Labor donated

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

It seems that User:KWW has forgotten to leave a block notice, with diff(s) and an explanation of why he thinks Ironholds / OKeyes (WMF)'s IRC suggestion of burning me alive (on Wikipedia's IRC channel)

#wikipedia-en-admins on 26 June:

01:15 < Ironholds> TParis: oh, sod off. Kiefer needs his rubdown.

01:15 < TParis> Well, you grab the oil, I'll meet you there.

01:17 < Ironholds> only if I'm allowed to bring a lighter.

is hunkey dorey, particularly for WMF employee and Wikipedia administrator Oliver Keyes. Does WMF Director Sue Gardner know about Ironholds's use of WMF's Wikipedia channels (IRC)? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are perfectly capable of appealing a block without a templated message, Kiefer. Given that this is your seventh block this year, you've got practice. If the log is accurate, Ironholds made a tasteless joke on IRC. You, however, made direct threats on Wikipedia. Neither behaviour is good, but only one appears blockable. If somebody with the ability to investigate the accuracy of the IRC log chooses to block Ironholds over it, I won't protest.—Kww(talk) 00:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to admire yourself in your mirror.

Perhaps somebody who speaks English could help you understand the semantics of "X is welcome to Y". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kww mischaracterized my edit (quoted at Wikipediocracy) as "making a direct threat", which just is another indication of his limited English. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm the logs are accurate, but they were not made in a public channel on freenode (was made in #wikipedia-en-admins, a.k.a. the evil admin cabal channel). I'm not tempted to unblock, as the remark made by Kiefer is way much worse than the private discussion on freenode. _→AzaToth 00:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC) (typo fixed by KW 17:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Please reflect on my previous comment. I don't think you understand what I wrote. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, is this whole Arbcom case over this IRC log? Why didn't anyone give me a heads up?--v/r - TP 16:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot address the question of what this ArbCom case is about, anymore than I had an idea of what the "Civility Enforcement" case was about (before it turned out into the middle act of a campaign to harass Eric). Kww and Fram never tried talking, and I'm not sure Kww is so hot to pursue his 3 month block anymore. I considered the matter with IH closed, until the case started and Wikipediocracy began posting IRC logs.

I have tried to keep you out of it. I did use the Crying Game dialogue once before, when somebody fantasized about murdering you on wiki, and nothing was done. (Good to see that the account was finally blocked, after all.)

I don't have time for this. I get a few minutes here and there when I can edit. In a month, I'll have hours for research daily! :) But I'm not about to put my head in the sand after seeing log after log after log. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I just wasn't aware I had any connection at all to this IRC case and was surprised to find myself at the center of it.--v/r - TP 17:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of 3-month block

I have unblocked. Yes, Kiefer Wolfowitz's comment was unacceptable on its own, and repetition of this or similar comments, even when provoked, should result in new blocks. But considering the circumstances, with a functionary making an extremely inappropriate "joke" (if one can call it that) on a channel where Kiefer Wolfowitz has no means to respond, a "tit-for-tat" response, while very ill-considered, is also understandable. The fact that thus far, Kiefer Wolfowitz has received a 3 month block while User:Ironholds hasn't even received a warning (even if his remark was technically, wiki-lawyerishly off-wiki, it is still a location where he acts in function, not some off-wiki personal discussion), is a guarantee that this block will not have the desired effect at all, and will only increase the feelings of unequal treatment of admins (or other functionaries) vs. non-admins.

Kiefer Wolfowitz, please, if something like this happens again, don't lash out, just go to some noticeboard and make a calm and civil complaint there. That will at least have a chance that the result will be the reverse of what happened now. Fram (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

I wrote a brief note on your talk page, Fram, the contents of which I won't repeat here.

Editors with more interest in IRC regularly report (at Wikipediocracy) similar inanities by the same editors, most of which I ignore, even when I happen to read the synopses. Life is too short.

There are even more problems at IRC which the WMF needs to address. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some admins seem to be employing the "Las Vegas method" when it comes to use of the block button - a giant roullete wheel where the ball can bounce into any of the "block duration" slots. Black for TalkPage access, red for none. Or am I being hopelessly naive and simplistic here? Maybe it's a prolonged game of blackjack with several sets of crooked decks? Whatever, sometimes consistency seems to be sadly a little lacking, and it's hard to know how to react? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prudence has been in short supply, the last days, for most parties. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed... "Lennon said later that "She'd been locked in for three weeks and was trying to reach God quicker than anyone else." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fram,

Would you please consider fixing ScottyWong's indefinite block of Eric? Scotty's past history with Malleus and WP policy against requesting blocks suggest that he should not be the one to indefinitely block Eric.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Floquenbeam, bless his soul, restored the remaining 29 days. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom filing notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Offsite comments and personal attacks and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost

You

ArbCom questions

Your statement

Regarding Salvio's statement on the page.

I don't want to add more text, given the previous complaints. I plan to see which members of the WMF Board have accounts on English Wikipedia, and also alert them of the IRC discussion, as I did with Wales and Gardner. I am uncertain about the liability of Arbcom members in cases of misfeasance or malfeasance. My experience of non-profit boards in other states leads me to believe that individual board members are individually liable in such cases. I would not want to be liable for failing to implement the steps of the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts on child protection, with years of notices that there were problems on Wikipedia. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unfamiliar with US law in this field, so this is not a particularly educated response, but anyway here goes. ArbCom has no *direct* control over IRC; as far as I'm concerned, I think we may sanction people on-wiki owing to their conduct on IRC, but, even assuming ArbCom as a body agrees with me, we still lack the ability to ban people from the channel or to close the channel (assuming for the sake of the argument that we would ever decide to close it). So I don't think we could be held accountable for what goes on in there.

Then again, I feel I'm the wrong person to discuss the issue, because I have already made abundantly clear to my fellow arbs that I will never get involved in child protection issues because of liability concerns and general qualms (we are a bunch of dedicated people who try to do what's best for the encyclopaedia, but we lack both proper training and resources to deal with such investigations). My only involvement in the topic area has been to push for the foundation to take over. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your writing and the substance of your statement, here, on top of your clear and principled statement at the case.

ArbCom, even in declining the case, could state

"We repeat our concern about child protection, which is a problem even with our existing policy and our lack of time and training to handle such cases ourselves. Moreover, we are disturbed by on-Wiki and off-Wiki behavior consistent with profiles of child predators that is allowed by current Wikipedia/WMF policy. Such behavior, even if innocent, must immediately stop. We urge the community and WMF to adopt child-protection policies similar to those of the Scouts. Such policies would allow the WMF to remove editors contacting minors against their parents' wishes and informing minors of visits to their towns.

A similar statement on IRC could be made, perhaps using suggestions I made. `

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kiefer, I'm sure I'm reading "we are disturbed by on-Wiki and off-Wiki behavior consistent with profiles of child predators that is allowed by current Wikipedia/WMF policy" wrong, but if you have any information about accounts engaging such activity occurring you should immediately send such information to the committee, rather than just try and get the child protection policy strengthened. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 11:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to current policy, adults may not solicit information. However, if a minor may have volunteered the information of their location, email, IMs, etc., there does not seem to be a clear requirement that the adult (1) send a copy of the hazardous communication (with identifying information redacted) to arbcom/oversight (which is required by the Scout policy), (2) warn the child not to send such information, with a warning that a repeat of this behavior would result in a blocking. Thus, child protection policy does not prohibit actions like I described, as far as I can see.

The existing policy and common sense should combine to prohibit such actions, but common sense is in short supply.

WMF should audit the emails of the user and the children involved, and see whether its policies (weak as they are) have been violated.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom regularly delete edits that include identifying information of likely minor editors and have on occasion blocked said editors who persisted in posting their personal details (in addition to blocking accounts that could be engaged in grooming.) What you are describing and excoriating us for not doing is regularly practiced. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read what I wrote. The policy does not directly prohibit a minor sending contact or residence information to an adult via email. There does not seem to be a policy prohibiting an adult from using such information, even on wiki, as I have described. Please direct WMF to audit the emailsto see whether the information was volunteered or solicited, following up with emails to the most concerning children and a random sample of the other emails to children. (WMF has recipients but not content of emails. See hatted discussion below. 23:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC))

Please change the policy to remove an apparent policy loophole which would allow adults to contact minors privately, in the case where the minor volunteered the contact information. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IRC: Corruption and liability

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far, this looks as irregular as your harassment of Eric Corbett/Malleus Fatuorum; I won't condescend to dignify another case of ArbCom running amok with my participation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Some issues need to be dealt with, obviously. 22:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on the Evidence talk page

Kiefer, there is no need for comments like this, it is an allegation against a non-party and so is not permitted on case pages. If you continue to breach the requirments listed in the notice I will restrict your participation in the case and/or you may be blocked. If you comply with the conditions listed in the notice there won't be a problem. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc,

You are letting stand a BLP violation against Sarah Palin made by Kurtis, who btw confused Palin's role with McCain's (in my comparison).

Glad that you have your priorities straight.

Have you asked Nuclear Winter why he has not recused, despite having nominated Keyes ( Ironholds / Okeyes (WMF) ) for his last failed RfA?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Warfare has recused himself, without explanation. Good on principle, bad on probability of terrible decision. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry I never informed you. Your comment (which I would not have noticed had WP:Echo not pointed me to it) actually was the first time that I remembered that I had nominated Ironholds for RfA once. As I posted on the arbcom-l mailing list, my recollection of my interaction with Ironholds had primarily been in IRC after he finally passed RfA; I don't even remembering what prompted me to offer a nomination for him. I have recused more to avoid the appearance of impropriety more than actual feelings of partiality. I hope that explanation is satisfactory? NW (Talk) 15:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, and, as I did for WTT and Brad, I have mixed feelings about your recusal, since you are as far as I remember careful in writing, thoughtful, and fair minded. WTT the same, although with probability 10% he can be overcome by thought control from JClemens, etc. ;) Brad is usually fair in Arbcom cases, too, and avoids the worst proposals, as far as I remember. Well, with the risk averse arbs recused, we'll see what happens. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming I'm looking at the same thing you are, I'm not 100% convinced that it is a much a clear cut BLP violation as you say it is. Kurtis is using that (which with one reading could be seen as personal opinion and summation) to advance his evidence. If you feel that there is a clear cut BLP violation post a section on the evidence talk page or email the clerks mailing list stating exactly what you think is a BLP violation and why.

Regarding User:NuclearWarfare, that is a question for him or failing that for the Committee at large, not for me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"advance his evidence", are you joking? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not, Kurtis is using that to make the point in the next sentence. In any case it's not my job to analyse evidence. If you have an issue with the BLP do what I said above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for being irritated by Kurtis's being confused by my example of John McCain's choice of Palin as making him less qualified to be President, according Colin Powell. That is, a bad choice reflected poorly on McCain. That Kurtis twisted things around and added gratuitous insults against Sarah Palin should be no surprise, given what we see from Wikipedia's "community" staff and ArbCom's support of Qworty. This is a misogynist place. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IRC is off wiki, but then...

...why is it linked to from Wikipedia space and participation used for RFA worthiness? More Kirk, less Spock.

And actually the "seekret" admin IRC (not linked any more because of past scandals, but very frequented) is even spookier than giving something sanction.

TCO (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, and not that you give a shit what I think. But, I think you are busting IH's chops too much. I would just bury the hatchet and put him on your ignore list (this forum has one, right?)

