User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Shapley–Folkman lemma at FAC

"In geometry, the Shapley–Folkman lemma and the Shapley–Folkman–Starr theorem study the Minkowski addition of sets in a vector space". I think you're going to struggle finding reviewers for this article, but just let me say that lemmas don't study anything: that's what mathematicians do. Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Malleus, for both the caution about reviewers and the warning about anthropomorphizing lemmas. I shall be happy if I receive further copy editing suggestions like this. Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll endeavour to apply my limited mathematical knowledge to the rest of the article, but you might want to give User:Geometry guy a nudge. Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Malleus!

Geometry Guy has already been very helpful. He may prefer the splitting off of the "SF-Starr theorem" from the lemma, to improve the accessibility of the article. (I lack the energy to do rewriting of 2 artices.)

The calls for A-class review elicited no edits or comments from the economics and mathematics projects, but the previous GA review received many helpful comments.

IMHO, the biggest flaw of the article is the animation of the non-convex consumer preferences, which has been taken from another article; it is encumbered by extraneous information from the other application.

The double use of User:David Eppstein's illustration is unconventional but (I believe) helpful for readers.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm just trying to gee up the troops, don't expect too much from me. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You are doing a great job as a catalyst!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

[1] You give me too much credit. I'm reading and trying to understand at the same time; I just figure that if I can't understand then nobody else will either. What about that for arrogance! :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Malleus,

I am delighted that you have again contributed to the article, especially because it is challenging for you---just as it was for me when I first tried to read mathematical economics (via the New Palgrave)---and I want to acknowledge your help.

I try to give credit to editors for their suggestions, following the example of kind editors like ThomasMeeks.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll get to the end of the article one day soon I hope, but I'm disappointed that other FA reviewers have not yet followed my lead. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Be patient. Protonk's efforts are still in-coming. :) A few dedicated and talented reviewers will be very helpful in improving the article. I am pleased with the suggestions.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Mathematics and Wikpedia

• Why is it do you think that so many are afraid of mathematics, and mathematics articles? Malleus Fatuorum 02:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I participated in an interview with the Mathematics Project this year, which I'll link, which has more experienced editors, most of whom are much better mathematicians than myself. You should read that first, then this. (I am usually long-winded at first draft.)

It helps to have good graphics, at least for geometric-inclined readers (e.g. me). The Shapley-Folkman article benefits from David Eppstein's two illustrations, which outclass anything else in world literature. Nobody has even dreamed of creating explanatory graphics like David's. I am surprised that I haven't seen people citing the article yet. (I tried, but my article citing it has been held up in review for more than a year!) It has the best survey of applications; particularly the links to econometric journals should make it essential reading for M.A. students at good universities---or at least at Stanford! ;)

I would not say that people are afraid, but rather than many people are nervous and humble (unless they are young Americans, who have the world's highest positive response to the statement, "I have mathematical talent"!).

Compare mathematics and music: I was reading a bit about your countryman Robert Fripp and reflecting on my ignorance of music, particularly the basics of music appreciation, particularly the musical theory that should seduce any mathematical scientist. Music is even more human than mathematics. Our ability to dance in groups is unknown in other species, I've read. Yet I have not read anything, because other interests and activities were more habitual/interesting/pressing.

Thus, it is a question of economics and of interest. If people understood that they could make better decisions for themselves, particularly to provide for their families, or to make medical decisions for their families, better, by understanding a basic course in statistics, then I think enrollment would increase, at least among mature adults. Young people are probably more motivated about income and idealism (saving the world). I became seriously interested in mathematics because I wanted to understand economics, courtesy of Reaganomics; I learned from economists that statistics was the most important skill to have.

Wikipedia's own Richard Gill, acting in the real world, has helped nurses unjustly tried for murder, because prosecutors committed and judges accepted crazy statistical testimony. Mathematics is important in real life, particularly in criminal justice, business, and military affairs. I think that understanding the basics of probability are essential to proper reasoning. There should be no shortage of examples that make statistics and mathematics come alive. (I can say that I have used examples of fire-department statistics, which grab U.S. audiences, once I mention 9/11 and some personal ties.)

Another example of the importance of incentives and opportunities. In the communist countries, mathematics attracted people because it was relatively free from Communist BS and unless you were Jewish and in the 1970s (or under Stalin's time) was relatively meritocratic. The USSR and Poland had great books written and inspired by Kolmogorov and Banach---and Kolmogorov was like the Bach of mathematics, so that their mathematical civilization was very inviting and inspiring. Even now, students in Eastern Europe know that science is an excellent way to obtain good jobs in Western Europe or the USA, which is another explanation of why they have such good students.

Boxer: "I will work harder":

One of the best writers of our time is the German poet and essayist Hans Magnus Enzensberger. He has written a pamphlet Drawbridges Down!, calling on mathematicians to write for the public (even if they have to lie a little ...); he has also written a book for children, The Number Devil, which is entertaining. The Wikipedia Project interview discusses the difficulty of writing for the public.

I would say that the U.S. and increasingly Sweden have been crippled by the anti-academic and anti-intellectual Schools of Education, which hobble our high schools, particularly in mathematics. It is like Plan 9 From Outer Space. We are surrounded by intellectually dead people. It used to be that Swedish gymnasium teachers had a Master's degree in one subject, and had written a B.A. thesis in another. (French gymnasium teachers must have a something like a Master's degree.) Now, Americans and Swedes can get accreditation by taking watered down classes like algebra for teachers. How can students get inspired by teachers who don't know their subjects? (I was lucky to have caught the end of New Math and to have been taught by teachers recruited with post-Sputnik initiatives.)

