
- FFS, Dennis, WTT quotes me using "groom" above to describe a student-politician "befriending" uncool kids to get votes. I have a record of using groom precisely for such manipulative recruitment. The word has other meanings without manipulation, as e.g. Jon Snow being groomed for leadership in Game of Thrones.
- I didn't even use "groom" here. Others misattribute it to me, along with "young boys", sloppily or maliciously. I've given diffs and links on Wikipediocracy. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Kiefer, they will see and read what they wish or what they're conditioned to believe. That's how some conduct gets condoned or ignored here while other actions bring out the mob with its torches. You also have to remember that from a group psychology sort of standpoint closed societies need enemies. They need a vague external threat to rally the troops so that no one looks too closely at the rot that's going on inside. Why go out of your way to provide them with said enemy? OWN of policy prevents many from making real change, or putting it off as too complicated, so we're stuck with what we have. It pains me to say that, but so long as OWN of policy is condoned (and even encouraged by the various shadow bureaucracies) that's the reality. Intothatdarkness 13:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Then I'm left with only two choices: 1) You crafted your words to intentionally make a point. or 2) It was a very foolish mistake. As most people consider you a skilled wordsmith, you surely understand why it is difficult to believe it was the 2nd option. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 14:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, sex doesn't need to have anything to do with it. But the innuendo is there and is strong, so is the allusion to canvassing. -- Ohc ¿que pasa? 15:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Good advices
"I'd like it here if I could leave" Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Choice
I've gotten the impression you'd rather do the right thing rather than suck up to "powers that be." Sort of a the coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave man dies but once. While I can't be certain -- there's a temporal element to AN & ANI where the "pitchforks" tend to show up first, and then the more reasonable folks later -- if not this time, then the next time, or the time after that it's likely you'll get banned. You should be savvy enough to know what kind of phrasing is going to get you in hot water, and which won't. I'll be the first to admit WP is a messed up, political place but despite that it's produced the best encyclopedia ever -- it'd be a shame if your contributions to it were lost, but I don't think my minority sentiments and that of a few others can continue to turn the tide of the reactionary types who are just gonna react to anything provocative you post. If you were more of a newbie I'd suggest phrasing for an unblock request but I don't think you need that -- bottom line is I think you have a choice to make very soon now if you want to continue to participate on-wiki or be content limiting your efforts to 'cracy and the like. NE Ent 13:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- I asked for others to remove the phrase that was objectionable, before, which shows my intention to focus on the issue at hand, without using precise language that is alas liable to be misinterpreted.
- It is unfortunate that many at AN call for me to apologize despite my having made my strike-the-comment request soon after somebody raised concerns. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Drive by shooting off the mouth |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Suggestion
KW, I've read what you've written above and I have a suggestion. If I understand you correctly, young men and boys are impressionable and easily led and that the misleading of this youthful set was what you were referring to. I'm willing to AGF and accept that statement and doubtless there are others who would do the same. But, clearly, the statement has been misinterpreted, and not without reason. Would it kill you to make a clear statement that both explains what you meant and also apologizes for the poor choice of words that have lead to giving people offense? I know we Americans can appear to be way too eager to be politically correct but one reason why we thrive in social settings is that we realize that giving unintended offense is not just well worth an apology but is also a good way to keep moving forward. And that's not going to happen if you think there is nothing to apologize for or that the people taking offense are merely out for your blood. Right or wrong, there is a way to survive on Misplaced Pages and a way to self-destruct, the choice (as NE Ent above also says) is yours. --regentspark (comment) 14:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've clarified my intention numerous times, and I asked that my comment be struck after I read a complaint. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- I see that here but not on AN. What would be helpful would be a clear explanation that includes your strike out request along with an apology for giving offense that can be copied to AN. Otherwise, I suspect, this is going to end badly. Something along the lines of In the comment that is causing this controversy, I meant blah blah blah. I apologize for my poor choice of words that caused the statement to be misconstrued and, in fact, asked that it be struck (include diff) the moment I realized that had happened (I was blocked and couldn't strike it myself).--regentspark (comment) 14:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've said this many times.
- I have stated my concern with a long-term mostly low-intensity conflict in which high-intensity conflicts happen, often because Demiurge1000 has been manipulating inexperienced persons found among WP's editors. Because of WP demographics and because of the obvious, such naive editors tend to be young men, perhaps boys. When somebody complained about the sentence, I first clarified my intention and asked that somebody strike it for me, because I had been immediately blocked and could not remove it myself.
- I don't think this will make people happy. What they want is a ban of me from RfAs and a block of me, probably through the next WP ArbCom elections. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- You're probably right. But it is the right thing to do and that's always worth something. I've copied it over to AN. --regentspark (comment) 15:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I suppose that a link to Wrangham's Demonic Males would have not raised Youtube-copyright concerns, but might have been considered more inflamatory than the link to Julie and Harry. See, I'm trying to fit in. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Pmanderson said it the best: it's a social website, not an encyclopedia. The social dynamic here seems out of Milan Kundera; the picture of enraptured youth dancing in a circle. --regentspark (comment) 15:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've never read Kundera---almost up there with King Lear and Tolstoy as my most humiliating literary lacunae. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Pmanderson said it the best: it's a social website, not an encyclopedia. The social dynamic here seems out of Milan Kundera; the picture of enraptured youth dancing in a circle. --regentspark (comment) 15:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I suppose that a link to Wrangham's Demonic Males would have not raised Youtube-copyright concerns, but might have been considered more inflamatory than the link to Julie and Harry. See, I'm trying to fit in. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- You're probably right. But it is the right thing to do and that's always worth something. I've copied it over to AN. --regentspark (comment) 15:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've said this many times.