He's got some strange behaviors at times, but he's not that different from you or me in some ways. Writes content. Let's it lose verbally. And it was actually pretty deft to think of the lighter remark that fast.

Just make sure you are not playing the victim too hard. People do that a lot here.

TCO (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TCO:

Did you see the quote about using a pen to put a hole in the windpipe of a woman to prolong the suffering of her murder?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And I didn't take it seriously. I have no wish to protect him and have sparred with him, so if I were just a Wiki game player who wants to manipulate the moderation system to get foes vanquished would just be happy someone was getting fucket at Arbcom (or even losing his job). And I knew you would not agree with me...but it's my Bayesian gestalt. Feel free to preserve your opinion on the remarks, I know you are pretty different than me. Just make sure some time to step back and think meta. (You can still feel same on IH, just want the split-second self-reflection in addition [this is not an x-y equation, it's more like third semester calc with z's and w's). 21:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be a total meddling diplomat and post on both of y'all's pages that I think you should each apologize (directly and unreservedly), that you should avoid each other, and that you each write good stuff. TCO (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Until I read that quote, I was willing to minimize conflict. See my statement earlier.

There's too many similar quotes. Did you notice that three named victims of the shooting list shared the same gender? The community has to deal with IRC's misogyny. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TCO:

Thanks for the Kirk link, featuring the stately Harry Mudd. :)

There is an issue for the community with having a rep with his record of statements. I defended him and asked that e.g. NYB not go after his job on the basis of one remark. Then I saw more of the same.... He should go in his boss's office and say, "I think it best for everybody if we restrict the title of my position to something like user-needs specialist...".

The other issue is that IRC is bad even without him. There needs to be a clean up. I don't see it happening without publicizing the severity of its problems. I don't have the time to morph into Alinksy, alas. Maybe Kaldari could call out, "This has to be dealt with"?

(I could imagine another route: What if some Congressman who was on the fence over SOPA and COPPA has a daughter and looks over these IRC logs?) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Workshop

Hi Kiefer, I'm not jumping up and down or accusing you of anything, just a quick and hopefully simple question: What is the relevance of this to the case? It might be that I'm missing something (apart from Mark being the filing party) so I thought I'd check with you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Do you need help searching SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs)'s talk-page archives for "Mark Arsten"? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the history, my question is how is it relevant to the case apart from Mark filing the case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please define the scope of the case. Arbs who accepted it wanted a discussion of all behavior of all the parties, or was that more bullshit from ArbCom? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on that for obvious reason (ie I'm not an Arb), I was just wondering. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before blindly serving, you might examine the history of ArbCom, paying attention to arbitrators who resigned or were voted off or expelled. If arbitrators can be socks, why not other administrators? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that you're not calling Mark a sockmaster, you appear to be intimating that he may be one; that behaviour can de described as "casting aspersions", even if you're only asking and not affirming anything (i.e. "I have been told you have frequently abused your wife; now, tell me: is that true?"). Also, you are referring to vague concerns raised by another editor on her talk page, without even linking to them. As things stand, that question is pretty much pointless and can actually lead to much unpleasantness, not to mention that accusation of sock puppetry are best handled at SPI (though when they, as in this case, involve an admin, the usual rule is that your concerns should be raised in private with ArbCom). To cut to the chase, however, now, in the event you have evidence that Mark may be operating or have operated illegitimate alternative accounts, I encourage you to share it with ArbCom (in private, as is our current modus operandi – no, we're not trying to cover this issue up: ArbCom have desysopped admins who used sock puppets, I can think of at least one example), but, in any event, please remove your question from the workshop page. Thanks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark can answer the question or leave it stand.

Well, AGK failed to disclose his past accounts before the last election, and Courcelles has recused (and one of the discussions with Ironholds and Fluffernutter on IRC has another account being called "Courcelles", it seemed to me.

Thus, I'm not impressed by ArbCom's record of obeying its own rules on disclosing alternative accounts before elections, and I have more faith in SandyGeorgia than I do in Mark or ArbCom. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This came up on my notifications. I have no knowledge of Arsten socking, and the issues that do need to be explored wrt Arsten would be better explored via an RFC or one of several different arb cases ... and I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so at the moment. What he did to me speaks more about him than me, so I'm fine with the record as it stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you state that you have no beliefs about Arsten and socking? For example, would you be willing to accept accept bets corresponding to your personal probabilities 1/3, 1/2, 2/3 (where you would be paid that percentage of the total pot)? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kiefer, I honestly have no knowledge of what you may be referring to. My concerns about Arsten are unrelated to socking on his part, rather other issues, involving support of known socks and the pro- and anti-FA factions that have grown up around several banned/indeffed sockmasters, creating a battleground in several content review processes and leading to an involved block of me ... unrelated to any notion of Arsten himself being a sock, and issues better explored in an RFC or other arb cases, if someone has a year of their life to devote to it. I don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that an RfC/U should precede an ArbCom case? What a concept! Does ArbCom know this? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think an RFC necessarily has to precede an Arbcase in this instance, since the factionalism has been festering long enough across enough pages and involving enough users that a case could be justified without a prior RFC. But an RFC is often a good first step, even if in this case it would only bring forward evidence of the factionalism. I also don't think you should be so negative on the arbs, or at least on all of the arbs. Some of them probably have a very good notion of what is going on, how complex it is, how long it has been going on, how profound the effect has been, how much they contributed by fouling up a few cases several years ago so that the FA process was dragged through the mud, and may be frustrated that no one has the time or inclination to bring it all out. For me, the FA process has been so thoroughly killed by the factions, and the quality/worth of a bronze star is so far removed from what it was two years ago, that I'm not interested in the case, or spending another moment of my life engaging unpleasant factions and cabals. But give the arbs a break ... if no one gives them the evidence, there's little they can do. They aren't all clueless, but face it ... the community no longer cares. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try again, also responding to Master Hatchsomething.

It's a standard question at RfA: Disclose all your past accounts.

At Mark's RfA, one of his nominators stated that he had used an account before, which was named. Neither of his nominators nor Mark stated that the named account was his only alternative or previous account. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago, when I first became aware of Arbcom, I was surprised that the acceptance of a case did not include a clear statement of scope. While I fully understand that the scope can change as evidence is presented, and changes in scope may result, I still think it would be helpful to identify the scope, and amend it as needed. This case is a perfect example.

It is not unusual to one of the disputants to file a case, and in those circumstances, the behavior of the filing party is certainly in scope. However, the opening statement of this case suggests a dispute between two parties, neither of whom is Mark Arsten. That doesn't mean, in my preferred world where a scope is defined, that Arsten's behavior would be out of bounds for discussion, but it does mean that anyone wishing to discussing his behavior should make a case that it is relevant to the dispute, or amend the case scope to include it. I haven't seen any hint that Arsten's editing is relevant to the incident. Perhaps it is, but without such evidence, the requests for Arsten to reveal other accounts and to comment on comments made by another party in another place sounds like a fishing expedition.

I've reviewed the acceptance statements of the arbs, which doesn't quite define the scope, but provides hints about what the arbs think the case is about. I may have missed something, but I saw not a hint that Arsten's behavior is relevant. Perhaps it is, but I suggest that KW should explain the relevance.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Ironholds nor myself regard ourselves as being in a dispute. Arsten seemed to think that IRC's status could be clarified, or so he said. We've seen enough of the arbs not to care what they think or what they are pulling off. I am participating because Keyes's comments about violence and women are unacceptable and this is a forum for the community to deal with those issues. His behavior in chatrooms with children is also unacceptable, as 28bytes (talk · contribs) and Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) have already commented, whose they are more respected by the community than is Sue Gardner (talk · contribs), who apparently approves of Keyes's years of consistent behavior. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. I accept that the case is not narrowly about a dispute between you and Ironholds, as there is no dispute, but is about some broader issues. Can you explain how the possibility that Arsten may have edited under an account other than the one identified is relevant to IRC or Keyes's comments about violence and women? And is the question about SG's observations an independent question, or an elaboration of the socking question?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to waste with this. If you want to censor the question, go ahead and deal with the consequences. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my place to censor the question. I think it should be included if it is relevant, but excluded if it is not, but that's my opinion, not my call. I'm interested in this case, as the status of IRC is muddled (at least to me); I'm troubled by the use of off-wiki material used for on-wiki sanctions (while not prepared to prohibit it, I'd like to see huge hurdles erected). I think all editors would do well to act as models, but WMF employees have a stronger duty to do so. I'd like to see misogynist language quelled whenever possible. So there are several aspects I would like to see explored, but unless Arsten's editing behavior is relevant, I'd prefer to avoid derailments. (FWIW, I arrived at this page after reading the sorry saga of Sandy's block, so I'm not exactly feeling good about Arsten's recent actions, but that's no excuse for dragging him into unrelated issues. If they are unrelated.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Arsten one question, so far, in the proceedings, and I've said as much as I'm going to say about it.

Frankly, I've had enough of on-Wiki discussions of the educational benefits of erotica for children (worse on IRC, with Russavia one of the discussants), explanations on how to go around parental attempts to stop a kid from using email, telling a kid when to expect a visit to the hometown, etc. All of this is apparently okay. But making a dick-picture of Wales gets Russavia banned, so I guess there are limits..., but apparently child protection is less of a concern.

Ironholds needs to deal with his repeated behavior, which has been known for years. This is also a step in dealing with the disgusting behavior on IRC generally.

ArbCom also declared the issue of IRC canvassing for blocking me at ANI off limits, which demonstrates their ability to be used as experimental subjects in Sweden without needing the approval of an ethics committee.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(interesting ec)One of the troubling aspects of the SG thread was when she specifically asked POTW a question and he ducked it. She asked again, and he ducked it so she gave up. I've asked you twice, you've declined to respond, so I'll stop wasting my time. Your questions to Ironholds were pointed and relevant. I thought perhaps your question to Arsten might also be and I simply didn't see it. I've changed my mind.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@SPhilbrick, curiously, a more appropriate place to examine the behavior of all, and the factions, would be the infoboxes case. Funny how often the same folks are showing up ... but then, I think a shorter path to a better outcome for the Wikipedia would be to simply open an arbcase on Conduct in Content Review Processes (since the same misbehaviors are occurring at FA, GA and DYK processes, including their talk pages, always involving the same folks) and simply put sanctions in place to make them all stop, without worrying about who "they" are, which would take a year of evidence. If that happened, maybe a whole lot of misbehaving admins would get their houses in order, and a former would stop the invective, hyperbole, and ad hominem that are killing these processes, resulting in fears of retribution, and driving off anyone who has even a vague recollection of better days in content review processes. And to Kiefer's point, is it coincidental that every misogynistic taunt I have experienced has come from an admin? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Kiefer, I've edited under three accounts during my Wikipedia career:
• Qrsdogg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• The Call of Cthulhu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• As to the concerns about about my blocking of User:SandyGeorgia: I value community input about my actions and in this case, there was a consensus that the block was unwarranted, and I reverted myself accordingly. All I can promise in the future is that I'll do my best to avoid ever making a block that causes unneeded drama and fails to line up with community expectations. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• How nice of you. Was an apology more than you could manage? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  @SandyGeorgia: You seem new in the blocking-and-unblocking business. As a more experienced gentleman, let me assure you that administrators have never apologize to me for overturned or shortened blocks.

