This was an attempt to resolve underlying issues with User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz on a one to one basis with me, laid out in the form of an RfC/U. I explained the intention beforehand here. It was not an RfC/U, nor was it a draft RfC/U. Kiefer was emailed the link privately, no other people were emailed the link. Due to Kiefer's reaction, which included asking for sanctions and alerting other users, I considered this Workshop to have failed.
Failed dispute resolution
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC).
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct and have previously attempted and failed to resolve the dispute. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. Other users may present their views in the other sections below.
{Add summary here, provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.}
This summary of the dispute is written by the users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus. Other users may present their views of the dispute in the other sections below.
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
{This section is reserved for the opinions and views of the user whose conduct is disputed. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but only the person named in the dispute should change or edit the view in this section.}
I regard this as another waste of time. I have already responded to most of these complaints weeks ago at ANI, where I defended myself against a serious of similar charges by Demiurge1000 and his summoned administrator, TWW. In retrospect, I viewed the attacks as unwarranted, so that the charges should just have been ignored. My conclusion that I should have ignored the drama was seconded byUser:Reaper Eternal .
In years of editing, I have made exactly one 3RR violation, which I have stated was due to miscounting. A minor who had previously removed a statement that he had Aspberger's syndrome returned to Wikipedia editing after relatively little editing after a failed RfA, and added this information. I removed the Aspberger's information, as per the policy that minors especially should not disclose personal information.
In private e-mail, the user stated no objections to my action but stated that he wished to identify himself, having considered my concerns. The drama was due to other users, not to the minor being upset. I don't understand the fixation on this incident.
"General incivility", versus "Voltaire & self-deprecation"
"General incivility [11]" (sic.). I stopped responding to a conversation going nowhere, because I did not want "to explain everything", which is "the secret of being a bore" according to Voltaire. WTT seems to have failed to recall or to have Googled this famous phrase.
There are two complaints about my revising exactly one text (each time) without using strike-throughs.
In the case where I responded to WTT, there had been no reply to my initial response and so no strike-through was obligatory.
In the second case, I judged that my edits might reduce the stress on an editor who had identified himself as suffering from depression and schizophrenia, and that the benefit from changing the text to reduce his stress sufficed. Nobody reverted that edit, or complained on that page that this edit had been improper: Perhaps others shared my judgment that a reduction in drama might have been beneficial? (I had asked in a private email to WTT that he avoid mentioning the case of this user, and regret that defending myself necessitates mentioning this on Wiki.)
Requests for Administratorship (RfAs): "Overzealousness"?
I have been accused of being "over-zealous" at RfAs. I have raised concerns about candidates' lack of substantive quality editing (and sometimes about paraphrasing of copyrighted material in apparent violation of WP policy), and the record shows that my concerns were shared by other editors, some of whom acknowledged my contributions.
A related complaint alleges that I have been over-zealous about "younger [sic.] editors" at RfAs. I have repeatedly stated that minors should not become administrators because of (1) possible harm to minors, (2) legal liability of Wikipedia, and last & least (3) concerns about damage to Wikipedia. Many other editors have stated similar concerns. WP's discussion of the "perennial proposal" that administrators be adults states that WP editors are free to mention youth as a motivation for opposing minor candidates:
At least 2 editors accused me of using copyright violation tags duplicitously to advance some political agenda. WTT irresponsibly repeats this baseless charge, knowing that I have complained about his failure to stop such violations of AGF, NPA, when they had occurred before. I complained that WTT and the other editors failed even to learn enough to evaluate the editing dispute, but rather simply repeated this personal attack in ignorance. I have also noted that in every case where I diagnosed a possible copyright-violation problem, either I or other editors had to rewrite the paragraphs extensively: In many cases, the history of the article had to be deleted because of a copyright violation concern. In no case, has any such tagging resulted in an approval of the status quo. In this context, he can exhibit high disdain for sense of injured merit as much as he wants....
Parallel passages raising concerns about possible copyright violations, etc.
*SPUSA: The ISL was a Trotskyist splinter group founded and led by Max Shachtman ....
In 1958 the ISL dissolved, and its members joined the
SP-SDF. ... the concept of “Realignment.” Shachtman and his lieutenant, Michael Harrington, argued that what America needed wasn’t a third party, but a meaningful second party.
The Realignment supporters said that in sixty years the
Socialist Party had failed to bring labor into the Party, and
in fact kept losing their labor sympathizers (such as the
Reuther brothers) because they saw they could do more within
the Democratic Party.
WP: In 1958 the party admitted to its ranks the members of the recently-dissolved Independent Socialist League led by Max Shachtman, a ... Trotskyist .... Shachtman and his lieutenant [[Michael Harrington[12]]] advocated a political strategy called "realignment," arguing that rather than pursuit of ineffectual independent politics, the American socialist movement should instead seek to move the Democratic Party to the social democratic left by direct participation within the organization.[1]
SPUSA: At the ... Democratic National Convention ... in 1968, Realignment Socialists were present as delegates.... At the same time, many Debs Caucus members were in the streets with the demonstrators.