- I see that here but not on AN. What would be helpful would be a clear explanation that includes your strike out request along with an apology for giving offense that can be copied to AN. Otherwise, I suspect, this is going to end badly. Something along the lines of In the comment that is causing this controversy, I meant blah blah blah. I apologize for my poor choice of words that caused the statement to be misconstrued and, in fact, asked that it be struck (include diff) the moment I realized that had happened (I was blocked and couldn't strike it myself).--regentspark (comment) 14:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Time to move on
Strange comments. How should an improperly blocked editor "move on"? |
---|
K-Wolf, there comes a time when one needs to accept that one has made their case and move along. I personally think your concerns are overblown, which is not to say that scrutiny is altogether unnecessary. But that's not going to be your department moving forward, nor is Misplaced Pages 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)
|
Way forward
KW...in my mind there is an easy way to move forward...simply state you're going to avoid the dramaboards and places like Rfa for at least six months and concentrate solely on article improvements and stick with that. One thing I have noticed here is those that simply state their opinions with calmness and coolness and avoid threaded arguments end up having the louder voices and more say as a result. The back and forth and stonewalling rarely succeeds in doing anything but getting blood pressures up. I hope you'll not just remove this or hat it off because even though we haven't always agreed, you should know that I value your general edits in article space and would like to see you return to that fold. What gets accomplished at the dramaboards anyway? I'm a strong supporter of freedom of speech but also freedom from speeches...and thats my speech to try and bluntly offer what I think is the best way forward.--MONGO 16:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Your suggestion is welcome after the improper block is removed.
- The improper block seems to have been confused with consensus at an AN/I discussion, with an RfC with voluntary restrictions, an ArbCom case, or an intervention by Jimbo Wales. Each has its place at times on WP, but at this place and at this time discussion should focus on the improper block.
- New York Brad also suggested that I volunteer to self-imposed limitations at RfA before he could see what he could do with the block. I would like to introduce NYB, after his performance on the bureaucrat's talk page and here, to the signatory of the ArbCom decision who was concerned with uneven enforcement of civility.
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- You should know there isn't any justice in this place...I can also testify to that. Man, I've been misunderstood (maybe cause I sometimes parse my comments too strongly ((sound familiar?))) more often than not but I do know where you're coming from most of the time. I'm all for the good fight but sometimes its better to lose a battle than the whole war ya know. NYB isn't going to get it right all the time anymore than any of the rest of us, but he's more right than not to a degree that I rank him as one of the more sane persons on the website, certainly more so than I. You also get to the grit in the matter and your words are generally worth reading, even if they can be (like mine) somewhat eyebrow-raising.--MONGO 20:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I know NYB for supporting RfAs of minors without offering anything like a review of their contributions and for writing a toothless guide for minors editing Misplaced Pages, which should be compared to the guidelines of organizations like the Boy Scouts. I know NYB for coddling The Rambling Man and coming here to kvetch about my comments at RfA, at a grossly improper time. Let him rescue one of the Rihanna projects GA articles and get it to DYK status, as a member of the community, before he comes here again to lecture me on being more tolerant of sports page cliches on an Encyclopedia's FAs or pointing out that the encyclopedia is being overrun. Perhaps his childhood never involved work, since he seemed to think that "studying or flipping burgers" was an insult or an improper expectation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I speak as the fifth-highest contributor to Beyonce Knowles' Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It), and helped it through FAC, never mind DYK, despite never having heard the song or having any interest in it; can't really remember why now, probably felt sorry for it. I'm also the sixth-highest contributor to Manchester United F.C. So whatever NYB has or hasn't done let me simply say that you're really doing yourself no favours. Listen to the advice you're being given, please. Eric Corbett 21:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I did my time on a song by Christina Aguilera, and know whereof I speak when I complained about the standards of GAs on pop songs, which despite my efforts do not meet the standards of DYK. The end of the article now with GA status has not been improved since my clean up of the first 3/4s. There are plenty of problems with such projects' GA articles, a proposition not disproved by your fine work on an FA article or NYB's displeasure (elsewhere). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- No indeed. In truth I not infrequently find WP's pop culture coverage to be quite useful. When I'm watching a film, for instance, I'll sometimes flip to the WP page to try and understand what the Hell is going on, or if I'm feeling particularly impatient how the film ends. I was rather in the dark about how Dark Water ended until I read the WP article. Did she die or didn't she? Apparently she died. Sort of. Eric Corbett 22:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Kiefer...I'm willing to fight to get you unblocked....but Dianna below has left the building. What's the next step? I definitely think it's admirable to stick to your principles and maybe diffs at the time of your comment would have helped...but unless you just agree to just let it go, you're stuck in limbo for the near term. Tell us what you you're willing to give here. Can you agree to just move forward and avoid the drama zones for awhile? A self imposed ban from some of these areas would have a positive impact.--MONGO 04:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- I did my time on a song by Christina Aguilera, and know whereof I speak when I complained about the standards of GAs on pop songs, which despite my efforts do not meet the standards of DYK. The end of the article now with GA status has not been improved since my clean up of the first 3/4s. There are plenty of problems with such projects' GA articles, a proposition not disproved by your fine work on an FA article or NYB's displeasure (elsewhere). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I speak as the fifth-highest contributor to Beyonce Knowles' Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It), and helped it through FAC, never mind DYK, despite never having heard the song or having any interest in it; can't really remember why now, probably felt sorry for it. I'm also the sixth-highest contributor to Manchester United F.C. So whatever NYB has or hasn't done let me simply say that you're really doing yourself no favours. Listen to the advice you're being given, please. Eric Corbett 21:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I know NYB for supporting RfAs of minors without offering anything like a review of their contributions and for writing a toothless guide for minors editing Misplaced Pages, which should be compared to the guidelines of organizations like the Boy Scouts. I know NYB for coddling The Rambling Man and coming here to kvetch about my comments at RfA, at a grossly improper time. Let him rescue one of the Rihanna projects GA articles and get it to DYK status, as a member of the community, before he comes here again to lecture me on being more tolerant of sports page cliches on an Encyclopedia's FAs or pointing out that the encyclopedia is being overrun. Perhaps his childhood never involved work, since he seemed to think that "studying or flipping burgers" was an insult or an improper expectation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- You should know there isn't any justice in this place...I can also testify to that. Man, I've been misunderstood (maybe cause I sometimes parse my comments too strongly ((sound familiar?))) more often than not but I do know where you're coming from most of the time. I'm all for the good fight but sometimes its better to lose a battle than the whole war ya know. NYB isn't going to get it right all the time anymore than any of the rest of us, but he's more right than not to a degree that I rank him as one of the more sane persons on the website, certainly more so than I. You also get to the grit in the matter and your words are generally worth reading, even if they can be (like mine) somewhat eyebrow-raising.