  Once 28bytes answered a question I asked, in the RfC/U on my sins. I asked whether the diffs showing incivility were actually taken out of context. Specifically, I asked whether I was initiating incivility or was responding to incivility or personal attacks. 28bytes actually answered the question. (I checked the Book of Revelations, quickly, and returned to editing only after I confirmed that 28bytes's action was not mentioned as a sign of the end of things.) I remember asking the same question of Salvio and Sarek, after I'd been blocked, and neither deigned to answer. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Rhetorical. Arsten blocked me and then very quickly overturned himself with an inaccurate statement in my block log, which avoided him being hauled up to ANI, thereby getting him off the hook. I don't need an apology-- it would be indicative of a lot if it happened, though, and is indicative of more that it hasn't. I don't think recognizing that "mistake" was ever likely to happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I see I have been mentioned here, so let me comment on a couple of points. KW, I haven't commented on Ironholds' IRC discussions (or your Wikipediocracy posts) because I haven't been following them closely. I did comment to Ironholds regarding his interactions with Drmies and Floquenbeam, which I have followed, but which are presumably outside the scope of this case. Secondly, SandyGeorgia is highly skilled at quite a number of things, but identifying sockmasters is not one of them, as ShroCat and Andy Mabbett can tell you. (Disclosure: I'm not any better at it than SandyGeorgia, and am continually surprised to find out which high-profile accounts used to be someone else.) Let's leave the sock-hunting to the people who are good at it, shall we? If Mark Arsten were operating illegitimate multiple accounts I'm sure Wikipediocracy would have written a blog post about it. 28bytes (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @28bytes: Oh boy ... a whole lotta misrepresentation of me in that post, 28. So now, and again, because I asked for clarification of obfuscation I'm suddenly accusing? And just to be sure we're on the same page, I had ZERO to do with anything related to Mark Arsten and socks here ... my role in this discussion was to clarify that I had no such knowledge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Understood, I know you're not here accusing Mark of socking. I'm just offering KW a tip that you (and I) are not the best people to consult when it comes to identifying sockmasters. 28bytes (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, ok, thanks ... and you can say that again ... my inner Pollyanna has been had over and over and over again, as I AGF'd and was taken for a ride more times than I can remember by sockmasters! I usually err in the other direction :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, I hear ya. :) 28bytes (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More censorship

Copyright infringement

Pedro

Drmies

• How time flies, yes. Good thing about being five is that it saves your parents a lot of money. We're looking at $1500 a month for a 1-year old and a 4-year old in Montessori. And this ain't Sweden, though we lick the toys here as well, and a bunch of other things. You'll be interested, perhaps, in the latest fad in US babyland: cotton diapers. This outfit is all the rage, and we're playing along with little Liam. Kiefer, for the record, I once was a promising student in the philosophy of science, with a specialization of sorts in logic. Of course I threw the ladder away the moment I thought I had climbed up to some level of knowledge, so I prefer to be silent on the topic. Wovon man nicht sprechen kann... Drmies (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:

I want to purchase sniper diapers, stockpiling them for my older age, where they will have more virility than Depends undergarments, I'll wager. (Although, the improvements in diapers fill me with hope for humanity. I could go on for hours about the wonders of diapers from Pampers, Huggies, and ICA!) Our user fee for day care is substantially less, so much so, that I would be embarrassed to tell you. :D I don't know whether it's good to go into the philosophy of science. Developing statistical methods and concepts seems to be the best route towards understanding and advancing science. (In Sweden, too many social scientists want to talk about only issues related to Karl Popper....) I've never regretted time I've spent studying logic. Logic, lattice theory, and linear algebra (real and complex fields) have the biggest bang for the buck! :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Up against the wall, the way IH likes it"

WMF CEO Sue Gardner (talk · contribs) jokes about pinning a female employee up against a wall, the way "Ironholds like it" [1]

[10:10am] <sgardner>: Thehelpfulone: we could ask Kat, right now :-)

[10:10am] <Thehelpfulone>: indeed, mindspillage what do you do?

[10:10am] <sgardner>: (Pinning her up against the wall, as Ironholds likes :-)

Are other editors proud of WMF's leadership? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kiefer, the section about Sue that I removed from the evidence page may be appropriate for an RFC regarding IRC, in order to demonstrate that the foundation is apparently aware of Ironholds conduct, but it has nothing to do with the case as it has been framed. I mean, if we end up deciding that misbehaviour on IRC may warrant the imposition of sanctions on-wiki, then the fact Sue was aware of IH's behavious is immaterial, because we will only be evaluating his conduct (geneally, a person should not be penalised for the misconduct of another). If, on the other hand, we conclude that IRC and Wikipedia are two entirely different entities and no amount of misconduct on the latter may ever justify sanctions on the former, then the fact Sue was aware of IH's conduct is even more immaterial. The current case should not be used as a way to blow the whistle on the Foundation regarding gender issues: quite simply, that's not the venue. For that, I am asking you to please revert this edit of yours, thanks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it, for several reasons, most of them improper.

The quote does show the acceptance and emulation of Ironholds's behavior on IRC, which has been a concern of Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) and 28bytes (talk · contribs) in their criticisms of Ironholds recent behavior on Ironholds's talkpage (or was it Okeyes (WMF)?). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I really appreciate it! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom secret evidence

Hi KW. Regarding [2] - you are right to push for this. Arbcom do hold secret evidence pages from time to time, and I have on wiki and off wiki evidence where Arbcom members have both denied and confirmed this. (refactored comments) Pedro :  Chat  20:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given WTT and Demiurge1000's record of dishonesty in my RfC/U and the misrepresentations at this case, ArbCom should fulfill its telos and believe anything they write. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Another IRC discussion by WMF employees

Quoted by Peter Damian (talk · contribs) from WP:IRC's channel #wikipedia-en (24 November 2011, or 20111124):

101 [17:14] * tommorris wonders if we could tempt the really fucking perverted by offering a premium Jimmy Wales RealDoll.

106 [17:15] <Ironholds> tommorris: we could have a Peter Damian one!

107 [17:15] <Ironholds> as anatomically vacant as a ken doll

108 [17:15] <tommorris> Ironholds: you have to pay extra for the shemale option

109 [17:15] <Ironholds> "punching him in the face feels like punching the real thing!"

This led to a discussion on the talk page of Jimbo Wales:

eh...

Fuck it, KW, you went down swinging. Passive resistance or a measured defense would have served you better than dropping trou and shaking your booty at ArbCom, but it was either going to be a lynch mob or a judicial lynching at a certain point so I guess it doesn't matter that much in the long run. Remember not to edit around the ban, that's cause for permanent immolation in Alice's Wonderland, whereas even certifiable dickwads have been restored to full status if they patiently wait out the calendar and then genuflect to the priesthood... The alternative, of course, is a full throttle, no holds barred war on WP fought from the Island of Lost Souls off-wiki. That's more to your temperament but would be a great loss to the encyclopedia, in my view. I hope you'll hang in there and give it another spin down the road. See ya at WPO. Carrite (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The race is not to the Swiftest. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rorschach (Walter Kovacs)

This awful city—it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children.

— Walter Kovacs, Rorschach's journal, October 12th 1985.

There is good and there is evil, and evil must be punished. Even in the face of Armageddon I shall not compromise in this. But there are so many deserving of retribution ... and there is so little time.

— Walter Kovacs, October 13th

Your rebuttal to evidence by WTT et al

Kiefer, your most recent submission is precisely the sort of thing that can't be submitted as public evidence. If you have concerns of that nature, you must communicate them privately to the committee. Defaming other people – even editors and even by insinuation – could draw lots of trouble to you and Wikipedia. We (the arbitrators) have opened a private discussion about your recent submission, and you must not make any similar such evidence submissions in the future. Thank you, AGK [•] 23:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There was a small part of your submission that was fine: "Ironholds has his problems, if the history of his user page has been accurately conveyed at Wikipediocracy. He has a lot of work to do. However, he is a minor concern in comparison to Demiurge1000." I will let you restore that to your evidence section, if you want to do so. AGK [•] 23:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of the BS. Demiurge1000 has accused me of threatening Keyes when I suggested, after 2 people told him to resign and he offered his resignation to Gardner, that he should consider the consequences for unemployment insurance.

I'm also accused of threatening on Wikipediocracy, when in fact anybody who has read the threads knows that I am responsible for removing such statements---three that came to mind start with B's---Bishonen, BWilkins, Beeblebrox---three that are usually not considered part of my "fan club" or protectors or "enablers".

Demiurge1000's false accusations remain on Wikipedia, while my true statements (which have had links and diffs many times, as ArbCom knows) have been censored.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony,

Thank you for your offer, but secret evidence is not my way, not at this point. (I also do not want to add a conclusion without evidence or reasons (which allow others to search my talk page archives to find evidence); we have enough irrational declamations at ANI and I won't add another at ArbCom.)

The community must deal with its having known about the abuses for years.

When I had cancer, I was convinced that I had a hernia. I read a medical-surgical nursing textbook before my ultrasound and I broke out in a cold sweat when I read about cancer. I still thought I had a hernia even after the ultrasound. A friend had a similar experience with her denial of her husband's affair.

My instincts were sound, as can be seen from reading my first encounter, where I commented on a userbox (and then struck through the comment as beneath me, also denying so much ...). We all have to take responsibility for our acquiescence and preference for comfort over truth. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There's no need to protect anonymous user Demiurge1000.

I believe Demiurge1000 should be added as a party to this request.

Demiurge1000 keeps making false accusations "Demiurge1000, I am extremely disappointed in your recent behavior over the past couple of days. Not too long ago you were blocked for falsely and repeatedly accusing an editor of creating malicious sockpuppets. When Dennis Brown unblocked you, it was with the understanding that you would no longer make "comments that can't be properly substantiated." Yet just three days ago, you falsely accused another editor, without any evidence, of contributing to the outing of a minor editor – on an arbitration page, no less. Your comment was rightly redacted by a clerk, and you were given a very clear warning by Floquenbeam that any more false or unsubstantial accusations would earn you a block. Yet, you followed up that warning by falsely accusing me of making personal attacks, which you then followed by trolling my talk page"76.126.32.86 (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge1000 was told more than once to leave Kiefer.Wolfowitz alone.

Demiurge1000 is a net negative for this project. 76.126.32.86 (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People who have eyes know what is going on.

Someday, the Senate is going to investigate what has been going on at Wikipedia and WMF, at least that's what WMF and Wikipedia staff and officers should worry about. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Christian Science Monitor breaks story on Ironholds and Sue Gardner

• Murphy, Dan (2013). "In UK, rising chorus of outrage over online misogyny: Recent events in Britain draw more attention to endemic hostility towards women online". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 1 August 2013. ((cite news)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

CSM article

I saw the section you added to the talk pages of the List of Wikipedia controversies and Wikimedia Foundation articles. Are you somehow suggesting that the link be added to those articles? That would not be appropriate in my opinion and if you are just trying to get people to read the blog post then I think it is even less appropriate. Should other news sources pick up the information in Dan's blog then that would be another matter. Dan may be a journalist and his blog may be attached to the Christian Science Monitor but that doesn't change the fact that he has strong personal opinions regarding this site and is fairly close to matters concerning this site as a current contributor.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Christian Science Monitor is one of the world's great newspapers, particularly on international news (for U.S. readers). Silver Seren (talk · contribs) has discussed the status of blogs and other parts of leading newspapers, such as The Guardian, and I believe that he can confirm that they are edited and conform to professional journalistic standards.