WP: This division was manifest most strongly during the 1968 Democratic Convention, in which members of the Debs Caucus were among the protestersoutside of the convention, while members of the Coalition and Unity Caucuses were among the convention delegates.[2][3]
SPUSA ... Max Shachtman’s leadership, ... showing a growing tendency toward a Stalinist “democratic centralism” in practice.
SPUSA In the 1972 Presidential election the Shachtmanites supported Henry Jackson .... During the campaign itself, they took a neutral position between McGovern and Nixon, following the lead of the AFL-CIO. Harrington and his Coalition Caucus supported McGovern throughout. Most of the Debs Caucus members supported Benjamin Spock, candidate of the People’s Party....
SPUSA At the end of 1972, ... many of the states and locals within the Debs Caucus, .... Early in 1973, the Socialist Party of Wisconsin, with the support of the California and Illinois Parties, ... voted to reconstitute the Socialist Party USA.
WP: Socialist Party USA (notSocialist Party of America): Numerous local and state branches of the old Socialist Party, including the Party's Wisconsin, California, Illinois, ... organizations, participated in the reconstitution of the Socialist Party USA.[4]
*SPUSADue to America’s restrictive and often undemocratic ballot access laws (which have made it almost impossible to break the two-party monopoly on national politics),
WP the financial dominance of the two major parties, as well as the limitations of the United States' legislatively[5][6] and judicially[7] entrenched two-party system.
SPUSA: the party views the races primarily as opportunities for educating ...
WP: The Socialist Party USA ... runs candidates for public office, though these campaigns are often considered educational in intent ....[8]
Michael Harrington and the Coalition Caucus left the party soon after, establishing themselves with headquarters in New York City as the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC). Harrington and his supporters, ... believed that the third party road to democratic socialism had been a failure, and instead sought to work within the Democratic Party as an organized socialist caucus to bring about that party's "realignment" to the left. [2]
This left Shachtman and the Unity Caucus in unopposed control of the Socialist Party (though Shachtman himself died very soon after). In 1972, this group renamed itself the Social Democrats USA (SDUSA).[9]
^Winger, Richard. "Institutional Obstacles to a Multiparty System," in Multiparty Politics in America, Paul S. Herrnson and John C. Green, eds. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1997)
^Ansolabehere, Stephen and Gerber, Alan. "The Effects of Filing Fees and Petition Requirements on U.S. House Elections," Legislative Studies Quarterly 21 no. 2 (1996)
^Fitts, Michael A. "Back to the Future: Enduring Dilemmas Revealed in the Supreme Court's Treatment of Political Parties", in The U.S. Supreme Court and the Electoral Process (2nd ed.) David K. Ryden, ed. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2002 ISBN9780878408863 pp. 103-105 and passim
^Minutes of October 2006 Socialist Party National Committee meeting.
This quotation shows extensive paraphrasing from the Socialist Party USA's own literature, which does raise concerns about its being a possible Copyright-Violation. These passages no longer appear in the article. (These passages raised questions about COI/RS/Verifiability also.)
In short, this budding RfC/U seems to have been provoked by two clusters of issues.
First, there is a clique of editors devoted to RfAs and championing minors becoming administrators. This clique has been upset by my comments in RfAs, particularly about candidates who are minors or who do not have a record of contributions to traditional encyclopedia content. In particular, Demiurge1000 has been harassing me for months, interjecting himself whenever a hint of disagreement occurs between myself and other editors, at best distracting discussions but often inflaming drama. Demiurge1000 has refused to accept a no-interaction ban, which has been suggested independently by myself and (in this edit) by User:Fetchcomms.
There have been content disputes in American political history (where I have been doing clean up over the last few months). About these articles, RfA enthusiasts have each shot off his mouth without knowing or learning a thing, grossly violating AGF and NPA, fatuously indifferent to whether his charges be warranted or lies, shamed neither in his own or in his neighbors' eyes. For hounding me and wasting time, especially my valuable time, they deserve censure from the community.
This section is for summaries and opinions written by users who are not directly involved with the dispute, but who would like to share their views of the dispute. Anyone is welcome to endorse any view on this page, but you should not change other people's views.
{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.}
This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.
1)
a. User:Demiurge1000 and User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz agree to a voluntary interaction ban for one year.
b. User:WormThatTurned agrees to a voluntary interaction ban on any discussion that has already involved both User:Demiurge1000 and User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz (for one year).
c. Users Demiurge1000 and WormThatTurned acknowledge that WP's statement of perennial issues (Majority status) states that WP editors may mention age (minor status) as a personal reason for opposing RfAs.
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