--MONGO 20:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer, Mongo has given you excellent advice above. The way you're going about it now, right or wrong, no one is going to unblock you (unless Horologium chooses to do so). Even admins who are favorably inclined toward you need a reason to unblock and you're not giving us any. Looking at the current trajectory of this affair, the prognosis, I'm sorry to be brutal about this, is extremely negative and you're likely to end up amongst the heap of departed and forgotten editors. You might want to think about that. Read Mongo's suggestion at the top of this section carefully and take a day off to think about it before posting anything. --regentspark (comment) 15:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- After the improper block is lifted, we can discuss RfAs, etc. I am certainly not going to condescend to discuss other matters now. I would wish that people would stop repeating themselves. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Your participation at RfA
Improper discussion of RfA during improper block | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Let me see if I can help with the current situation in some fashion. I'll put to the side for the moment the specific comment for which you were blocked and take your suggestion of looking at the broader situation that led up to your making the comment. I've just read again through Mattythewhite's RfA page and its talkpage. You of course had the right to oppose his candidacy, whether or not other voters agreed with your rationale. However, several of your comments explaining your opposition were, in my considered opinion, appalling. In the context of a comparison of numbers of pageviews of the candidate's articles and your articles, your observation that "more persons still suffer from HIV" was gratuitous and objectionable. Telling another editor that "your broken-record false witnessing jeopardizes your soul" damages the collaborative environment. While it was clearly suboptimal for someone to refer to your "having gotten your knickers in a twist," characterizing this cliche as "your fantasies about my underwear" did not help matters in the least. Telling an editor younger than yourself to "run along and play nice somewhere else" was obnoxious, as was the suggestion that younger members of a wikiproject should be "flipping burgers" instead of editing. (I do, however, agree with your explanation of the "Andy Capp" comment. It was a bit obnoxiously dismissive of editors who work on sports articles, but it was not a personal attack on anyone. On the other hand, I also have to agree that your rewrite of his prose plainly overlooked some conventions of British English and British football parlance.) I do not consider myself any form of "civility cop" (in my six years as an administrator, I have never blocked anyone for "personal attacks" and I have supported such blocks only in extreme circumstances). However, the RfA pages, of which Mattythewhite's is the most recent example, are a forum in which you have made many of your most intemperate comments that have led to bickering, drama, and blocks. As I expect you will sooner or later be unblocked, would you be willing to agree either to stay off the RfA pages for awhile, or at least to some reasonable limit on your comments on these pages? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
(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 Misplaced Pages 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)
|
Reply for NYB
- Ecrasez l'infame!
Links have accumulated at Wikipediocracy.
I still don't see an indefinite block for the on-Wiki advice on avoiding parental monitoring of IM/email. WP:CHILD forbids editors asking minors for personal information, such as IMs and email addresses. Advising a child how to avoid parental controls on computer use requires an immediate indefinite back with email access removed and talk page access removed.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Examine the contributions on Simple Misplaced Pages and follow the policy
Demiurge1000's request at WP:ANThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Evidence or retraction requested; KW's statement above contains the text "Demiurge1000 has been manipulating inexperienced persons found among WP's editors".
I'd been led to believe that making accusations about other editors without providing evidence, is unacceptable.
So, where's the evidence?
(And I don't just mean "you posted a notification on another editor's talk page and that editor happened to be under the age of 25", or "you gave a barnstar to someone after an argument". I mean actual evidence to categorically support what's being alleged.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.You all have been asking for it. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Simple Misplaced Pages userpage
Emboldening addedThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Forget it.
Forget about emailing me. My stupid parents just went through and deleted most of my contacts. Instead, I'll be at Playcrafter sometimes. See you. Loudclaw (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, don't worry, this sort of thing happens sometimes. I'm sure you realise they are just being careful of your safety.
- Technically speaking, someone not being in your contacts, doesn't stop you emailing them (if you know their address), or them emailing you. But it's better if you agree with your parents about who you should and shouldn't email.
- Another good thing is to discuss what you do online with your parents - when they're not busy - so that they know what's going on. Did you remember to ask if they would agree for you to create an account on that chess website?
- I don't think I will use Playcrafter much, the games aren't that great and the chat interface is pretty annoying.
- Now, back to Misplaced Pages things. How is WikiProject Warriors going? I see there are still a lot of articles to create. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Well.....Look on the talk page of WP:Warriors. Loudclaw (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC) (I left a little treat)
Well I did find a new member. That member can be found here, at User talk:Silverspirit. Loudclaw (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, uh.... I can improve Metroid Prime 3: Corruption because I now own the video game. I'll also use GameFAQs. Loudclaw (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Demiurge, I'm not allowed to IM anyone or I'll get into trouble. Sorry, Loudclaw (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
No access to email. Can't think of another way to tell you this, my IM might be screwed too. Loudclaw/Hey, let's collaborate!/Desk/WP:Warriors 21:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep. It's screwed. Loudclaw/Hey, let's collaborate!/Desk/WP:Warriors 21:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, at least that means you're not risking getting into trouble. As regards websites that are not so restrictive to people in your age group, you should probably sign up for Runescape. As regards Simple Misplaced Pages, how is your work on the Warriors articles going? Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- So? Anyway, I haven't been very active on here lately. Have you made the account on Samwiki? Loudclaw/Hey, let's collaborate!/Desk/WP:Warriors 21:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC) If you have, ask for adminship and cratship, and unblock me and block SAM for a month. Take his powers and give me mine back. I never hurt his wiki.
...
- There could be an anti-Demiurge1000 right now! Loudclaw/Hey, let's collaborate!/Desk/WP:Warriors/My changes 05:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- What does that mean? It doesn't sound very sensible.
- There could be an anti-Demiurge1000 right now! Loudclaw/Hey, let's collaborate!/Desk/WP:Warriors/My changes 05:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Anyway, I have created a SamsWiki account called Demiurge1000. Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:50, 27 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.