Sydney Schanberg may have had strong personal opinions about Red Guards and their slaughtering intellectuals too, but I trust that you would allow his New York Times reporting to be used, where relevant. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Schanberg had a personal connection with the subject and was the only one to have written about it then I would most definitely not support using his reporting, especially if it concerned named living people. My preference would be for you to remove those comments altogether and I do not think it is appropriate for you to be trying to get the Signpost to write about it either. Consider also that it is not a good thing to do in the current circumstances. Perhaps that does not bother you, but it may bother others.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my previous comments to Eric Corbett, Carrite, etc., when I have been advised on expediency rather than principle. Wikipedia is not a political arena for me.

At ArbCom, your suggestions mostly are thoughtful, apart from your suggestion that I not comment on minors at Wikipedia. What principle/policy would allow this? So you would have had me banned from alerting the community via MfD about the weird, likely harmless exercise by Ocassi, which does seem to many of us bad for Wikipedia and likely bad for some minors? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, I imagined you wouldn't favor the idea that you should avoid something for the sake of expediency, but a lot of people do not like seeing you pursue this dispute in a self-destructive manner. As for my proposal at the arbitration case, I think you have a tendency to blow things out of proportion and communicate your concerns in a way that creates confusion and hostility. I really don't think much of the game you mention, not for the reasons you give though, but your response there kind of makes my point. Likening Wikipedia to the tobacco industry and saying other editors are "targeting 7-year-olds" is exactly the kind of inflammatory rhetoric on the subject that created this situation in the first place.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with issues is preferable to denial. The community is addressing some of the issues I've raised, partly because the media likes quotable comments. For instance, how many unicorn games do college students play? How about 7-8 year olds? There seems to be consensus at MfD that the Adventure Game is bad for Wikipedia and bad for kids. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

For edit warring on Wikipediocracy, I have just blocked you for 31 hours. If you want to appeal this block, please use the ((unblock)) template. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least you warned User:MathSci, who removed a high quality reliable source against policy thrice

1. [3] WP:UNDUE as it's an opinion piece by User:Dan Murphy
2. the link contains is a blog piece, contains BLP violations and concerns the current arbcom case
3. alternative source as suggested by mangoe

but you should also warn or User:The Devil's Advocate for edit-warring:

4. this citation is unnecessary and too inflammatory to include?

Your warning MathSci does show some improvement since your last blocking of me, where you ignored the prior administrative abuse.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree it's not a blog post, and I personally wonder why Mathsci isn't blocked. This kind of thing that is obviously not a blog post, obviously not just "opinion" or an "op-ed" being called such in an attempt to further their edit war shouldn't be tolerated. Salvio, this does seem a one-sided block. At the very least, fully protecting the article for 3+ hours may help. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 14:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've had many discussions of blogs associated with newspapers, and I trust Silver Seren (talk · contribs)'s guidance, that they are RSes because they do have editorial control. I think he can cite the professional ethical statement about such "blogs" or "opinion page" pieces, and perhaps he's done it here. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible I'm wrong, but I don't see any indication this is a "blog" section of the CSM, as far as I can tell it's an article that was subject to the editorial oversight equivalent to other articles, thus making it just as reliable.

This is in contrast to something comparing something with /opinion/ in it from CNN to an article, or a blogs.cnn.com blog. Bottom line, I see absolutely no indication this is a blog/opinion piece, but every indication it is actually an article that has been subject to the organization's full oversight. However, I tend to define "blog" as 'not oversighted by the organization'.. Regardless, your block was horribly one sided. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 15:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Charmlet: Thanks for your honest and clear comments, which should have been read more carefully by those edit warring. Good luck in the future! Beware of Pv=nRTs and the sun in your eyes. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banned by a clerk apparently unfamiliar with block logs

Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds Arbitration case

You have previously been warned about making allegations against non-parties, I gave some leeway to allow you to more easily rebut the evidence presented by non-parties however this comment along is too far. Whether it is material to the case or not is debatable (one which I'm not going to have with you), however it is unsupported by evidence; in fact I can't see how you have even try and justify Demiurge1000 given the evidence already submitted. Given that you have been warned about this and warning(s) haven't achieved their intended goal, you are banned from all pages related to the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case until 12:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC), this includes any page beginning with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds or Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds. Failure to comply with this restriction will further sanctions such as a block or extension of the restriction. If you wish to appeal this sanction you may by sending an email with your reasoning to the Clerks-l mailing list or ArbCom-en-b (arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org) mailing list. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I can't see how you have even try and justify Demiurge1000" is not English. But I suppose that we have agreement that justifying Demiurge1000 is best left to the supernatural. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Demiurge1000 was blocked for lying, as any competent editor can verify by checking his block log. As primary author, Demiurge1000 was even more culpable for the falsehood accusing me of removing material from Penn Kemble for my "ideological reasons".

Let us hope that an honest competent arbitrator remains at ArbCom, now that Casliber stopped wasting his time, and can help you navigate Wikipedia's user interface.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mugabe, etc.

Banned from commenting on your own case? This place gets more Stalinist all the time. Intothatdarkness 13:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed, but that's entirely appropriate for the show trials that ArbCom cases so often are. I don't understand why they don't just cut straight to the verdict without bothering about any evidence: KW banned for a minimum of six months (which effectively means for ever) and Ironholds given a mildly worded slap on the wrist. Eric Corbett 13:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I found it fascinating that they would shy away from conduct on an "off-wiki" location that is clearly linked to and affiliated with Wiki, but are so anxious to go after "the site that shall not be named." Intothatdarkness 14:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A site that's only open to WP admins IIRC. Eric Corbett 14:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[ec]One of 'em, yep. There's also the associated "need help? go here" site. Pathetic, really. By the way, did you (Eric) or Kiefer happen to know Larry Sanger? This is starting to look like the purges of Lenin's old comrades orchestrated by Stalin in his early days in control. Although, given the decline this might be more reminiscent of the "doctors' purge" in the last days. The question then becomes who gets to play Beria? Intothatdarkness 14:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's more like Maoisim and the Red Guards, unlettered fanatics schooled to recite quotations from The Little Red Book while destroying Chinese civilization (especially universities) and causing a famine that killed 10s of millions. It's been a while that I've received advice on style and article writing and proper respect for sports from Newyorkbrad, but now Worm That Turned is giving advice on dullness on talk pages. Is that a policy? Because writers are ridiculing another project of Ironholds & Co., visual enema.

Let us see whether it reaches the level of anti-intellectualism of Cambodia.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at some of the BLPs and other fluff content, one could contend that it already has... Intothatdarkness 15:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ironic thing is that Callannec has banned KW because, he says, KW's claim that Demiurge was blocked for lying is "unsupported by evidence", despite the fact that the evidence is very clearly stated here. Black Kite (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You think just because you can read and write and look up a block log you are better than Callanec? You better shape up or ship out, Black Kite, with your high fallutin' ways. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, bad ol' me. Anyway, I've asked Callanec on his talkpage, though I doubt the outcome will be useful. Black Kite (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Clerks do not normally investigate evidences; I'm pretty sure that if KW flatly pointed out the issues and provided us with diffs (such as the ones provided by BK up there), we wouldn't have as much of an issue. Let me see what can be done about this. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 17:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm pretty sure that none of the vague comments about my previous blocks, e.g., by your master Worm That Turned, have resulted in even a warning, so the issue that you have is your double standard. Don't reply here until you've warned somebody else. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The dishonesty of ArbCom

For some time not just Worm That Turned and Newyorkbrad but the also the rest of Arbcom has had links about the on- and off-Wiki pursuits of one of the "non-participants", who somehow is still participating in this case. Why is he not blocked?

The usual rules of ArbCom require that all parties to a conflict are involved. They removed even Mark Arsten, the filer of the case, against another of their rules. Then they allow Worm That Turn and Demiurge1000 to continue the years-long campaign against me, not discussing the "dispute with Ironholds" but dredging up their old complaints from 2011, while I'm not allowed to discuss their behavior.

They are dishonest as a committee, and I have yet to see an honest member amongst them, stating an objection to any of the authoritarianism.

And all of them act like Leninists, with their party-line and no-disagreements in public. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One correction here: they're Stalinists. Stalin was a master bureaucrat, and used his access to the levers of Party administration to gain control. Lenin had ideas - Stalin had processes and show trials. Intothatdarkness 15:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But great to see no-one's above the law. Or maybe they are? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123:

Moritz Schlick earlier ran afoul of the populists cogitators of his day. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the folks cited in your edit summary, Stalin still got there first and was better at this sort of thing than either of those gentlemen. He was also quite bland and unmotivating personally, whereas at least Mugabe has a certain charisma about him. Intothatdarkness 16:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it's necessarily fair to single out any phantom individual here. It seems to be the politics of the closed and unaccountable committee that's being examined. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm commenting more on methods than a specific individual in any case. Intothatdarkness 16:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But of course, comrade. We all agree that Arbcom is more important than any one wayward individual. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Courtroom sketch anyone? -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 16:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm...somewhat troubled by that sketch. Nicely done! Intothatdarkness 20:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I personally think the content part of Wikipedia is relatively intact but compared to the community which looks like a run down democracy replaced by a new Stalinist regime. Prabash.Akmeemana 18:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The proposed decision is due in under a week, just to let you know. If you've really gone, then good luck for the future. AGK [•] 20:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  @AGK:

  It's a pity that this came out before the committee announced its decision:

  • Murphy, Dan (2013). "In UK, rising chorus of outrage over online misogyny: Recent events in Britain draw more attention to endemic hostility towards women online". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 1 August 2013. ((cite news)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

  Now we can only speculate about what might have been, like the time like Yeltsin faced down the tanks before The People's Weekly World could announce its support for the Communist coup.

  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Hi, thanks for the revert. Is it normal for the workshop being closed without any template put up (or am I blind and missing it)? I don't really have much experience with arbcom cases. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio left a note, which is not as eye-catching as a template. Discretion is his middle name.

It used to be that I submitted a lot of evidence on the topic, e.g. "Civility Enforcement", which was ignored, and I was surprised to learn that "Civility Enforcement" was not the topic of the case after all; I learned later that Iridescent (talk · contribs) had already forecast the decision based on knowing the personal politics of the arbitrators.

Since then I don't worry so much about ArbCom. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ex arbitrator PhilKnight, protector of Arbcom

48 hour block

I've blocked your account for 48 hours, because of this comment. From my perspective, you are making an entirely unacceptable attack on the Arbitration Committee. PhilKnight (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight:

"Loves" was too strong. I agree that "accept" would be better.

Former "arbitrator" PhilKnight (talk · contribs), you know how to search for "greedy, slot, ...". Do you accept or reject an adult to "fill the second slot" of a child editor, coyly suggesting that Wikipedia talk-pages are not the best place for such conversations?

Could you explain why you think the statement is false? Or are you stating that the comment is true? If so please explain why a true statement is unacceptable.

Can you explain your inaction with respect to Qworty, that Angel fellow who was just banned, etc., when you were an arbitrator? Why did it take so long for this year's pathetic Arbitration Committee to admit that it could not handle existing child-protection cases and that it needed help? Why didn't you take responsibility when you were on Arbitration Committee?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kiefer, to be honest, I don't entirely follow your comments above. In regard to my inaction when I was an arbitrator, I think it's a common misconception that an arbitrator is a kind of super-admin whose role is to go around making difficult blocks. In my view the role of an arbitrator is nothing of the sort, and should be focused on deciding what cases to accept, analyzing the evidence, and voting on the proposals. PhilKnight (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it unacceptable to state that ArbCom is accepting such behavior?