We need teachers who are intellectually alive and interested in mathematics. But now, it is hard to imagine the best students taking bachelor of education degrees, which they need to get hired by public schools in the U.S. (If they take a B.A./B.S. and later get accredited, they will not get hired because their union contract makes them entitled to higher pay.)

That is my short answer! ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Further comment. I think some of the leading project members write what is obvious for them off the top of their heads. (I do the same in statistics, usually, and just give the general references I read when I learned the stuff.) Many of our mathematicians have interests in algebra and mathematical logic, and have been influenced by something called category theory, so they write articles that are hard for reactionary (set-theoretic) mathematicians (or mathematical scientists like me) to understand. If they had more time, they would be able to write simpler articles, but they are usually writing what they consider to be trivialities in the most natural (i.e., category theoretic) way. This makes it difficult to understand some topics, usually in Ph.D.-training-level mathematics. However, most of our articles are quite accessible, and our editors take great pains to write inviting articles on topics of interest to the public or to undergraduates.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that about hits the spot. I hardly ever edit in areas I've worked in, because the pain of trying to find citations for what you and everyone else in field knows to be true is just too much hassle. Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"Mathematicians are like lovers ...": "Give 'em an inch, and they ask for a mile"

The article Tom Kahn would benefit from a good article review. (It is not yet as polished as the SF lemma article.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

FAC nom formatting

FYI on how to format FAC nominations: [2] Karanacs (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"The road to wisdom": "To err, to err, to err"

"The road to wisdom": "To err, to err, to err"

Sorry for over-emboldening. If it is any consolation, I did even more blunders, which were egregious because they were premature blunders, on the FA-scheduling page, where I had no business being.

Thanks for the help! Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Almost everyone who tries to nominate at the FA-scheduling page messes up. No worries. Karanacs (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Starr's result

Hello-So, rather than going to the original research, here's a question I have about Starr's result: Does the good behavior of the approximated economy come strictly from the number of consumers, or is it required (as in simple results about the core) that the consumers are clones? CRETOG8(t/c) 18:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a good question, which applies both to the results of Shapley & Folkman and of Starr. You might guess that non-cloning would be essential, if you had read a (sloppy) remark in the otherwise good c. 1983 Econometrica paper by Whitney Newey and Soeren Bloemqist, on "nonlinear budget sets": It states that "averaging over characteristics" was "implicit" in aggregation, suggesting that non-cloning be essential.

On the contrary, the propositions (and their proofs) make no assumption about the identity or non-identity of the summands, and it is interesting that everything holds even when all consumers are identical! Troeckel has a very clear statement about that. (It seems paradoxical that economics obtains more informative results by special cases of general theorems ....) You should look at the illustration in Mas-Colell's 1987 "Non-convexity" article, which shows a semigroup of sumsets: I tried to explain it on the talk page. Give me a minute and I'll cut and paste it here.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Mas-Colell, A. (1987). "Non-convexity". In Eatwell, John; Milgate, Murray; Newman, Peter (eds.). [[The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics|The new Palgrave: A dictionary of economics]] (first ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 653–661. doi:10.1057/9780230226203.3173. (PDF file at Mas-Colell's homepage). {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); URL–wikilink conflict (help); Unknown parameter |newedition= ignored (help)

The best image would illustrate the set

S = 1/2 ( [0,1]×[0,2] ∪ [0,2]×[0,1] )

and then

$S_{N}={\frac {1}{2^{N}}}\sum _{1\leq n\leq 2^{N}}{S}\qquad (N\geq 2)$

for N = 0, 1, 2,3, ∞.

A translate of this set appears in Mas-Colell's article on non-convex sets (etc.).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Someday, this will take some serious thought! (...and I need to convince my university to pick up Palgrave.) CRETOG8(t/c) 19:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You can read Mas-Colell and Starr's New Palgrave articles at their homepages. You don't need a subscription. Starr's book used to be available in draft form at his homepage. Enjoy  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

• News and notes: Italian Wikipedia shuts down over new privacy law; Wikimedia Sverige produce short Wikipedia films, Sue Gardner calls for empathy

• In the news: QRpedia launches to acclaim, Jimbo talks social media, Wikipedia attracts fungi, terriers and Greeks bearing gifts

• WikiProject report: Kia ora WikiProject New Zealand

• Featured content: Reviewers praise new featured topic: National treasures of Japan

• Arbitration report: Last call for comments on CheckUser and Oversight teams

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Positive reinforcement

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi RedRose64 Redrose64!

It was my pleasure to vote for you! :)

Feel free to block me any time! ;)

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Thanks for making Wikipedia a better place to be. Enjoy! Pinkstrawberry02™ talk 15:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please reply on Pinkstrawberry02's talk page. If for some reason you cannot, please leave them a {{talkback}} and reply on your own talk page. Also, don't forget to sign their guestbook. Thanks for your attention!

Thank you! Have you considered joining the administrator corps?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank You...and You're Welcome!