- Advice for young editors
If you are a younger editor and feel that another person on Misplaced Pages is behaving in a way that you feel threatens your personal safety, or worries you in any way whatsoever, please tell a responsible adult, and ask them to look at this page. Do not continue to communicate with the other person – ignore them completely. Never give out personal information to anyone, including people who say they are trying to help you.
Any administrator may block an editor for the conduct described in this policy. When an editor is blocked for such conduct, the blocking administrator is instructed to use neutral block summaries, and disable the editor's ability to edit their talk page as well as their access to the on-site user email interface. Blocking administrators should inform the blocked editor that any appeals or further discussion may be addressed only to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org, and then notify the Committee immediately.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Rationale for block
"Rationalization" would be more apt.
- "Misplaced Pages *has* had an issue with advocates of pedophilia"
notice the past tense "has had" rather than "has", and notice the "advocates of" rather than "practitioners of".
- "small cadre of his supporters"
such as administrators who have blocked me recently?
- "(unfounded) allusions to pedophilia pass without comment"
Horologium et alia are the ones misinterpreting my remarks as an "allusion to pedophilia", a word that I have never used on Wiki. Others have explained my intention and English. (Of course, discussions of violations of WP:CHILD should be made to the WMF Foundation....) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't block KW because of his edits on WP:RFA (which is not an arena in which I post unless I have a familiarity—positive or negative—with the candidates). My block was based solely on his comments on WP:AN, where the allusion to pedophilia was both striking and repugnant. Ignoring the rantings of a fair number of editors (here, and on other fora), Misplaced Pages *has* had an issue with advocates of pedophilia; we just blocked one of them earlier this year. (I am referring to Meco (talk · contribs), whose offenses have been detailed elsewhere, both on- and off-site.) Allowing a longtime editor to make allusions to similar behavior (through specific phraseology) is simply unacceptable. Despite the protestations of KW (and a small cadre of his supporters) that his statement was not at all about pedophilia, the fact remains that he the verbiage he employed was clearly intended to provoke some sort of negative response (as witnessed by the substantial number of editors who have weighed in at the discussion on WP:AN). I am not convinced by KW's assertions that his statement cannot be reasonably interpreted as an assertion of pedophilia, with references to both "young men and boys" and "boys and young men", the mentions of "recruit" and "inexperience", and the ending question "Is he behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men?" To claim that those constructions were simply happenstance boggles the mind, and (if they were in fact simply coincidence) KW needed to be stopped immediately, either for grievous personal attacks or because he was inadvertently defaming another editor. I find it fascinating that a bit of fairly unpleasant invective has been directed towards me by an administrator of a site which exists largely to complain about the less savory aspects of various WMF projects, with some snarky follow-up from an editor in good standing here. Aspersions are cast upon me, yet (unfounded) allusions to pedophilia pass without comment, for the most part. I am a bit surprised that the evolving consensus seems to be to uphold the indefinite block, but KW has dug in, rather than admit that his posts have been a major component of this whole ordeal. While I blocked for a specific post (with a reference to his block history), the community as a whole chose to look at the ongoing behavioral pattern. Horologium (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- though the comments merit a block, an indef seems to be pretty excessive given his experience. It's a shame to throw someone of this caliber to the street. The blocker definitely shouldn't be surprised about the criticism he or she gets since actions like the one above need to thought about given the repercussion and how it may affect your reputation 174.236.64.146 (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Horlogium, your language here is obnoxious, and I repeat that the only reference to pedophilia is in your mind and in the minds of others making that accusation. You seem not to have looked at much at the Wikipediocracy site, if you are so shocked to be criticized. Have you looked lately at the evidence rolling in? Below I link on-Wiki behavior of telling a teen how to evade his parents' ban on internet usage. What the fuck are you doing not enforcing a block, immediately, on Demiurge1000 for violating the prohibition on asking minors for personal information? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Horologium,
- You are "surprised" at the response of editors at Wikipediocracy? You might look at AN if you want nicey nicey discussions of your policy-violating block.
- Make Lukeno94 happy and file an RfC if you want to block me for a pattern of behavior.
- You should resign your administrative office, because policy also boggles your mind. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have problems with criticism; I would not have blocked him (or, for that matter, taken any other admin actions) if I couldn't handle criticism. I've had a few blocks or page protections which have been less-then warmly received </understatment>. The only reason I brought it up is the attention my block (and the disclosures on my userpage) have received elsewhere. I have noted that I don't support an infinite block on KW, but I can't disagree with those who argue that he needs to have some sort of epiphany before he returns. There are plenty of reasons why we have fewer editors subjecting themselves to RFA, but paint-by-numbers automated opposes don't help matters, and KW's opposition due to age is reminiscent of another KW's automatic opposes (through self-nominations) and ultimately equally disruptive and corrosive. That was what touched off this particular dispute, but the specific attack (and it was an attack) was why I blocked him. His disagreements with other editors were personalized to an unacceptable degree, by his own doing. Horologium (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I did not oppose him because of age. He wrote badly at the RfA and is associated with a weak project; his FA article had a weak lede. He seems not to have contributed to traditional encyclopedic articles.
- It's was a little late for you to announce that you are blocking me because of your political agenda, which violates the RfA consensus that lack of adulthood may be freely mentioned by opposers (although in this case it seemed to have been irrelevant).