Aren't you ashamed of your personal failure to deal with child protection while you had the community's highest office?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Phil, I had forgotten that you were one of the arbitrators harassing Eric Corbett through the Civility Enforcement case. You and others responsible have no business complaining about criticisms of ArbCom, since you are largely responsible for discrediting it in the community's eyes.

You and other arbitrators have a curious choice of priorities, letting mimicry (or the real thing) of child predation occur while harassing Eric. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Blocked for criticizing a governance committee on his user talk page?24.19.234.62 (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Former arbitrator PhilKnight is another administrator who doesn't know how to use his block button. My block is expired, but Knight snafued the IP-block. Please block Knight for the hours he wrongly blocked me.

Accept reason:

Autoblock cleared. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Reaper Eternal: Thank you very much! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My friend has moved to Magadan

Responses

• Free bird by Lynyrd Skynyrd
• Ramblin' Man by The Allman Brothers
• Ramble On by Jimmy Page, John Paul Jones, and The Foo Fighters
• "Good Advices" by R.E.M.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

Other comments

WikiProject Freedom of speech

It's sad when a discussion of freedom of speech has the picture of the authoritarian justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., apologist for the federal state's silencing of paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights (Schenk v. United States) and forced sterilization.

Justice Holmes

Just in case you didn't see it, I replied to your comment about Oliver Wendell Holmes on the Signpost page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll look at it.

No hard feelings. I'm very busy this week, again. You are not responsible for everything that happens on Wikipedia.

Your comment when I was blocked struck me as poorly timed, but reasonable. Being blocked I missed the hilarious understatement of your advice to TRM, "if you find yourself commenting dozens of times in an RfA, perhaps...."

Please remember my advice to Eric that you both should try to appraise each other with greater justice.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Harlan Stone's son Marshall Stone was one of America's leading functional analysts and also the chairperson of the mathematics department at the University of Chicago (during the "Stone age"). There are now monographs devoted to extensions of his results on Stone spaces and the Stone–Weierstrass theorem. His wife, He is apparently unrelated to Dorothy Maharam Stone, was a formidable measure theorist, also, who contributed to the theory of finitely additive measures ("charges"). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that. The only son of Justice Stone whom I have heard of was Lawson Stone, who was a lawyer whose name comes up in discussions of Ex parte Quirin. I'm going to read his article now and check his Erdös number. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Lawrence Tribe apparently wrote an honors undergraduate thesis in algebraic topology at Harvard. Former SDS President (now sociologist) Todd Gitlin also has a B.A. in mathematics from Harvard. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mathematical accomplishments peaked in two summers at HCSSiM. On the other hand, when Professor Tribe was a law clerk, he wrote the statistical analysis for an extremely influential opinion of the Supreme Court of California, People v. Collins. The judge he was clerking for felt he couldn't improve on (or perhaps fully follow) Tribe's statistical reasoning, so he just tacked it verbatim onto the opinion as an Appendix. When I first read the case (either as an undergraduate or in law school), I said to myself "the Appendix is really the heart of this opinion and its analysis is compelling"—it was only years later that I found out who had written it and what had become of him. The opinion, including the Appendix, is here, and see also the historical appendix here; when I have a moment in the next few days I'll rewrite our wiki article on the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference to the "prosecutor's fallacy", which seems to be taught in Sweden as a good practice to law students. (The Humboldtian miseducation of humanists and social-scientists in Sweden is a topic on which I would probably violate WP:BLP, NPA, Civility, etc., numerous times, indeed, so I won't start....)

I remember reading The Atlantic Monthly's profile on Erdős when I was a civilian. I believe the article won a national prize, and it later was expanded as the book The Man Who Loved Only Numbers (with its bad title), which mentioned George Piranian's playing a role as custodial guardian of Erdős (before it was assumed by Ronald L. Graham); Piranian's comment on McCarthyism was typical. One of Erdős's accomplishments was founding the field of random graphs, which reminds me of the Arbcom discussion of users Malleus Fatuorum and George Ponderov.

Richard Gill (whose user name can be found in the Monty Hall problem case proceedings, has a great set of slides explaining forensic statistics involved with all mobile traffic in a country's capital. A take-home message was that if two phones seemed to be connected one day, then (to a good approximation) the next day they would separate with probability 1/2, and this branching could be modeled independently of the past; that is, the next day's probability of continuing to be linked would be roughly 1/4 and the next 1/8, etc., to a good approximation. Gill's model of mobile phone calls years ago (which need not approximate UK laptop traffic of 6 months ago) suggests that it would be hazardous to extrapolate that laptops that seem to be linked spatially-and-temporally (overlapping one or even several days) are indeed used by the same person.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikiquotes (C.f., JASA 2000)

For the rational study of the law the blackletter man may be the man of the present, but the man of the future is the man of statistics and the master of economics.

— Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., "The Path of the Law" 10 Harvard Law Review 457 (1897)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

• Arbitration report: Fourteen editors proposed for ban in Tea Party movement case

• Traffic report: Greetings from the graveyard

• News and notes: Chapters Association self-destructs

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Freedom of Speech

• Featured content: Mysterious case of the grand duchess

• Discussion report: CheckUser and Oversighter candidates, and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Anastaplo

George Anastaplo is, like C. A. Patrides was, an interesting Greek-American intellectual (who also served in WWII). Other editors may wish to help write an article.

Anastaplo argued the case himself before the U.S. Supreme Court, losing the case but being praised in the dissent by Justice Hugo Black.

The first amendment and "The Right of Revolution"

The effect of the Court's 'balancing' here is that any State may now reject an applicant for admission to the Bar if he believes in the Declaration of Independence as strongly as Anastaplo and if he is willing to sacrifice his career and his means of livelihood in defense of the freedoms of the First Amendment. But the men who founded this country and wrote our Bill of Rights were strangers neither to a belief in the 'right of revolution' nor to the urgency of the need to be free from the control of government with regard to political beliefs and associations. Thomas Jefferson was not disclaiming a belief in the 'right of revolution' when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. And Patrick Henry was certainly not disclaiming such a belief when he declared in impassioned words that have come on down through the years: 'Give me liberty or give me death.' This country's freedom was won by men who, whether they believed in it or not, certainly practiced revolution in the Revolutionary War. Since the beginning of history there have been governments that have engaged in practices against the people so bad, so cruel, so unjust and so destructive of the individual dignity of men and women that the 'right of revolution' was all the people had left to free themselves. As simple illustrations, one government almost 2,000 years ago burned Christians upon fiery crosses and another government, during this very century, burned Jews in crematories. I venture the suggestion that there are countless multitudes in this country, and all over the world, who would join Anastaplo's belief in the right of the people to resist by force tyrranical governments like those. In saying what I have, it is to be borne in mind that Anastaplo has not indicated, even remotely, a belief that this country is an oppressive one in which the 'right of revolution' should be exercised. Quite the contrary,

the entire course of his life, as disclosed by the record, has been one of devotion and service to his country-first, in his willingness to defend its security at the risk of his own life in time of war and, later, in his willingness to defend its freedoms at the risk of his professional career in time of peace. The one and only time in which he has come into conflict with the Government is when he refused to answer the questions put to him by the Committee about his beliefs and associations. And I think the record clearly shows that conflict resulted, not from any fear on Anastaplo's part to divulge his own political activities, but from a sincere, and in my judgment correct, conviction that the preservation of this country's freedom depends upon adherence to our Bill of Rights. The very most that can fairly be said against Anastaplo's position in this entire matter is that he took too much of the responsibility of preserving that freedom upon himself.

This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that Anastaplo has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows, not only that Anastaplo has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost. It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law-men like Malsherbes, who, at the cost of his own life and the lives of his family, sprang unafraid to the defense of Louis XVI against the fanatical leaders of the Revolutionary government of France---men like Charles Evans Hughes, Sr., later Mr. Chief Justice Hughes, who stood up for the constitutional rights of socialists to be socialists and public officials despite the threats and clamorous protests of self-proclaimed superpatriots---men like Charles Evans Hughes, Jr., and John W. Davis, who, while against everything for which the Communists stood, strongly advised the Congress in 1948 that it would be unconstitutional to pass the law then proposed to outlaw the Communist Party---men like Lord Erskine, James Otis, Clarence Darrow, and the multitude of others who have dared to speak in defense of causes and clients without regard to personal danger to themselves. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.

But that is the present trend, not only in the legal profession but in almost every walk of life. Too many men are being driven to become government-fearing and time-serving because the Government is being permitted to strike out at those who are fearless enough to think as they please and say what they think. This trend must be halted if we are to keep faith with the Founders of our Nation and pass on to future generations of Americans the great heritage of freedom which they sacrificed so much to leave to us. The choice is clear to me. If we are to pass on that great heritage of freedom, we must return to the original language of the Bill of Rights. We must not be afraid to be free.^[1]

1. ^ "In re George ANASTAPLO, Petitioner". Open Jurist.

(Footnotes removed)

Justice Black's dissent In re Anastaplo would "immortalize Anastaplo", said Justice Brennan upon reading it. Black's dissent was read at Black's funeral, by his instructions.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we can all see the writing on the wall by now. I know your complaints regarding certain problems were made in good faith (even though I believe some of them to be flat-out wrong). Thanks for all your work on various articles and for keeping attempting to keep a lot of complete nonsense and silliness off Wikipedia. I wish you the best in your life off Wikipedia, although I'm pretty certain we may occasionally notice each other on Wikipediocracy. (I do have an account there, although I virtually never post comments.) Good luck. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I trust you have my old emails and can reach me anytime you like! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see the way this has turned out, but I guess it was inevitable given the way things work here. Eric Corbett 22:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, they're not forgiving you.. And you're not even wrong.. All the best, Kiefer -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 13:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Stay tuned. Friend of the banned, Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I'm surprised by the outcome. Disappointed and disgusted, yes, but not surprised. Who will be the next enemy of the state? Take care, Kiefer. Intothatdarkness 13:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am an enemy of this state, and a party in the next case. So quite likely I will join you, tuner, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's never good news to be a party in an ArbCom case, but one day they'll achieve their goal and we'll all have been banished. Only a matter of time. Eric Corbett 14:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the good wishes. Remember to follow Mencken's advice on pleasing his ghost and forgive some sinner and wink at a homely girl. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'tis the season

For your way. (I forgive the popcorn maker, but now I don't believe he's a sinner, so it doesn't count.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Come out and take it, you dirty, yellow-bellied rat, or I'll give it to you through the door!". So long, KW, and thanks for all the humour, fireworks, honesty and wit. Don't worry, it's not the end, it's just light and the end of your tunnel. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the best KW thanks for the welcome you gave me earlier on your talk page, enjoy life and hope we talk again, as for me, Im probably going to be off for a bit, and come back by time for Christmas. Prabash.Akmeemana 19:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! All things must pass away. Good luck! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you really meant All_Good_Things... :-) ES&L 23:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, BWilkins! :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good Night, and Good Luck seems doubly appropriate. December will be interesting this year, not just because Santa Claus puts in an appearance. Nick (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I pray you to believe what I have said.... I have reported what I saw and heard, but only part of it. For most of it I have no words. If I've offended you by this rather mild account ..., I'm not in the least sorry.