Hey, thanks for the Baba Ghanoush! Try a new food every day - it was delicious! And you are certainly welcome for the falafel, I'm glad you enjoyed it. And no, I haven't. I've actually thought of myself as not good enough to do it - maybe I should start small. Thanks again! Pinkstrawberry02™ ^talk 18:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Worse than a colonoscopy, better than an orchiectomy

Assuredly we bring not innocence into the world, we bring impurity much rather: that which purifies us is triall, and triall is by what is contrary

— John Milton, Areopagitica

RFC/U discussion concerning you (Kiefer.Wolfowitz)

Hello, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz, where you may want to participate. As requested, I will now ask a sitting arb, and one of your prefered administrators to confirm whether there is a basis for this RfC. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion was that you ask somebody with greater ability and experience to draft an RfC that would focus on a few behavioral changes, for me (as you should do for any other person in an RfC). Your credibility would be greater if you were being conservative in your paraphrasing, rather than distorting User:Carrite's comment about my contempt for Busky's book. Have you bothered to read the pages I flagged as poor scholarship yet?

I find it humorous that you, who could not even be bothered to source properly the trivial bacon festival, are rapping my knuckles like a school marm about my acknowledgment that I had reused content ("canibalizing"), which I have acknowledged doing in many articles with edit-summaries. Of course, I can do better and perhaps I have slipped a few times.

Even if you have a respected Wikipedian involved with your RfC, I shall certainly have no time for it until December, as I noted before.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer, I have endorsed the basis of the RfC, so let's have no more of this "someone with greater ability" crap please. I suggest you get over there and respond to what's being raised - as I said previously, in my experience it never comes out well for the editor who attempts to ignore the issue. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen, if I want your opinion, I shall ask for it.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Your contributions at RfC

Thank you for your participation in the discussion - I am hopeful that this can be brought to an amicable solution. I note that you have made a comment in the "Outside View" section - this section is for editors who are not a party to the dispute. For your convenience, I have moved your comments in their entirity into the response section here. You may wish to edit the header as it just says "Moved from Outside View section" at the moment. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your movement was fine, although it does not preserve the soi disant, le soi c'est one autre, and a certain soup de jour qualities of the original.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Surely it's soup du jour :) :) Minestrone perhaps? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That was an excellent guess! The cuisine is Roman. I am in a "secure, undisclosed location", but I do hear the Mediterranean peacefully loosening its rope of sands.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"Lighten up, Francis"

On same team in general, but I advise you to chill out. Roll with the punches, just a little. And jab in spots, not always. Even for humor, it can be more effective. Like when Jerry advised George on not overplaying the jokes.

P.s. Yeah, the kids are kids. And trapped in Dunning Kruger (similar to Rumsfeldian unknown unknown). But give them a break. Broadcast at intervals, not continuuous wave.

P.s.s. Peace brah...and don't let the turkeys get you down.

P.s.s.s. That Ossfrob (or whatever his name is) is right about Shapley Lema-thereom. It is still too mathy. You CAN keep the essential content and make it better.

P.s.s.s.s. BEADWINDOW and all that... \

For the record, the IP editor who refuses a signature above is User:71.246.147.40. LadyofShalott 04:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Reading about the Dunning–Kruger effect and reviewing Bill Murray's Stripes were both enjoyable. I believe that the other allusion is to Donald Rumsfeld's or Dick Cheney's "secure undisclosed location" (often ridiculed on Harry Shearer's Le Show), where the Vice President secured himself after the 9/11 attacks.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Rumsfeldian reference was to this, I believe. 28bytes (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That makes more sense! Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz

The self imposed interaction ban was, IMHO, only on a discussion basis on your talk and mine I believe. I feel I can add value at the above. Are you in agreement that posting there does not contradict my interaction ban? If not then I will not comment there. Pedro :  Chat  22:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pedro!

Thanks for asking. I shall try to email you privately.

Sincerely,

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your email. After fully reading the RFC, I have decided that I'm unlikely to add value. Pedro :  Chat  22:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pedro,

I thought you wrote a very classy request. I am sorry that I did not see your reply earlier, and acknowledge it immediately.

If you change your mind please feel free to comment at the RfC, or if you want to email me suggestions for improving my editing.

You have a lot more experience on WP than I do. If you change your mind about the interaction ban, which certainly did serve a purpose after some derailed conversations, then please email me or write here.

I appreciate your taking the time to read the RfC and to think about contributing. I shall remember your example of aiming for value-added comments.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Consider the alternatives

Negative reinforcement, like an auto-da-fé, helps learners distinguish between right and wrong action.).

I wrote this some months ago.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Infantilization

We agree that positive reinforcement is wonderful. However, negative reinforcement is also beneficial. Read Paul Meehl's Presidential Address to the American Psychological Association, "Why I do not attend case conferences":

Reward everything—gold and garbage—alike. The tradition of exaggerated tenderness in psychiatry and psychology reflects our “therapeutic attitude” and contrasts with that of scholars in fields like philosophy or law, where a dumb argument is called a dumb argument, and he who makes a dumb argument can expect to be slapped down by his peers. Nobody ever gives anybody negative reinforcement in a psychiatric case conference. (Try it once—you will be heard with horror and disbelief.) The most inane remark is received with joy and open arms as part of the groupthink process. Consequently the educational function, for either staff or students, is prevented from getting off the ground. Any psychologist should know that part of the process of training or educating is to administer differential reinforcement for good versus bad, effective versus ineffective, correct versus incorrect behaviors. If all behavior is rewarded by friendly attention and nobody is ever non-reinforced (let alone punished!) for talking foolishly, it is unlikely that significant educational growth will take place. (pp. 228-229)
...
The obvious educational question is, how does it happen that this bright, conscientious, well-motivated, social-service-oriented premed psychology major with a 3.80 average doesn’t know the most elementary things about psychotic depression, such as its diagnostic indicators, its statistical suicide risk, or the time phase in the natural history of the illness which presents the greatest risk of suicide? The answer, brethren, is very simple: Some of those who are “teaching” and “supervising” him either don’t know these things themselves or don’t think it is important for him to know them. This hapless student is at the educational mercy of a crew that is so unscholarly, antiscientific, “groupy-groupy,” and “touchy-feely” that they have almost no concern for facts, statistics, ... or the work of the intellect generally. (p. 280)