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- though the comments merit a block, an indef seems to be pretty excessive given his experience. It's a shame to throw someone of this caliber to the street. The blocker definitely shouldn't be surprised about the criticism he or she gets since actions like the one above need to thought about given the repercussion and how it may affect your reputation 174.236.64.146 (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't block KW because of his edits on WP:RFA (which is not an arena in which I post unless I have a familiarity—positive or negative—with the candidates). My block was based solely on his comments on WP:AN, where the allusion to pedophilia was both striking and repugnant. Ignoring the rantings of a fair number of editors (here, and on other fora), Misplaced Pages *has* had an issue with advocates of pedophilia; we just blocked one of them earlier this year. (I am referring to Meco (talk · contribs), whose offenses have been detailed elsewhere, both on- and off-site.) Allowing a longtime editor to make allusions to similar behavior (through specific phraseology) is simply unacceptable. Despite the protestations of KW (and a small cadre of his supporters) that his statement was not at all about pedophilia, the fact remains that he the verbiage he employed was clearly intended to provoke some sort of negative response (as witnessed by the substantial number of editors who have weighed in at the discussion on WP:AN). I am not convinced by KW's assertions that his statement cannot be reasonably interpreted as an assertion of pedophilia, with references to both "young men and boys" and "boys and young men", the mentions of "recruit" and "inexperience", and the ending question "Is he behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men?" To claim that those constructions were simply happenstance boggles the mind, and (if they were in fact simply coincidence) KW needed to be stopped immediately, either for grievous personal attacks or because he was inadvertently defaming another editor. I find it fascinating that a bit of fairly unpleasant invective has been directed towards me by an administrator of a site which exists largely to complain about the less savory aspects of various WMF projects, with some snarky follow-up from an editor in good standing here. Aspersions are cast upon me, yet (unfounded) allusions to pedophilia pass without comment, for the most part. I am a bit surprised that the evolving consensus seems to be to uphold the indefinite block, but KW has dug in, rather than admit that his posts have been a major component of this whole ordeal. While I blocked for a specific post (with a reference to his block history), the community as a whole chose to look at the ongoing behavioral pattern. Horologium (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Unblock request
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).Kiefer.Wolfowitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Horologium's block for one comment violated the blocking policy, as discussed by IRWolfie at AN. The discussion here and at AN clarifies why large segments of the community question the misinterpretation by Horologium of my edit, which has been asked to be struck by me and which has been clarified by me many times. Thus, the block was improper.
In his most recent posting (above), Horologium clarified his political agenda. If he wants to change the rules of RfA, he should use a community RfC, not his administrative tools. He should discuss matters (possibly filing an RfC/U if he wishes) and not use his block tools, if he wishes to discuss other issues. It is at best confusing and raising the appearance of impropriety for Horologium especially (and for other administrators, from the civil NYB to the mob at AN) to mix other concerns with a discussion of this block.
Also, given the concerns about IRC canvassing noted at AN by User:Nick and the blocking administrator's few edits, the blocking administrator should declare how he learned of my edit and whether he was on IRC when he blocked me.
Argument in the alternative/Alternative pleading: Even if some block can pass the laugh test for some reasonable person, the indefinite length of the block has been harshly criticized at AN also. At very least, the block should be reduced to a definite time, perhaps time served.
Decline reason:
The discussion at AN showed no consensus at AN to lift the block or reduce its length. Assertions that the block is unfair will be inadequate to overturn this consensus. Assertions that the blocking admin had a political agenda will not be adequate to overturn this consensus. Whether the blocking admin first learned of your post at IRC or happened upon it by chance is irrelevant to the unblock. What has to happen for you to be unblocked is that an uninvolved admin, in consultation with the blocking admin, has to be convinced that the behaviour in question will not be repeated. The behaviour in question was "accusing another of misconduct without evidence and in such a way that reasonable people may infer an accusation of sexual misconduct". The unblock request herein and your other posts on this page have not been adequate to demonstrate that the behaviour will not be repeated. Convenience link to discussion at AN: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive249#Interaction ban proposed. Dianna (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Dianna,
- Regarding
- "accusing another of misconduct without evidence":
- I was blocked within minutes of the posting, so there was no time for evidence. I specifically explained my concern with Demiurge1000's political manipulation of Gwickwire and Lukeno94, egging them on against his on-Wiki targets. I specifically disavowed any accusation of sexual misconduct, every time it such an improper imputation has been made to me by WP editors.
- I have quoted below Demiurge1000's on-Wiki explanation to a minor---whose email-contacts had been erased by parents---how to continue emailing persons against his parents' wishes. Sam's wiki (linked at Wikipediocracy) shows continued emailing and IMing despite the parental wishes, and an IM sent after the child stopped accepting them.
- Thus, there is evidence to support the accusation of improper conduct towards young people, and sufficient evidence (the treatment of gwickwire and lukeno94 mentioned) was already given at AN. This accusation is false.
- "reasonable people may infer an accusation of sexual misconduct". There is no consensus for this interpretation, and the IRWolfie has dissected its intellectual carcase.
- "accusing another of misconduct without evidence":
- If you have something to say, write it and don't engage in vague accusations or bs: "your other posts on this page have not been adequate to demonstrate that the behavior will not be repeated". WTF does that mean?
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- A very large number of editors participated in the AN discussion and a well-trusted bureaucrat closed with the conclusion that there was no consensus to unblock until it becomes obvious that you understand the reason for the block and will not repeat the behaviour that led to the block. The material in the unblock request and on this talk page is insufficient to overturn that consensus and therefore I declined your unblock request. -- Dianna (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- The accusation against Demiurge should never have been posted without evidence. Expecting that you would be able to post such an accusation and later collect and present evidence to back it up is not realistic. As with editing articles, extraordinary claims against other editors require rock solid evidence at the time of posting, not at some indeterminate time in the future. The fact that many editors construed your post to have a sexual meaning only made matters worse, but that was only one factor in the block. What you need to do to get unblocked is assure the community that you will not post accusations against other editors without presenting evidence. Once an uninvolved admin, in consultation with the blocking admin, is satisfied that the behaviour will not be repeated, an unblock will follow. -- Dianna (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- What accusation against Demiurge1000? I presented evidence, namely his egging on Lukeno94 and Gwickwire.
- Why was that evidence inadequate? Is it too much to assume that WP administrators and AN-enthusiasts and in particular you can search "Demiurge1000, Kiefer.Wolfowitz, Gwickwire OR Lukeno94"?
- I did not present evidence to support the accusation you and others accuse me of making, because I did not make it, and indeed when somebody insisted on making it (despite my patient explanation) I asked that the misinterpreted wording be struck (and replaced with an imprecise phrase, apparently without connotations).