— Edward R. Murrow, Report from Buchenwald

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC) (added a few days ago without signature)[reply]

• Cheers KW. We've had our battles, but it's been okay. Enjoy your little one - time passes quickly. *tips hat* Pedro :  Chat  20:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  ¡Qué te vaya bien! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Good luck from me too. I expect its only a matter of time before my number comes up too. Kumioko (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although we've had our differences and battles, I never considered myself an enemy of yours.
I hope you have a great time off Wikipedia. Good luck and ¡hasta pronto! — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Take care Kiefer. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rest in peace, time to let go. You fought the law, and the law won. It was a good fight, but dont be tempted to aim back with sock during your ban....thats sort of giving in, playing into hands. Anyhow....some ridicilious fun to distract, guessing you will appreciate the studio wizardry. [7] - 1968, analog, tape. Best. Ceoil (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You fought the law, and the law won. - but if you're an admin then this remake of that old song is more appropriate: [8]. The law is for little people.Volunteer Marek 01:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access?

• Is Kiefer still allowed to use his talk page? Is there any realistic chance of a future appeal being successful? Eric Corbett 18:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:PROTECT, as far as I am aware the talkpage will only be locked in cases of "continued abuse". WP:BAN says pretty much the same thing. So, for the first question, I would say "yes". For the second, I'd say "don't hold your breath", unfortunately. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed: Yes and no—unless there be

  1. a greater scandal resulting in the banning of another editor, a reassessment of Wikipedia by the reading public (who may still think that Qworty was an isolated event----of 5 years!), and the strengthening of WP:Child Protection, or
  2. a revolt among writers at the next ArbCom election. Perhaps CasLiber will run again? Already, Worm That Turned and AGK have announced that they will not seek re-election, and one hopes that Risker will step down. (The treatment of Elen, with whom I've had heated disagreements, was unforgivable, particularly given her distinguished service and humanity.)

  Perhaps in some months I shall write a public appeal to ArbCom, which the wicked may mistake for ridiculing the present committee.... ;)

  I shall be happier away from Wikipedia for a while. If I write something, it's easy for somebody else to add it.... :) Now I am tired, and I wish to focus on other pursuits (as I've long planned). Please forgive me for not writing personal messages and acknowledgments to every greeting, but I am rather tired of this place, and I have a lot of personal and professional responsibilities.

  Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Kiefer isn't blocked from editing his talk page. For the second, I think Black Kite is right. One wonders, though, if there are bonus points for his contributions to the ArbCom case. That is, if ArbCom is correct, then Kiefer was right (in part or in whole) in his assessment of Ironholds and his use of, for instance, IRC. And like it or not (certainly plenty of people won't), he was persistent and successful, if that desysop was his goal. It takes some big ovaries (sorry for the sexist term) to do that. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm very much against these indefinite blocks/bans, because the basic message they send is "you'll remain blocked until you post a sufficiently self-abasing request, and you'll probably have to do that repeatedly". Eric Corbett 21:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've written extensively at Wikipediocracy about my motivations. I've never cared about the administrative status of Ironholds or his employment (apart from the title). The WMF should continue to employee him, since they knew about his IRC activities and he should also be treated as a person. However, Wikipedia must deal with the rhetoric of violence, particularly against women. Many of the young editors no doubt have read and can probably discuss violence fluently; alas, until they've known somebody who's been beaten and have had her boyfriend repeatedly cry about how sorry he is, repeatedly, they just don't understand the importance of a no-tolerance policy and an insistence on dealing with violent rhetoric.

Similarly Wikipedia must always consider its treatment of vulnerable users: examples have included editors in crisis who suddenly demand to have their confidential emails released to the public; children and young adults, especially those with Asperger's syndrome, etc.). I have tried to be consistent, and I have no apologies for my stands. Of course, some rhetoric was counter-productive or needlessly hurtful, and of course I regret some of my comments (as I've regretted receiving many comments...).

I get too tired to look closely at the decision. How many of the diffs that were cited in the case were provided by me, quickly censored, and resulted in my being threatened with blocks? I am too tired to count, and the activity is bush league. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"no longer an editor"

I am heartened by the greetings and good will messages from friends, colleagues, and the loyal opposition (of the loyal opposition). However, already Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) has been chastised for discussing his expansion plans for articles on American law with me:

"I don't quite understand why you're having a discussion with KW on his talk page. Talk pages are provided to editors to help facilitate their editing, and a certain amount of general conversation and so on is not a problem, but Wikipedia is not a forum and, in any case, KW is no longer an editor. Since he is banned, he has no use for his talk page, since he cannot ask for an unblock using it, but must go through BASC or ArbCom to be reinstated."

and I feel that I should warn others to stop writing here, lest they also be accused of consorting with a non-editor (or non-editor per WP:MOS). I already should have repeated the instructions to his friends given by Egon Balas before he had his public denunciation as an enemy of the Communist paradise of Romania (after which he would develop rickets from serving two years of solitary confinement in a dark cell):

Please protect yourself from recriminations and accusations of disloyalty by simply repeating the official accusations against me. You don't need to add new accusations. I will know about your sympathies and not have to worry about your fate. (Will to Freedom, from memory)

Moral: Fall in line and conform with shunning. (Reader's of Balas's autobiography may agree that my being banned is better than my being beaten on the bottom of the feet with a rubber hose.) Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's an impressive contribution on the part of BYK. It's so good to see such a commitment to expression and unfettered access to knowledge. Intothatdarkness 20:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have this quote on my user "every editor is a human being", but should probably add that "non-editors" are also human beings. See there also "The Ban on Love" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly the ideal has reached the "enemies of the state" point. Enemies of the state are of course non-persons. Disappointing to see. Intothatdarkness 22:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointing, but not entirely unexpected. Kiefer will soon be airbrushed out of WP history, as will we all who refuse to join the cult. Eric Corbett 22:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me a lot of the caste system in India. Banned users are the Dalits, those to be shunned, hidden, and unmentioned; admins, to a much lesser degree, are the Brahmins, and all other editors are the Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras. I find this development in people's mindsets to be particularly unhealthy, and even concerning when I read pompous and almost, in a sinister way, excited pronouncements by individuals on the admin's noticeboard that now "...it's time to propose a community ban on <name>. I think the community needs to step up and say to him, 'You are done here.'" This isn't healthy for the targeted users and especially those proposing the bans. But meh, I'm no psychiatrist; it's just my opinion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel pretty much the same, it's disgusting. Eric Corbett 02:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a small step from labor donated to editor no longer. Really? - "Mindsets": I just read about "(mental) health", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the step from person to non-person in the glorious Peoples' Republic of Wikipedia. And serves as a reminder why no one should get attached to the place. Intothatdarkness 14:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked here ... damn. I am very sorry to see this, and it makes no sense to me. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words.

WP:Child Protection apparently now bars discussions of behavior not barred in WP:Child Protection (although barred by responsible organizations like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts). Perhaps ArbCom could designate a clerk to update the policy? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such a lovely community

Into the depths

Meat puppetry

Unsubscribe from The Signpost

Olof Hanner

Proxying offer

Your ban is unwarranted from what I can tell from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Evidence. I did not add any material to that page for a reason: IMO there was absolutely no evidence of misconduct on Wikipedia, on either your or Ironhold's part. For their part, ArbCom again brings shame and disrepute onto the projects via their unreasonable actions. That said, please feel free to post edits to my sandbox, preferably on the English Wikipedia sandbox but any other as needed (it may take a while for me to notice though), for inclusion in the English Wikipedia, per WP:PROXYING. Int21h (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention to contribute again, but I thank you for the kind spirit of your offer.

I agree that a ban on myself was unwarranted. Please correct me and ArbCom if you can find any prohibition in Wikipedia policy on private individual contacts between adult editors and children (e.g. with Aspberger's syndrome or similar conditions) that take place despite and in defiance of the objections of parents. Such contacts do not violate WP:Child Protection; thus, discussions of such contacts do not merit the banning or indefinite blocking mentioned in WP:Child Protection.

You may wish to review the diffs regarding Ironholds mentioned in the case finding. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The downward spiral

My watchlist contains only this page now, but I do get some notifications on articles I've written, when somebody reverts an edit of mine.

Articles

Perhaps Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) might fix an article (following Eric Corbett's fixing Open C tuning:

1. Guitar chord. This is a minor issue. [9] Somebody excited about slide guitar removed "fret" from the caption, despite frets being apparent in Ry Cooder's picture and one-finger major chords being discussed in the cited sources on open tunings. (A discussion of frets, besides following the reliable sources, also is easy for novices to understand.) The fellow made a comment about the open-strings of open tunings (or cross note tunings) on the talk page, perhaps not understanding that open tunings also allow fretting major chords with one-finger barres (not only the open chord). Perhaps a talk page discussion would be best?
2. Open C tuning. A citation was removed (without explanation) by an IP which has been summarily reverted by anti-vandalism bots before. I would suggest a revert with summary "please do not remove reliable sources that are referenced in the article". Eric fixed this. 19:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malkin Tower and Ragnarok

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Congratulations to Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) and Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs) for their latest great article, Malkin Tower. Related thanks to Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), Dennis Brown (talk · contribs), Drmies (talk · contribs), and the saintly Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) for trying to preserve a refuge of sanity and quality at Wikipedia, outside of the mathematics project. Your intelligence and bravery reminds me of Israel's holding out as the bastion of humanity in World War Z, until it is overrun by zombies, which also brought tears to my eyes. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] But today's OR, soapboxing, NPA violations, and IDHT at the talk page may be worse than yesterday's shennanigans. Kudos again to many of the above and to Nick (talk · contribs) for trying to get the talk-page discussion to focus on the reliable sources. KW 21:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"What are you waiting for? Do it.... Do it!"

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denoument

tuning
Thank you for quality articles on tuning and mathematicians, even fictitious ones, for tuned comments to well-wishers, and for striving for serenity when you are "right but others are not ready to listen", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 220th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style. Stay tuned --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda, for remembering the anniversary of Precious (2012), which closely followed the happiest moment of my life. <3 This year's anniversary was also wonderful. :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bad memory, but a good archive, well prepared by the ones who did it before me. Words are a limited way of being in tune, - enjoy music on top of my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Phelps - the second of the external links is dead, would you know to find a replacement? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phelps died in January, I believe, and his user page seems to have been deleted at Washington. Perhaps Wayback? (Now, I suppose one must wait 70 years to publish Rainwater's peer review of an article by Orno....) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I added an archiveurl. --Orlady (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! How is this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all. I had wished that Phelps would have been pleased by the Orno/Rainwater duo on April First, and I even unsuccessfully pitched background to Ohio State and Washington U. journalists, in the hopes of attracting readers and also getting an image of the Orno/Rainwater peer review. I know an editor who has a copy, but I don't believe that he can release it to the public now. L'Esprit d'escalier, Charlie Brown---l'esprit d'escalier. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This fun? - No fun: my tree, need strength this season. My alternative at arbitration. Or was it arbitrary? Orlady, your translation of three German terms is still quite on top of my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a start --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent Russian mathematician told me, "[Kiefer], every functional analyst in the world studied that book [Phelp's Lectures on Choquet theory]", when I was given an copy by one of my mentors. I trust that a German analyst will help expand the article, perhaps consequently leading to improvements in the English version.... :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precious and missed

That's great about the project: that an expert might come along. With that slight hope I moved it, knowing that there is more hidden now than shown, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, you were the 220th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, - you are also included in the group I sing praises for, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remember comparing voters' guides for arbitration? - Here are the answers to my question, summary: no foul, play on. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(tps: hope you are well kiefer) An interesting summary indeed. Looks like I chose well! --regentspark (comment) 04:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

spirale of justice

Four years ago, you were recipient no. 220 of Precious, a prize of QAI! - An article about justice is TFA, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seven years, and missed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will consider mailing me, at some future point. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Charles Matthews:

Dear Charles,

It would be a pleasure. Now I'm exceedingly busy and happier with non-Wikipedia activities (instead of discussing whether I am edit warring at Wikipediocracy ..., which seemed to have been my main activity here the last months). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediocracy today posted a blog on my being blocked after I had raised concerns about child protection (already linked from User talk:Jimbo Wales; permalink).