(Emboldening and links added)

Spare the rod and spoil the child,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Many, many years ago I attended case conferences during my psychology degree, and I was absolutely gob-smacked by the social worker pseudo-science bullshit on display even then. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)'

(ec) Very true. If all feedback is the same, there is no way of differentiating the useful (important) from useless (trivial or misleading). Manny may (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

p.s. I like your style! Manny may (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

:) (KW)

It's something that now seems to be deep in the American psyche. I attended an IT training course a few years ago led by an American, and within two hours of the week-long course I was writhing at her habitual "Thank you for that very interesting question" response to almost everything she was asked, no matter how stupid or inane. Whoever it was said that there are no stupid questions is an ass. Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I know parents of fairly bright kids who get really frustrated by the teachers of their children uncritically praising substandard work, on the grounds that their work is much better than that of many of the children in the class. The idea of equality, taken too far, does not challenge and stretch everyone according to their ability, and so becomes fundamentally unfair. Geometry guy 23:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There was a fairly well-publicised case here in the UK of a football match between two junior teams being stopped at half-time because one team was losing 9–0, and it was considered improper that they should be asked to take the field again for the second half, and perhaps suffer further humiliation. Or perhaps fight back and win the game 10–9, we'll never know. But there's definitely an uncritical view that all efforts are equal, when they patently are not. There are winners and losers in life, and that's a lesson kids need to learn. Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I endorse E. D. Hirsch's The Schools We Need, and Why We Don't Have Them, which traces the disasters of American schools (particularly the systems of schools of eduction) to American romanticism, which viewed everybody as having a spark of divinity, like a narcissistic version of the Quaker religion (without the "leveling" or emphasis on good will and integrity).

After the publication of an English grammar of Sanskrit c. 1848, there was a fascination with Hinduism and Buddhism; probably German romanticism benefited from an awareness of Hindu and Buddhist influences on Christianity even earlier, and various types of pantheism and spiritualism. Not only romantic novelists but also scientists did research on spiritualism, "energy fields", "ghosts", etc. This BS animates much of American culture, from schools of education to Star Wars.

Another good book is by Robyn Dawes, House of Cards: Psychology and Therapy Built on Myth. Dawes emphasizes the importance of time on task for learning, especially homework, and criticizes the absurd and anti-scientific cult of "self esteem" in the U.S., particularly in "education". Dawes has been a professor at the magnificent Carnegie Mellon University.

His CMU colleagues Herb Simon, John R. Anderson, and a third have written criticisms of education-school BS, claiming to be based on "cognitive psychology". Wikipedia's own mathematics education has claimed that "research has shown" that short homework lessons are best, etc. Simon, Anderson, et alia have explained that many of these claims contradict the core findings of experimental psychology. (One of the disasters of Swedish social-democracy is that Alva Myrdal and her successors have imported the anti-intellectual U.S. system into a country that already suffered from conformity and leveling egalitarianism.)

I agree with the above expressed revulsion about the neglect of gifted children in many schools. It is nearly child abuse that some students never are challenged and so helped to learn time-management and study skills until they get to university.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Welund

Welund him be wurman wræces cunnade, anhydig eorlearfoþa dreag, hæfde him to gesiþþe sorge ond longaþ, wintercealde wræce; wean oft onfond, siþþan hine Niðhad onnede legde, swoncre seonobendeon syllan monn. Þæs ofereode,þisses swa mæg!

Welund tasted misery among snakes. The stout-hearted hero endured troubles had sorrow and longing as his companions cruelty cold as winter - he often found woe Once Nithad laid restraints on him, supple sinew-bonds on the better man. That went by; so can this.

The hamstrung smith Welund, portrayed on the Franks Casket.

Tall poppy syndrome

Don't think that there aren't a few things we know about you.

I have been having a deja vu experience all over again, but now I understand why: I recognize that I have been transgressing Jante Law, which is familiar to anybody who has lived for a half year in Sweden or Norway:

Jantelagen has ten rules:

1. Don't think you're anything special.
2. Don't think you're as good as us.
3. Don't think you're smarter than us.
4. Don't convince yourself that you're better than us.
5. Don't think you know more than us.
6. Don't think you are more important than us.
7. Don't think you are good at anything.
8. Don't laugh at us.
9. Don't think anyone cares about you.
10. Don't think you can teach us anything.

An eleventh rule is:

11. Don't think that there aren't a few things we know about you.

Those who transgress this unwritten 'law' are regarded with suspicion and some hostility, as it goes against communal desire in the town to preserve harmony, social stability and uniformity.

Jante Law has never been adopted officially in Nordic countries, although it is enforced daily with gusto. Why should Wikipedia be different?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Give It to Me Baby

The goal of Request for Comments on Users (RFC/U), like the goal of every auto da fé, is reformation not punishment.

From WikiSpeak by Malleus et alia:

RfC n.

(editor conduct) A place to bring anyone you have a longstanding grudge against. There, they'll be subject to countless attacks by uninvolved editors (also known as "outside views") and generally be tortured until they agree to submit to your every whim. This is, of course, unless they are a popular editor, in which case the RfC will be dismissed as bad faith and you blocked indefinitely for some purportedly unrelated reason.