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Repeated use of the phrasing that these are young boys and men being recruited implies that Demiurge is intentionally targeting vulnerable members of the community. The community interpreted your post to have a sexual connotation, and many people assumed this was intentional, so sorry. Since you are a highly skilled user of the English language they assume you meant to say exactly what the post implied. It was not until you were already blocked that you offered to amend the post to remove the sexual connotation. But leave that aside for a moment, and just look at the diff itself. It makes an accusation, without presenting any evidence: Diff of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard and your next post, eleven minutes later, repeats the accusation without presenting any evidence: Diff of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard. Whether the post has a sexual connotation or not, you are accusing Demiurge - without presenting any evidence - of manipulating and using other people. This type of accusation should never be presented without evidence. If there's no on-wiki evidence that can be presented, the accusation should not have been dropped into a thread on a highly travelled admin notice board. -- Dianna (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am sorry for not requesting that you read the AN thread. In particular, please read Fram and other's posts of plenty of diffs, since you seem not to have already. Fram linked (I believe) Demiurge1000's noting (on Lukeno94's talk page) of his RfC/U against me (with Worm That Turned as point man)? Gwickwire is a minor, but his behavior was discussed so many times on AN/I that I took it for granted that Demiurge1000's egging him on would be known. (Have you still not searched for Gwickwire and Demiurge1000?)
- You claim that accusations require evidence. I'm still waiting for you or New York Brad to block The Rambling Man for his unretracted hysterics at the RfA and his talk page. Is TRM also a "respected bureaucrat"?
- Get busy blocking the liars and false accusers at ANI, if you want my respect. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am sorry for assuming that you were ignorant of Demiurge1000 and Gwickwire. You just gave an "attack kitten" to Gwickwire's new account, amid many other mutual admirations with Demiurge1000. Don't you think that you are the last administrator (besides TRM) who should review the unblock request? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Since you feel I am not qualified to help you, I will not be responding here any further. Good luck. -- Dianna (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Repeated use of the phrasing that these are young boys and men being recruited implies that Demiurge is intentionally targeting vulnerable members of the community. The community interpreted your post to have a sexual connotation, and many people assumed this was intentional, so sorry. Since you are a highly skilled user of the English language they assume you meant to say exactly what the post implied. It was not until you were already blocked that you offered to amend the post to remove the sexual connotation. But leave that aside for a moment, and just look at the diff itself. It makes an accusation, without presenting any evidence: Diff of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard and your next post, eleven minutes later, repeats the accusation without presenting any evidence: Diff of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard. Whether the post has a sexual connotation or not, you are accusing Demiurge - without presenting any evidence - of manipulating and using other people. This type of accusation should never be presented without evidence. If there's no on-wiki evidence that can be presented, the accusation should not have been dropped into a thread on a highly travelled admin notice board. -- Dianna (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
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 14:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- "Sorts of actions"?
I was blocked for one sentence, whose objectionable intention I disavowed and asked that it be struck. What on this page makes you think that I would repeat that sentence (or a similar sentence)? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Please read my statement again, carefully. I did not block you because of your contributions at RFA. I disagree with them, but that is beside the point entirely. I blocked you because of your allusions to pedophilia in your post on AN. The only connection RFA has with this block is that the AN discussion resulted from the dispute there. While there was a fair amount of suboptimal contributions from several editors at that RFA, nothing said there was block-worthy. It was the attack on AN, and the specific verbiage employed, that earned the block. As I (and others) have said, you chose wording that was deliberately inflammatory, rather than neutral wording which would have conveyed the same idea, and even your revision of the first sentence wouldn't fix the problem with the rest of the post. Horologium (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Then block yourself for your
deliberatelyinflammatory falsehoods---e.g., "paint by numbers", etc., which one would like to think were written thoughtlessly rather than deliberately. You can repeatedly assert that you have psychic abilities to understand my intentions, but others have already laughed at such assertions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC) - The only reference to paedophilia is in your mind.
- You still have not taken responsibility for your falsehoods and aspersions, which were made with non-neutral language. Where did you strike out anything?
- Read what I wrote, which was not "crafted". It was a quick comment posted five minutes after my previous edit. You edit so little and took so long to reply that we are supposed to forgive your "verbiage", "deliberately inflammatory", "allusions to pedophilia", "attack on AN".
- It's time that you take responsibility for your own actions, and strike your obnoxious comments and replace them with neutral language. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know if User:Horologium uses IRC and if so, what his nicks, cloak or host details are, so I don't know if he was on IRC when you were initially blocked. I didn't see any discussion prior to the block or immediately afterwards, but I idle for long periods so could have missed any discussion - don't take my word as definitive proof either way. I was asked later on, however, when the block period discussion was going on, to endorse the indefinite block by a couple of users - they don't use cloaks though so I can't verify who exactly they are, sorry. I don't log any of the channels I use on IRC so have no evidence to make direct accusations against any users or to take any action where necessary, I'm afraid. Nick (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- The last time I was on IRC (for Misplaced Pages, or any other purpose) was on April 25, 2008, where I fired up my IRC client to see which channel was loaded (I am sure of the date because a question was asked at my RFA about IRC). I had only been on the general WP channel four or five times previous to that. I have not been on IRC since I became an administrator, and I have never been on the admin channel. Much of this is trying to prove a negative, but (IIRC) you have to make a request for access for the admin channel. I never made such a request, and I'm sure that somebody, somewhere, has a list of people who have made that request. I do not know if anyone keeps logs of IRC chats, or if they contain IP addresses, but my IP address (which is static) is 71.199.83.38. (Those five edits from last fall are from my husband, who does not always log in to his account on the infrequent occasions that he edits, so I know that my IP address has not reset since then.) Horologium (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the supererogatory explanation. From your username and your "expelliarmus" spell, I'd pictured you as Hermione Granger, but not married to that Weasley. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW, you had my sex correct earlier. I am a "he", not a "she". The picture of my on my userpage should make that clear. (wry grin) Horologium (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I corrected the error, which does remind us of the risk of maximum a posterior probability estimation. And just yesterday we were singing "Jag har en pappa och en pappa. Det ar bra att har en pappa och en pappa ..." at daycare.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the supererogatory explanation. From your username and your "expelliarmus" spell, I'd pictured you as Hermione Granger, but not married to that Weasley. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- The last time I was on IRC (for Misplaced Pages, or any other purpose) was on April 25, 2008, where I fired up my IRC client to see which channel was loaded (I am sure of the date because a question was asked at my RFA about IRC). I had only been on the general WP channel four or five times previous to that. I have not been on IRC since I became an administrator, and I have never been on the admin channel. Much of this is trying to prove a negative, but (IIRC) you have to make a request for access for the admin channel. I never made such a request, and I'm sure that somebody, somewhere, has a list of people who have made that request. I do not know if anyone keeps logs of IRC chats, or if they contain IP addresses, but my IP address (which is static) is 71.199.83.38. (Those five edits from last fall are from my husband, who does not always log in to his account on the infrequent occasions that he edits, so I know that my IP address has not reset since then.) Horologium (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The indefinite nature of the block has been criticized by some, yes, but while the blocking admin intended that it be indefinite only until the community decided on a proper length of time, there is also significant support for it to remain indefinite. That aspect may be somewhat unfair to you unless one were to successfully propose a proper community ban, but it certainly exposes a rather high level of disatisfaction with both the attack that preciptated the block and your followup responses, which can best be described as unrepentant, coupled with your history of being rather abrasive. It lends itself to questions: If the block were lifted, what is the likelihood of you making similar comments that cast such aspersions (whether intended or thoughtlessly, it doesn't matter) in the future? How do you plan to address the concerns of those who do believe that indefinite is the proper time frame for this block? Resolute 16:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am concerned less with your faction than with addressing the concerns of editors who believe that they can read my mind, and I have addressed those concerns sufficiently. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Considering the objections are a mixture of past grudges (some have acknowledged that), misinterpretation of policy, twisting what KW has said (by assuming bad faith), pile on votes, and illogical reasoning (claims of ageism and gender discrimination against males for example was a silly reason), etc I do not think KW can do anything to convince those who say indef. If you have a grudge you have a grudge. If someone twisted his words, KW can only apologise that it could be twisted. If the reasons were illogical, nothing can be said, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for supplying the missing middle arguments, in a shorter proof than I could have managed---my style running more to Principia Mathematica's two-volume proof that 1+1=2 --- along with explicatives and knife-thrusts from Deadwood---before I edit them out! ;) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I would also note the ANI didn't have a consensus that there should be a block either. There were a lot of editors who felt the block was a misunderstanding and should be shortenened or dropped. So it seems in light of a bad decision the only thing that can be done is to let the bad decision stand? That's Misplaced Pages for you. This is just prime evidence that admins aren't required to make good decisions nor are the held responsible for bad ones. Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- This may have been the first recorded agreement between myself and Bishonen---I almost did not dare to type the name lest I be accused of suggesting an inappropriate relationship with another Chinese young male sex worker. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- I would also note the ANI didn't have a consensus that there should be a block either. There were a lot of editors who felt the block was a misunderstanding and should be shortenened or dropped. So it seems in light of a bad decision the only thing that can be done is to let the bad decision stand? That's Misplaced Pages for you. This is just prime evidence that admins aren't required to make good decisions nor are the held responsible for bad ones. Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for supplying the missing middle arguments, in a shorter proof than I could have managed---my style running more to Principia Mathematica's two-volume proof that 1+1=2 --- along with explicatives and knife-thrusts from Deadwood---before I edit them out! ;) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
A few specifics
This wall of text is giving me a headache and making my eyes go fuzzy, so just one question: is there clear and incontrovertible evidence that Demiurge1000 asked a minor for their personal details? Eric Corbett 23:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Here, I can only discuss what is on-Wiki, as I understand it, and I have cited a troubling conversation on Simple Misplaced Pages, the meaning of which should be clear on a second reading. (I missed the leitmotiv on the first, as you can see at Wikipediocracy.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- For obvious reasons, the quotes and diffs have been moved to a secure undisclosed location. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Horologium and WP:NPA
Quotation from talk page of Horologium |
---|
Notice the diffless wall of accusations from Horologium, the blocking administrator. From the talk page of HorologiumThe 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)
|
Let me address the points raised, most of them irrelevant to the question at hand, his block.
- "the massive refactoring and reorganization KW performed on his page, which is apparently something he has done on other occasions. I will not be watching the page any more, because his editing has utterly obliterated the sequential nature of the edits in favor of his preferred presentation of the situation."
- Any refactoring has followed talk-page guidelines; in particular, time and date stamps remain. Conversations offering advice like "stop opposing weak candidates at RfA and you will be unblocked" have been moved together, so that future conversations can benefit from the past.
- "vociferous denunciation of the admin who declined his unblock request leads me to believe that he will not accept as unbiased any admin who does not agree to unblock him."
- Bullshit. Administrator Dianna had an undeclared conflict of interest from her years of friendship with Demiurge1000 and kitten-giving to Gwickwire's new account. The second administrator has no such COI (known to me), and has received no criticism from me.
- "you are just about the only administrator who both opposed my block and supported an unblock, that makes you possibly the only admin who he will consider to be sufficiently unbiased."
- It starts off vague and misleading and leads to nasty speculation, a poor example for any editor and especially inappropriate for a blocking administrator.
- "I also encountered a rather interesting exchange"
- This passive aggression is inappropriate for an adult or an administrator.
- "KW was more than willing to ascribe sexist and homophobic motives to someone else based on the wording of their posts, but on far shakier grounds than those for which I blocked him. Instead of confining the discussion to the talk page on which the edits occurred and the user talk pages of the two of them, he fired off a missive on the talk page for a (presumably) sympathetic wikiproject. The resounding silence from that project was rather interesting, to say the least. It was a rather obvious attempt at canvassing which failed to achieve the desired result."
- An accusation without a diff violates WP:NPA. I asked for diffs days ago. Would an administrator remind Horologium of his responsibilities?