In a discussion on his user page, Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) stated the falsehood that WP:Child protection is strictly enforced[14], which is easily refuted.

Arbcom lacks the time and training to handle the 20+ cases yearly of child predators, according to arbitrator Worm That Turned (talk · contribs), who appealed to WMF Director Sue Gardner (talk · contribs) for help. She has failed to provide any concrete help to ArbCom, although Sue Gardner did appoint a committee with long-time arbitrators Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) and Risker (talk · contribs) to liaise with WMF:Legal.

• Is appointing a committee Jimbo Wales's ideal of "strict enforcement" of WP:Child protection?

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) has made no response or even acknowledgment of the emails.

Yet he repeats his falsehood that "child protection is strictly enforced". Wales's declarations on child-enforcement have the evidential value of Wales's declaration that ArbCom controls WP:IRC. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: No news is bad news Jimbo Wales has still failed to acknowledge the email (requested in August) with evidence about off-Wiki adult-child behavior---failing to meet the standard of ArbCom's Roger Davies (talk · contribs), who at least acknowledged receipt (on behalf of the committee). At least ArbCom acknowledged publicly that it was incompetent to handle the existing Child-Protection policy when it asked Sue Gardner for help. Why does WMF continue to beg for donations when it ignores concerns about child safety? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Child-protection versus civility enforcement: Rationale for banning KW

Beyond wrong

Does Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) continue to exemplify WP:NPA and WP:Civility in his response on Silver Seren (talk · contribs)? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Email to Jimbo Wales

@Jimbo Wales: Per your request, you've got mail. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) has made no response or even acknowledgment of the emails. Yet he repeats his falsehood that "child protection is strictly enforced". Such statements have the evidential value of Wales's declaration that ArbCom controls WP:IRC. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 September 2013, Schon gewusst? was updated with a fact from the translation of the article Robert Phelps, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was: Der Mathematiker Robert Phelps, Professor an der University of Washington, illustrierte mathematische Zusammenhänge mit Bergsteiger-Metaphern. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (quick check).

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Gerda, for your fine work on the article, which is even better in German, having used information from the Jon Borwein piece and this excellent source. (The proposition that he was in the Merchant Marines, at least the category, was unsourced before your fine research and writing---it rested on a verbal statement that Phelps was a non-traditional student who had served in the Merchant Marines, from a reliable source.) :)

Well done! I'd like to think that the article brought some small solace to his (surviving) wife, that the world shall remember his achievements and some part of his personality.

I cannot imagine what the administration at the U Washington mathematics department has been thinking, to fail to appoint an analyst of the stature of Jon Borwein, or of Robert Deville, or of Mordukhovich and keep the legacy of Issac Namioka, Victor Klee, Robert Phelps, etc. thriving. Now the University of Washington continues to remain the world center of variational analysis on the strength of Terry Rockafellar, the Grothendieck of optimization theory, but complacency is not a winning strategy in mathematics or academics. (End rant.)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... and appealing Arbcom-ban....

Can you see any justification for this edit? I've undone it, just wondering if there's something I'm missing.

Any news on an appeal to ArbCom to overturn your ban? Eric Corbett 22:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eric!

I'm sorry that you committed so many sins in your past life that you are being tormented so, yesterday and today! I don't know how you have the patience to deal with the BS on semantic values and "friends", the former of which is better left to Tarski.

Regarding Open C tuning: The edit removing the Sethares citation could be a good-faith edit motivated by the MOS's discouragement of citations in the lede. The removal would make more sense in any longer article on open tunings (which now links to the discussion in guitar tunings), if the description of open tunings were to be repeated in the body; the present article, being short, has no such repetition. The removal was from the body of the article, and so seems to be hard to imagine it as good faith, even if one forgets about previous vandalism from that IP. 19:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

(Most of the open tunings articles were stubs before my editing. Somebody could easily lump them together in one open-tuning article. Before being banned, my last article edits expanded on the open tuning section of the guitar tunings)

Regarding Arbcom: I've not appealed or thought of appeals to this ArbCom.

WTT's allegation that I used "grooming" 2 years ago (in the same paragraph were I described his "preening" himself) as an allegation of sexual predation was remarkable, especially since he raised no objection on that ground for two years. I have trouble imagining any man not immediately demanding a retraction (or, as I would, initiating kanly) if he were alleged to be a child predator, but here WTT waited 2 years to discuss that diff and make the allegation. (IRWolfie tried to explain my discussion of WTT's and He Who Must Not Be Named's adopting users, many of whom became hyperactive ANI discussants, to anybody who would listen. I doubt that anybody did.) At least I can forgive the (non-recused) ArbCom members who voted for the finding with the excuse that they were busy and didn't have time to understand what they were doing, along with their other obvious limitations.

There's little basis for an appeal, because the Arbcom finding was so vague and lacked evidence. I suggested to Salvio guiliano a simple topic-ban (link added, 23:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)),

but received no response. (I laughed when I read Risker's description of her philosphy of least ArbCom action in the Andy Mabbett case, a week or so later.)

Similar actions by the last two arbcoms resulted in sitting arbitrators losing their positions. I am gratified that Risker again stated (yesterday) that she would not run, but on the other hand she really should be repudiated by the community and join the JClemens society officially rather than by tacit acknowledgment/retreat.

If the worst ArbCom members lose or resign, I might consider filing an appeal, but the present Arbcom (excepting honorable members who unfortunately recused) deserves contempt, not email.

You and the other sane writers appear exhausted (at least in the last two days) and I don't think that anybody should be encouraged to start or to continue here, unless they work in mathematics or music theory or related areas with standards (and limited interest to incompetent obsessives).

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the old citations in the lead nonsense. I've got a little cat curled up in my arms right now, far more important than anything that happens here. I don't watch ArbCom, so let me know if and when you decide to launch an appeal. Eric Corbett 23:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: The IP removed a citation from the body of the article on open C tuning, which may be concordant with the editing by that IP that has been reverted by anti-vandalism bots. 19:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom: Appeal of ban?

@Eric Corbett:

There's no point of thinking about appealing until ArbCom changes, either by membership or by recognition of group polarization. The Stalinist procedures of my ArbCom case, violating the procedures of ArbCom, clarified what the intent was, from the beginning.

It's not surprising that you were blocked again. The project is over-run by people who are not interested in writing quality articles. The Revolt of the Masses. Parrot of Doom was right to try retirement. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'tis the season

(ec) "Louisa Venable Kyle wrote a children's book on The Witch of Pungo." For you, with thanks for the line "I've not appealed or thought of appeals to this ArbCom." I felt the same, but someone needed "clarification" of my sanctions, look (under "season") where that got as ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gerda,

I'm sorry but my head hurts so much from trying to read the infobox request for clarification.... I trust NE Ent's judgment on this and related matters, and I am sorry that you do not seem to have been treated with the respect and courtesy that you deserve, especially considering your good works on this project.

As part of the "continuous (sic.) record of abuse" (from memory) that Risker alleged, I actually helped to mediate a minor conflict with your co-party and Eric, rather successfully I think. I continue to wish him well and wish him the good will of the project. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also trust NE Ent's judgment that the whole thing is absurd. He described in a little template what took others two months to not understand. - If your head hurts from the little clarification request, better don't look at the case. I used "kafkaesque", see my talk, and filed it under pride and prejudice II, see my user. I am on vacation, just passing my treats. My next arb voters' guide will be a little more subtle than simply saying Precious or not as last year ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Ottava Rima of course. These ArbCom bans seem quite bizarre really. Has anyone ever escaped from one? Eric Corbett 00:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Define "escaped" :) - I remember some on top of my talk, first the one who scuttled, escaped by the grace of arbcom, scuttled again when he thought there was no hope for his ideas to come true, and was then (!) banned by teh community I am no part of. Comment by a wise man: "a rabbit escaped", and thank you, Eric, for the first "oppose" im that case. Ottava Rima is also on our sad list, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write a voters Guide, but collected the answers of candidates who were willing to respond to my first question that translates to "are you willing to look at a fact?" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A paragon of civility, in all modesty

The reference to Joe Cinderella's thirdish tuning is from the latest thread on major thirds tuning among jazz guitarists, which features this tribute to yours truly.

"I respect the FACT you understand the frailties of WIKI. Your tolerance for my adversarial style of interpersonal communication is quite refreshing. You have my respect and I am now a fan. Finally, someone who his cool as a cucumber. Bravo!" [15]

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Arbcom! ;) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments are welcome in the section below. Outside comments in this section can and should be moved to a section below by other editors. I shall update this guide as information becomes available.

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

---

The problem

ArbCom attracts administrators who wish to spend their free hours reading lists of diffs from conflicts, with each side presenting only diffs painting their opponent in a bad light, but who find ANI discussions too short(!).

Thus, past elections have lacked qualified candidates and have offered too many unsuitable candidates.

Recruiting candidates

ArbCom needs encyclopediasts like Casliber (talk · contribs) and Charles Matthews (talk · contribs) and Iridescent (talk · contribs), who have previously served with honor and distinction. I would encourage them and SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Drmies (talk · contribs), Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs), RegentsPark (talk · contribs), Rjensen (talk · contribs), EdJohnston (talk · contribs), Leaky caldron (talk · contribs), and Carrite (talk · contribs) to consider running this year.

As respected community leaders, TParis (talk · contribs), Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs), Floquenbeam (talk · contribs), NE Ent (talk · contribs), Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs), Nick (talk · contribs), John (talk · contribs), and 28bytes (talk · contribs) should consider running.

Administrators Fram (talk · contribs), Bbb23 (talk · contribs), and Bwilkins (talk · contribs) also have backbone. I attribute past disagreements (e.g., blocks) with Fram and Bwilkins partially to my errors and partially to their orneriness---an unfortunate side-effect of blocking scores of nutjobs daily.

(The division into community leaders and writers relies on my faulty memory and snap judgment, and is immaterial to the recruitment process anyhow.)

Departing arbitrators

From this year's ArbCom, Hersfold has already resigned. Risker, AGK, SilkTork, and Kirill Lokshin have accounced that they shall not seek re-election.

Issues

This year, I shall look closely at the candidates' records regarding these contentious issues:

Quality-review processes: Featured & Good Articles, & DYKs

For several quality-review projects, the leaders have been attacked for years by sock-puppets of banned users and, alas, often seem to be criticized en masse by a network of administrators (at least some of whom have left a record of sexist remarks).

Justice and WP:Boomerang

Many writers who are not administrators have contempt for the Administrator Noticeboard and have lost confidence with the Arbitration Committee, simply because of the failure of administrators evenly to apply Wikipedia's civility and no-personal-attacks policy. The essay Boomerang, which reminds editors not to file complaints unless they want to be held accountable for their own behavior, is not even a guideline (and certainly not a policy).

In last year's Civility Enforcement case, ArbCom announced that it would hear a wide-ranging case on Civility Enforcement, but instead chose to sanction only Malleus Faturoum, even though there was plenty of evidence against others, particularly those attacking Malleus repeatedly. Nobody was sanctioned for conducting campaigns of abuse.