(content dispute) A place where editors who know absolutely nothing about the subject chime in in an attempt to destroy an article further.

Discussion of "National socialist"

The propriety of "national socialist"

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, I fear you cannot tell the difference between irony and political statement - lihaas's statements that he supports National Socialism, Self Determination and the British Empire neatly positions him between the British National Party and the English Defence League - both of which I am regrettably familiar with in my neck of West Yorkshire. I'm sorry, I think you've been had. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC) We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell." Elen, I remind you that WP:NPA prohibits unsubstantiated allegations about an editor's politics. I can imagine that Lihaas displays far-right userboxes to provoke hypocritical hissy fits, which you and Demiurge have provided. Was it Lihaas's country where the King had to abdicate largely because of hanging out with Nazis? What is Lihaas's country where a PM worried about being overun with Blacks, although there was not a single Black MP, according to Michael Dummett? Was it Lihaas's country where the President 41 led his campaign rallies with a national socialist (but also Christian socialist) pledge of allegiance? Was it Lihaas's country that presented a sword to Pinochet for saving civilization? "Tell me, my main man, what is wrong with Michael Jackson? What is wrong with your country that a Black man cuts up his face and straightens his hair?" (Three Kings) Lihaas has been one of the prime writers of articles in contemporary politics, among them articles on the Arab Spring. Demiurge smeared him as a Nazi, as part of his smear campaign against me. You have no business participating in this smear campaign. Look at the company you are now keeping, Demiurge and Pedro, and wake up. You still have not apologized for signing off on that RfC with the bullshit opening of non-issues. If you can do all this, without an apology or consequences, then Wikipedia can go to Hell along with you.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC) We're already in it. L'enfer, c'est les autres ... /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Continuation Kiefer.Wolfowitz, what on earth is the above set of statements about? I am making no "unsubstantiated allegations about an editor's politics." I simply note that the user has chosen to place a number of userboxen on his userpage which make political statements that are consistent with the manifestos of the BNP and the EDL. If it were only the latter two statements, then this would be consistent with the manifesto of UKIP, but UKIP holds no truck with national socialism. You are the one who "imagines" that these are not simple statements of his political position, but instead represent some elaborate game. I don't know the chap, I can only go on what he chooses to say. If he's using some clever definition of National Socialism that separates it from Nazism, point me to the edits where he does it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Elen, Both Geometry guy and I have explained that Lihaas displays more than a hundred of wildly inconsistent user boxes, so you and Du have been violating WP:NPA by picking a couple extreme right-wing boxes, as you continue to do. As I have explained, I am unaware of any POV-pushing by him, and certainly none on behalf of national socialism, as we understand it today (not as in the Bellamy brothers Looking Backwards or the Pledge of Allegiance). In my limited experience, he has been attacked by those (at best) acquiescing to (and at worst ...) nationalist violence. A month or so ago he was blocked, after a cry in anguish at the seeming disregard of non-American victims of war on Wikipedia. It would be very strange for him to support parties advocating discrimination (or practicing physical battery) against Muslims, Middle-Easterners, Arabs, Indians, Pakistanis, etc. Again, I remind you of his writing about the Arab Spring, including articles describing attempts to overthrow nationalistic, militaristic dictatorships, such as the Baath dictatorship in Syria, which was started by French-schooled enthusiasts of European fascism. I am truly sorry that you continue to defend the national-socialist charge. Cannot you imagine your husband [aforementioned 16:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)]a friend shaking his head at your stubbornness, yet again? Finally, let me quote from the Gawain poet the line to which I previously referred: 'Maskelles,' quod that myry quene, 'Unblemyst I am, wythouten blot, And that may I wyth mensk menteene; Bot "makeles quene" thenne sade I not. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (forgot to sign, 16:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)) Can I recommend you not make personal remarks about my husband. It makes you sound creepy, and I'm sure you did not intend anything like that. As for Lihaas, I think the subtlety of his position is lost on you. The chap must be very interesting - given that most people in that neck of politics only use their heads to bash holes in walls. What's on his userpage isn't a random collection of userboxen, it's based on a consistent political viewpoint (although I had to think quite a bit about the British Empire one) which is right wing, libertarian, anarchist (not all anarchists are left wing), nationalist (but globally nationalist, hence anti globalization and interest in nationalist movements around the globe), anti positive discrimination (consistent with libertarianism), anti organisations that have control over multiple countries such as the EU and NATO (consistent with libertarianism and nationalism). None of these are personal attacks - before you say it - they are just based on his edits, his statements, and knowing as much as I do about politics. If you think the edit that got him blocked was "a cry in anguish at the seeming disregard of non-American victims of war" then you really have been had. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Elen, About the "husband". I quoted a middle-English poem as a compliment/olive-branch, intending makelesse as matchless, as it is ordinarily translated. Elen noted the other (sometimes primary) meaning, as unmarried or widowed, and introduced her husband. Then I tried to clarify that I was referring to the matchless meaning as in Pearl....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Another voice A plausible interpretation Ellen, and it would be interesting to be corrected by Lihass themselve, but just as likely the boxes are merely playfully mischievous. Or perhaps they reflect an attempt to transcend apparently contradictory positions. Whatever, their editing clearly shows they are not the sort of person to side with national socialism! Keifer, one thing I am sure about with our friend Lihass is that they're sharp enough to know their user box collection will cause some to make false assumptions, and if they were bothered about that they wouldn't have certain boxes. So I hope you don't make this a quitting issue. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Hi Feyd! There have to be some minimal standards of honesty. I am willing to grant the usual portion of hypocricy to other editors that I wish to claim for myself. I am willing to grant XXXL portions to those who reminisce about spankings in British public schools, where they had great practice in the gentile arts of subtle insults and postures of effortless superiority. However, some standards of honesty must prevail. I am tired of being lectured about civility and NPA and threatened with ANI by an ArbCom member who defends a sociopathic smearing of a valuable editor as a Nazi. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Im just old enough not to have missed out on that strangely agreable bodily experience . Never saw the point of subtle insults though. I put 'literal minded' in my edit summary as I was thinking maybe that accounts for the absurd assumption and its defence, rather than dishonesty? It will be very sad if we do loose you over this. That said I edit less myself than I used to and I dont miss the specatacle of regularly seeing some of the best editors being attacked. So whatever you decide Im sure it will be for the best. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC) I had the advantage of attending a girls school, where corporal punishment was considered beyond the pale. As for Lihaas, as you say, he put the things on his page himself - I'm sure he's able and willing to take care of any fallout from them and doesn't need quite such an avid defence. The only thing I would say is that I have never called him a Nazi. I would probably disagree with the political views espoused in most of the userboxen, but none of them necessarily make him a Nazi.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Elen, As an ArbCom member and administrator, you are an officer of Wikipedia. It is unseemly and unbecoming for you to fail to have distanced yourself from a suggestion that Lihaas is a national socialist, based on the standard "reasonable person" test; it is worse that you have been defending the smear. Is Wikipedia a place where non-writers smear leading writers as national socialists? Or anybody smears anybody as a national socialist? Unfortunately, your actions, so far, have answered that question affirmatively.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC) And you still have not addressed the issue about your WP:NPA violation of unsubstantiated allegations about politics, or the issue about your signing off "regretfully" for the RfC without even Worm's apologies for its passive-aggressive opening.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Kiefer.Wolfowitz, you have stopped making any sense at all. If a man puts a sign in his window saying he votes Conservative, I assume he votes Conservative. I don't agree with the politics of the conservative party, but it's not an attack to say that this man has a sign in his window supporting the Conservatives. Lihaas has a sign in his window supporting Antonin Scalia, and the Scalia/Thomas presidential run, Jobbik, National Union Attack, and the Popular Orthodox Rally. He says he is a libertarian and an anarchist - a recognised political position, see the article on Anarcho-capitalism which he also says he espouses. He says he is a nationalist who believes in Self-determination. This is perfectly consistent with his opposition to big government, and organisations such as NATO and the UN, and his support for such causes as Irish Republicanism, and the Turkish man who set fire to himself as a protest against continual police harassment. It also explains his comments on the ITN about the Tottenham riots [3]. Like I said - they are not a mishmash of random boxes, they look to me like a consistent, thought out fairly unique political position. If his actual one is the reverse of what the userboxen represents, he maybe needs to say that a bit louder. I am going to end this conversation now. You are not making sense any more - at least to me, and you are simply becoming abusive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Elen, You neglect to consider the wildly contradictory boxes he has. In particular, anybody supporting Scalia/Thomas cannot be a libertarian or anarchist. Those two dissented, finding no "cruel and unusual punishment" about a prisoner having his face smashed in, while in police custody. Thank you for explaining (with links!) that anarchism and libertarianism is a recognized political philosophy. Again, you have failed to deal with your problem behavior, such as spreading an allegation of national socialism. Further, you show a shortcoming of empathic imagination: Lihaas was concerned about the lack of attention to 10s and 100s of thousands and even of millions of victims of war (when they do not have a whiter shade of pale), and the attention given to a handful, 10s, and 100s of American or British victims; I disagree with his tactics, but I understand his concerns. (It is a pity that no editor is similarly complaining about the effects EU tariffs on Africa and Asia, which kill even more people.) Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC) And another voice Kiefer. Your relentless complaining about personal attacks and citing WP:NPA is in direct opposition to the very specific personal attaks both further up this page but specifically here where you directly called an editor a "contemptible shit". Hypocrisy is not a pleasing trait. Please feel free to remove this - but also please feel free to stop moaning about something you do - and have done recently - making personal attacks when you're just as guilty. People, houses, glass and stones.. Pedro :  Chat  17:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Pedro, Reasoned responses and criticism are welcome. The account mentioned made the allegation of national socialism, which you apparently think is consistent with WP policy. (For the record and in your response to your posting at the RfC, I remind readers that you are claiming that stating that User:SandyGeorgia is "courting the Wikipedia fraternity", etc., is not sexist.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Apologies, I'm really not sure what you mean by the above. Let's make it a little more simple for us all. You have repeatedly accused editors of Personal Attacks. You, I assume, find Personal Attacks unacceptable. But you, in the diff I link above, made a personal attack. You are acting like a hypocrite and the evidence is for all to see. The wise man would recognise their hypocrisy and at least apologise for it, in order that proper debate about other perceived issues can resume without the taint of dishonesty hanging overhead. Just my 2p. You noted once on your talk that "adding value" was a good thing. Well I believe I am adding value when I point out that you cannot, in all honesty, continue to complain about perceived attacks when you, with the language of the gutter, are also guilty. Pedro :  Chat  18:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Pedro, The "editor" smeared a valuable WP writer as a national socialist, and earned his rebuke. Now, please consider whether further discussion between us can be more fruitful.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC) You called someone a "contemptible shit" (which you seem to think is a rebuke - how laughable); your sanctimonious hypocrisy is revealing. As I said at your RFC/U this is clearly a hobby you're not cut out for. I'd suggest that instead of "retiring" in a hissy fit as you did before, your actually retire properly. It would be better for you and, frankly, likely better for Wikipedia. With that I shall now "go away" [4] I think your "go away" message was frankly more honest than the softened version you changed it to. Pedro :  Chat  19:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Kiefer.Wolfowitz, when you return from Planet Janet, then maybe discussion is possible. In the meantime, it is impossible to find any of your posts where you don't sound like your head has exploded. You seem to have come apart at the seams. Please take a break, leave this stupid bone you are worrying at behind, and come back to contributing content with a fresh enthusiasm. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Oh and by the way, in English, "courting" has two meanings. The older, but still very much in use meaning of "to court" or "to pay court to" originates with the practice of attending upon the court of the king or a nobleman, in the hopes of gaining some advantage thereto. The word then also came to mean paying attention to a girl you hoped to marry, but describing someone as "courting favour with the boss", "courting the Press" (as Princess Diana did) etc has no sexual component whatsoever. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Pedro and Elen, Calling anybody a national socialist (Nazi) is not a small matter. Calling Lihaas a national socialist was outrageous. A lack of indignation is a sign of a lack of knowledge or a character defect (among other causes). Any reasonable contemporary person understands that "courting the fraternity" sounds like a sexist jibe. Secretly exulting,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Yep, my little girl (she was three in August) "secretly exults" too. You're a troll Keifer and you're going to get blocked then banned if you carry on. That's not a threat; it won't be me that does it - it will be you causing it however. Trust me I've seen enough people on Wikipedia who think that their intelligence means their inability to interact socially will win through. It doesn't. Take a break (maybe a week) and come back to what you're good at if you wish. If you don't, you're going to wind up on the INDEF pile and that would be a shame. Pedro :  Chat  20:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Pedro, I leave your post because it does contain some nuggets of good will, despite the "troll", "inability to interact socially", etc.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Regretfully the "troll" and "inability to interact socially" are how you're coming over mate. A rational person would realise that a simple "Yep, I screwed up and apologise for calling someone a shit - that was a heated over-reaction" response would be easier on us all. You clearly are rational - but you're not being at the moment, and haven't been for some time. Honestly, no-one wants to see an editor who contributes like you do banned; but you need to start developing a thicker skin and not seeing stuff you want to see. Pedro :  Chat  20:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Pedro, Kiefer, everyone else, just stop replying here. Kiefer.Wolfowitz says he is now retired. That means we can leave him alone now, because he's leaving us alone. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC) "Planet Janet" Elen's insult "Planet Janet", about an emotionally troubled teenage girl, was new to me. Here's the lede of the Janet Dillon article. "Janet Dillon (née Marlowe, previously Green, and often referred to as Janet From Another Planet) is a fictional character on the daytime soap opera All My Children. Mostly known for terrorizing the residents of Pine Valley, including her sister Natalie Marlowe, while under psychotic delusions, Janet has had extended periods of sanity, which she and her psyche have been studied within scholarly contexts. " Apparently, Planet Janet also the name of a series of young adult novels about an EMO teenage girl. It will be interesting how Elen's bullshit plays at her next ArbComm election.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Calling on a higher power