- "I don't think that the proposal to ban him from RFA is going to eliminate his anti-collaborative nature" (emboldening added)
- "anti'collaborative nature" is a textbook personal-attack, and is particularly inappropriate for an administrator with few (especially collaborative) contributions to WP.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Kiefer. I just want to clarify, since you have repeated your assumption that I am friends with Demiurge1000. Overlap seen on this page is as a result of my activities as a coordinator of the Guild of Copy editors such as the delivery of barnstars and newsletters for that organisation. Other overlap in our edits includes random inclusion in the same talk page archive, such as User talk:Ezekiel53746/Archive 1 and User talk:Kolakowski and Talk:Main Page/Archive 167. I did work on the Rabbi Pinto case with Demiurge, who you perceive to be your enemy, and did watch-list Charmlet's talk and added the kitten, but because you perceive these people to be your enemies does not put me into a position of being involved in your case. As far as I can recall, I have never interacted with you, which is what the concept of WP:Involved is all about. -- Dianna (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Space reserved for apologies for WP:NPA violations by Horologium
Horologium, the administrator who blocked me for allegedly making an allegation without evidence, makes many allegations without evidence, violating WP:NPA. (Dropping the passive aggression would help, also.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:CHILD
Kiefer, just for information: you've mentioned WP:CHILD a few times on this page and claim to have quoted it, but you're linking to the wrong page. The page you've been quoting is WP:CHILDPROTECT, a different page. Another paragraph of it states (its bolding, italics and linking, not mine):
Reports of editors engaging in such conduct should be made to the Arbitration Committee for further action, and should not be the subject of community discussion, requests for comment or consensus. If you are concerned about the behavior of another editor, please contact Misplaced Pages's Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org, but please read the Communications and privacy section of the Arbitration Committee page before doing so.
--Stfg (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 June 2013
Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2013-06-10
Fifths
Do you know a reliable source for the 5-string claim? It's plausible.
Thanks for your other edits. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- You can check out bill sethares all tunings guide for a description of all-fifths and other tunings. Note that he refers to it as mando-guitar tuning. It has also been called guitello tuning (for 5 strings).
- For more detailed mechanics of tuning to all-fifths, d'addario's sting tension chart is useful. It provides formulas and string weights, as well as a table of tensions for varied string gauges.
- From their data, one could tune a 7 string guitar to (e' a d G C F' A"#) with moderate (~13 lbs/string) tension using 9, 13, 20(or 22w), 32w, 49, 74, and 115 strings. That leaves room to tune up to g' or down to c' as a starting point. One could also tune a 7 string to (g' c' f A# D# G'# C'#), with about 15 lbs tension, using 8, 12 18(or 20w), 30w, 44, 66, and 100 gauge strings, leaving room to tune up to a' or down to e' as a starting point. 75.150.168.6 (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Kiefer, maybe it's time to archive this talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Unblocked
Kiefer, you are hereby unblocked. You are well aware that not all members of the community will agree with this decision, and it can only be hoped that the following editing restrictions, based on discussions held on-wiki prompted by email contact which I sought with you, will ease their mind somewhat.
- You should not interact with Demiurge. Given the nature of the diff that led to the block in the first place, I cannot really impose a two-way interaction ban, but I have no doubt that Demiurge will not seek you out or bait you, and I hope that they will refrain from commenting on you elsewhere. "No interaction" includes you won't mention them or their conduct anywhere on-wiki, including by allusion (added for us literary types). You won't visit their talk page or follow them around. Obviously I cannot (nor do I wish to) block you from the dramah boards etc; you must let common sense (mine, and I hope yours) prevail--stay out of discussions that they're involved in. This does not mean that Demiurge can, for instance, block you from continuing a discussion you've already engaged in by merely placing a comment, but I trust this won't happen. I have seen your efforts (some after your block, but still) to undo the damage caused by the remark, and I believe that you are sincere and won't repeat this; Demiurge appears to be of the same mind. At any rate, practically speaking it is not likely to be tolerated.
- You must stay away from threaded discussions in RfAs. A number of editors/administrators have made this clear, and I will log it as a formal restriction. For now, I will interpret this fairly narrowly: if there is a thread (two or more comments), you cannot add to it. You cannot, for instance, respond to a comment on your comment. At the same time, editors are not allowed to bait you--a term that is difficult to define, but a practice that is not hard to discern. While I cannot "ban" the community from responding to your comments, I think it is no more than fair that admins look carefully at any such responses to see if they are above board, and violations thereof should be reverted and followed by a warning (and perhaps more, if that behavior continues). Baiting is never OK, of course, and it goes for you as well as for others: no baiting, no leading questions, etc.
- (Now comes the fatherly advice--which I can give, since I have more children than you, I think.) You have said you will focus on article editing: that is a good idea since, and I think there was a consensus for this on AN, it is outside of mainspace that trouble starts (and I am not saying that this is always your fault).
But let me add something based on my own observations, of this case and of many others (too many to mention; somehow they always end up on Jimbo's talk page). Bringing up the past, and drawing inferences from editing behaviors of others about their motivations, is rarely a good thing. I know (believe me, I know) it is exceedingly difficult to treat other editors fairly after they have been unfair to you. This ("fairness") is a matter of perception, everyone can admit to that, and I'm speaking in the general, not about this case, this block, this blocking administrator, etc. One must not say, "admin x is abusive" and say that to mean "always abusive", in the same way that one must not say, "editor y is a disruptive asshole" as if that is all they are (there aren't that many trolls here, I trust). This is not to say that every hurt and every wrong must be forgotten completely; it is, however, to say that one should be sparing with digging up the past. I wish I could say this to a lot of people, including myself. Such generalizing leads to dramah, and dramah leads to blocks, to anger, to misunderstanding.
Human nature is a difficult thing. If you run into trouble, let someone know--an admin you really trust, for instance, if there is one. You may find that they are sceptic; if so, there may not be much you can do but to find another one. But we're not all bad--bad as me, Tom Waits might say.
I've said all I can. Maybe one more thing. This may be controversial, but it wouldn't be the first controversial thing we have to live with here. I wish Newyorkbrad could translate this into proper Bradspeech, but lawyers are in the cocktail bar Friday nights. I wish you well. You are a fine editor, I think most people agree on that, and I trust that you will regain the community's trust, even if not every single member's. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- RfA restriction logged. I would like to thank Horologium, Demiurge1000, and RegentsPark for their input and advice. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)