Besides wasting the community's time and ignoring the evidence submitted about uneven enforcement, this action had the appearance that the proceedings were a bread-and-circuses show, while the real decision was made by the committee in private. Indeed, former arbitrator Iridescent correctly predicted the final votes just by knowing the members of the committee!

Administrators and arbitrators should not be so partisan that they ignore evidence of abuse by their friends and allies and solely target their opponents. Administrators and arbitrators should not be so intellectually lazy or partisan that they do not investigate the context of diffs at ANI or ArbCom, and sanction all guilty parties, particularly abusive administrators.

Similar partisanship ocurred in the case banning me. The community set-up Arbcom as the last step in dispute-resolution, and the community-approved policy requires that all parties to a dispute be discussed. There had been no RfC on Ironholds and myself, so as some arbs noted in considering the case, arbcom did not have a remit to have a case. When the case began, Arbcom arbitrarily prevented me from adding users Worm That Turned and Demiurge1000 as parties and barred me from discussing their behavior, while simultaneously welcoming them to continue their two-year long campaign against me. I was banned from participating from the case after noting Demiurge1000's block for dishonesty and for adding diffs that were later cited by arbcom when it desysopped and nearly banned Ironholds. Other editors have noted that the diffs of incivility and personal attacks by me were made in response to prior incivility and personal attacks by administrators, to which arbcom acquiesced. In particular, Salvio guiliano thrice let stand personal attacks against me by user:Kurtis, each of which were more severe than the "honesty or intelligent" remark cited by Arbcom in its decision to ban me. Arbcom needs to stop practicing "uneven enforcement of civility".

ArbCom needs to prioritize justice.

Privacy

In particular, ArbCom's leaking and (in 2013) publishing personal information of Eric Corbett (talk · contribs).

Disclosure of ALL previous accounts

Proposal withdrawn, following comments by Iridescent
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On the other hand, all candidates should have either of the statements The following is a complete list of all my current and previous accounts:..... The following is a complete list of all my current and previous accounts, apart from exactly n accounts (all of which have been disclosed privately to ArbCom, with the last notification of all of them sent on Date_1 and acknowledged on Date_2). Motivation: In the last election, some previous accounts were posted by an election moderator, after AGK failed to disclose them.

Child protection

ArbCom members have complained to WMF director Sue Gardner that they are unable to enforce the existing child protection policy, which has roughly 20 cases yearly.

In banning me, the current ArbCom ruled, in effect, that adult editors are free to contact vulnerable minors off-Wiki, despite parental objections, because such contacts are not criminal. (Only criminal actions are prohibited by the weak child-protection policy.) At the same time, my discussing such contacts was declared to be a tacit accusation of pedophilia. This year's ArbCom had no warrant chillingly to prohibit discussion of behavior that is compatible with the child-protection policy (but which is prohibited by responsible organizations, like the Girl Scouts).

Avoidance of cowardice

All committees suffer from group polarization, and one hopes that members of this year's Arbcom should recognize several horrible decisions. To reduce the frequency and severity of horrible decisions, committees need persons with backbone and preferably confidence. For example, this year, Worm That Turned

• protested against the rest of Arbcom violating the privacy of Eric Corbett and
• he also complained to Gardner about child protection.

Last year, I mistakenly endorsed Kww because of his independence. It is possible that this year's guide may again mistake independence for courage.

Recommendations

Support

Ks0stm

Ks0stm has a year more experience of doing good work as an administrator, mostly quietly but sometimes with good will and humor contributing to dispute resolution. The committee has a lot of work to do, and this is an administrator who is reliable and will not waste time. I trust that all other guides shall join me in supporting Ks0stm.

• Ks0stm (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2013 candidate: Ks0stm Candidate statement Questions for the candidate Discuss this candidate

RegentsPark

RegentsPark writes articles, mediates content disputes, and is one of the most helpful persons with resolving issues at ANI. RegentsPark has been invaluable in helping to maintain civility and productive editing on articles related to Pakistan and India, one of the toughest proving grounds for administrators.

In her 2012 guide, SandyGeorgia has a good discussion of RegentsPark's virtues on 2012 Wikipedia controversies.

• RegentsPark (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2012 candidate: RegentsPark Candidate statement Questions for the candidate Discuss this candidate

Oppose

Richwales

Richwales is running on two pillars, civility and NPOV. Raising NPOV, which is supported by all, is a distraction, just like in 2012. My 2012 guide explains why his candidacy was inadequate, respectfully. This year I shall be blunter, because Richwales's statement fails to show any greater self-awareness or acknowledgment of the concerns of those who opposed him: His statement ignores

• the difficulty of protecting quality articles from tendentious editors, often illiterates and ideologues.
• this year's Arbcom, particularly its acquiesence to
  • private contacts amongst individual adults and individual children, despite parental objections
  • misogynistic statements, often deployed to put women in their place on Wikimedia.
  • misuse of IRC by Wikipedia administrators and WMF staff.

If elected, Richwales could push a schoolboy understanding of civility (focusing on naughty words, rather than on overall behavior) ahead of the other pillars, which concern the encyclopedic aspects of Wikipedia.

• Richwales (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2013 candidate: Richwales Candidate statement Questions for the candidate Discuss this candidate

AGK

Anthony's early RfAs

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Anthony_cfc
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/AGK

had many concerns about "hat collecting" (forging path to power through dispute resolution projects and positions on other projects, rather than writing articles) and inconsistencies. He failed to declare his alternative accounts last election, but was able to remain eligible after a moderator took the initiative to declare some on his behalf. After the last election, he previously announced (as Rschen has confirmed) that he would not run again; recently he reversed himself and declared that he was about to run. There are just too much variation in his performance---most notably his off-hand comment that Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) was "a net negative to the project", which (at best) served no good purpose and which wasted a lot of time.

My banning case had a similar pattern of wild inconsistency. First, Anthony declared himself to have a conflict because of his simultaneous role as an administrator of Wikipedia's IRC channel. Second, he said he would participate because the case would consider the administrator IRC channel, not the general one. Third, Anthony participated in the case, which did cite (non-administrative) IRC chats by Ironholds, precisely his previously declared conflict of interest. Granted that individually any of these three positions could be considered as plausible, rapidly bouncing from position to position without explanation wasted a lot of time and looked (at best) thoughtless.

It seems to me that AGK would better serve the project by writing some articles and helping to resolve disputes without using his tools, i.e. emulating e.g. Drmies. (Like Richwales, AGK is a much better candidate than some of those running in the last elections, e.g., YOLO SWAG, KWW, Beeblebrox, Panyd, etc.)

• AGK (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2013 candidate: AGK Candidate statement Questions for the candidate Discuss this candidate

Other guides

The best writers write the best guides.

• Carefully read the guides of SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), Ealdgyth (talk · contribs), Elonka (talk · contribs), Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs), etc.
• Ignore any analysis that focuses on candidates' responses to the standard questions (ugh!) and so slights candidates' years of behavior (both action, with its risks of error, and cowardly failures to act). On the other hand, read Rschen's comments, which are much better than his bean counting: For example, in 2012 Rschen was the first writer to highlight the problems with Featured-Article review.

2013

Other 2013 guides
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
v t e 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections Electoral Commission RFC Contact the coordinators Discuss the elections Quick guide Candidates: Candidate guide Candidate statements Questions for the candidates Discuss the candidates Personal voter guides These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. Sportsguy17 HJ Mitchell Ealdgyth Rschen7754 Collect Neotarf Hahc21 Tryptofish SirFozzie Hot Stop GregJackP The Lady Catherine de Burgh Boing! said Zebedee Heimstern Coffee Volunteer Marek NuclearWarfare Bishzilla Sven Manguard Elonka Reaper Eternal Jclemens

Older guides

2011 and 2012 Guides

2012 v t e 2012 Arbitration Committee Elections Voter log Contact the coordinators Discuss the elections Candidates Candidate guide Candidate statements Questions for the candidates Discuss the candidates Voter guides These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. Guides to other guides are ineligible. Hot Stop Ealdgyth Wizardman Boing! said Zebedee Heimstern Casliber Sven Manguard Rschen7754 Reaper Eternal Kiefer.Wolfowitz Hahc21 Elonka HJ Mitchell Kurtis SandyGeorgia Collect 2011 v t e 2011 Arbitration Committee Elections Voter log Contact the coordinators Discuss the elections Give your feedback Candidates Candidate guide Candidate statements Questions for the candidates Discuss the candidates Voter guides These guides represent only the views of their authors. All guides written responsibly, seriously and in good faith are welcome for inclusion. Master&Expert Heimstern HJ Mitchell Sven Manguard William M. Connolley Wizardman SandyGeorgia Ealdgyth Badger Drink Rschen7754 Elonka Monty845 Kiefer.Wolfowitz RegentsPark Joe Gazz84 NuclearWarfare Carcharoth Guerillero

Notice

This guide shall be updated as candidates present themselves and as other guides appear.

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.

2012 edition

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.

---

See also: WP:Wikipedia is an MMORPG, Dungeons & Dragons gameplay § Ability scores, and Character class (Dungeons & Dragons)

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Shortcut section

Remember that 10 represents average human ability, so everything above 10 is a (sincere) compliment.

Abilities

Character	Strength	Dexterity	Constitution	Intelligence	Wisdom	Charisma	Alignment	Class	Level	Race[1]
Nuclear Warfare	12	16	13	14	15	14	Lawful good	Cleric?	7	Human
Casliber	17	17	16	16	16	17	Lawful good	Paladin	11	Human
Elen of the Roads	14	17[2]	15	16	16	16	Chaotic good	Interspecies diplomat	8	Metron
Newyorkbrad	16	16	16	16	17	15	Lawful good	Arch-mage	11	Watcher
Carcharoth	18	14	18	16	18	15	Chaotic good	Bard,[3] formerly RED	8	sheepish Ent wearing Fenris Wolf's clothing
Worm That Turned	12	14	14	14	13	16	Neutral[4] good	Ring bearer [5]	5	Hobbit
Sir Fozzie (Sabbatical)	14	14	14	15	14	14	Lawful good	Indefatigable companion	8?	WereMuppet
Guerillero	18	14	18	15	15	13	Lawful good	Ranger	5	Bearish man
Keilana	14	15	?	14	15	15	Chaotic good	Sorcerer	Apprentice	Muggle parents
Richwales	11	12	?	11	12	12	Lawful neutral	Cleric?	4?	Canuck, eh?
YOLO Swag	10	12	10	10	10	12	Chaotic neutral	Rogue	3	Human
Jclemens	16	10	16	16	10	10	Chaotic Lawful	Mentat	8	Vulcan
Jc37	10[6]	10	17	10	10	15	Chaotic lawful	bard	6	closeted Beserker
Coren	18	18	18	18	18	12	Lawful good	Artificer (Muninn & Huginn)	21	Demigod
Count Iblis	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	Chaotic neutral	Count Iblis	2	Extraterrestrial

1. ^ Hobbits are from the UK, obviously.Humans are from the USA.
2. ^ Dexterity occasionally drops to 12.
3. ^ Composes epics of log(Cunard) length and log(log(My76Strat)) complexity
4. ^ Worm That Turned formerly had a lawful-good orientation. This change of alignment seems not to have been penalized by the Dungeon Master.
5. ^ Formerly warlord. Again, the change in class does not seem to to have been penalized.
6. ^ Strength increases to 17 after ingesting Amanita muscaria

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.