"Depart, then, transgressor. Depart, seducer, full of lies and cunning, foe of virtue, persecutor of the innocent. Give place, abominable creature, give way, you monster, give way to Christ, in whom you found none of your works. For he has already stripped you of your powers and laid waste your kingdom, bound you prisoner and plundered your weapons. He has cast you forth into the outer darkness, where everlasting ruin awaits you and your abettors."

Sancte Michael Archangele,
defende nos in proelio;
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur:
tuque, Princeps militiae Caelestis,
satanam aliosque spiritus malignos,
qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo,
divina virtute in infernum detrude.
Amen. Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle;
be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray:
and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host,
by the power of God,
thrust into hell Satan and all the evil spirits
who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.

Six thousand years of beautiful tradition from Moses to Sandy Koufax---You're damn right I'm living in the past"

Wikipedia's treatment of Jewish exorcisms lacks suitable graphics.

Polite request

All good things must come to an end

Hi Kiefer. Can I please ask you to stop copying my comments out of context to other pages, with my signature and time stamp. A diff is a lot more appropriate. If you must copy and paste, please ensure it is very clear that it is a quote, perhaps using the {{talkquote}} template - I know you used blockquote, however talk quote is a lot clearer. WormTT · (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Of course you may ask. I answered Elen on this topic elsewhere.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC) I shall remember to use the talk-quote template (in the next month at least before senility may strike again), and I thank you for alerting me of an easy-to-use template.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Knock it off Look, I'm about ready to indef you (and only you, because you're the source of everyone else's discontent it seems now) so if you don't stop interacting with people you don't like (read: stop responding if they say something, even if it's plain wrong), then find something more useful to do in real life. Wikipedia is an utter waste of my time when I have to babysit a crowd of whining four- and five-year-olds. In the real world, I can get paid for doing that. So you can either choose to write articles and only that, or you can choose to keep on posting messages on others' talk pages. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Does "keep on posting messages on others' talk pages" mean "posting inappropriate messages on others' talk pages"?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC) No, any messages. Because just about every talk page edit you've made in the past week is either about your RfC or some other petty issue. Just write articles, please. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 13:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Hi Fetchomms, I appreciate your "please" and understand your concern and appreciate your advice. Nonetheless, since receiving your message, I have and shall continue to use talk-pages in compliance with WP policies, trusting that you will not block me for productive editing. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Very well, then, but no unproductive talk page comments are going to be tolerated. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC) I understand and do appreciate your advice. I have been writing about Guitar Craft to enjoy reading and writing about an intelligent & kind community, to refresh myself from the stress of the RfC, before returning to Tom Kahn and Shapley-Folkman lemma.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Carrying on Kiefer.Wolfowitz - TParis, Geometry guy and I are looking into closing this RfC, as well you know. I'm wondering why you felt it necessary to add a further 8k of text. It implies you're not looking for a close. WormTT · (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC) You and Elen and probably others have complained about legibility, so I tried to use the collapse boxes to allow the reader to see the overview before focusing on details. As you know, I have had trouble reading beyond the introduction of the RfC (with the issues not to be pursued, which I suggest you strike). However, I did look at the your discussion, and found further misrepresentations. I really don't have the stomach to look at more, but I could comment on some severe misrepresentations. Finally, I thought it worthwhile to put my suggested closing under my section---where it is easy to see. It is very hard for me to locate on the back.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Very well. I hope you can let it rest now while we work out a solution. Every post made there encourages more and adding that much more at this lare stage only prolongs the process. --WormTT · (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC) I suggest posting your draft and giving 24-48 hours for comments. I assume that you guys did a good job.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Discussions are still at the earliest of stages, due to real world time constraints, the intention is for full transparency though. If you are looking to spend that long discussing it though, I wonder what the point of doing it is - what you expecting to come out of our discussions?. --WormTT · (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC) First, I assume that you will do a good job. Second, your collaboration will give your draft more authority, so that discussion should be more civilized and focused. I would wish that your draft would be perfect, of course. I assume that I would only make suggestions of minor stylistic issues, or word-choice.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Finis: Status quo ante bellum

Quotation of closing summary

Kiefer Wolfowitz is a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia. All participates very strongly agree that KW's participation in the project is a net plus and would hate to see this RFC result in his absence from the project. In addition, Carrite has said their view was improperly conveyed by Worm That Turned and Demiurge1000. A few editors have also felt that this RFC is not productive or appropriate. However, at times his communication habits have tended to learn toward incivility in the least and personal attacks at worst. No matter a person's excellent contributions, all editors are treated with the same rules. KW's opinion of young editors, especially in RFAs, is not necessarily wrong but the way his opinion was communicated was inappropriate. Kiefer often has trouble accepting constructive criticism without perceiving it as a personal attack or becoming defensive. To move forward, KW has agreed voluntarily with two viewpoints in particular (Fetchcomms and Sławomir Biały) that he can be tactless and aggressive in discussions, although most editors can be at times, and that he should try to minimize the behavior and be a little more respectful to those around him (close paraphrasing of Sławomir Biały) and also that he should say things in a nicer and non-demeaning manner (close paraphrasing of Fetchcomms). He has also agreed on the talk page in his proposed closing statement that he cknowledges that WP:Oversight may be contacted in future cases involving minors voluntarying too specific personal information. There has been no consensus for actions, restrictions, bans, or any other community sanctions on Kiefer Wolfowitz. Truly, unbiased, and honestly, --v/r - TP 15:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I thank TParis for his fair closing summary.

Response to closing summary:Youth

Small caveats: TParis's fair closing summary neglected to mention my agreeing with criticism by LK also. (The close did mention my agreeing with criticism by Professor Bialy and by Fetchcomms.) I continue to register my disagreement with TParis's closing summary's allusions to my "attitude" toward "young editors". Truly, besides opposing all minors at RfA on principle, I have commented on lack of experience, need for sleep, or poor scholarship in some edits (or for some editors at some hours). Nonetheless, the primary target for such comments (and another comment that poor edits may be due to hunger) is myself; such paternalistic and condescending advice to myself appears (on talk pages and in edit summaries) frequently after I have been corrected or after I have corrected my own mistakes. Alas, advising myself to consult with more experienced editors, advising myself to come back another day after some rest, and advising myself to read more carefully---none of these incantations have rendered me younger! Such comments may be misunderstood as ageism directed at others, I understand. However, I do not remember any of the recipients of such criticism ever raising the issue of ageism---but this may be another sign of senility! Of course, given the ruckus here, I shall avoid such statements towards others. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It's over.

The largest waste of time I've witnessed on Wikipedia.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A black hole has hellish properties: Eternal darkness, etc.

Final message

Hi KW. I hope you don't mind me leaving you a parting message here. I considered leaving something at the RfC, but as far as I'm concerned closed means closed and I've no wish to go back there. I'm sorry I didn't reply to your guide to IRC request, the coordination was never going to happen there due to the fact that TParis and I operate on opposite timescales - however if you'd ever like some tips, let me know.

On the RfC itself, I'm glad it's over - I hope all the participants have learned something and will modify their behaviour based on what they've learned. I know that all participants have the ability to, I know I will. My hopes for the RfC weren't realised, which is a pity, but I think my goals were. In any case, I thought you'd like to know I'll be keeping a wide birth from now on, I doubt you'll see me except in my regular haunts. I've no interest in taking things further, as I can't see any positive outcomes if I do.

However, I'd like to officially extend this hand of friendship for the future, if you ever need help that I can give, please don't hesitate to contact me. Worm^TT · (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi David/WTT,

Thank you for your note, whose spirit of reconciliation I appreciate.

In the same spirit, I did try to write more generous and good-humored comments in the last days, at least at the end of the RfC's talk page.

I have been honest when I have said that I found it very difficult to read the RfC. I have tried to read the most egregious violations of civility or NPOV, presented in your selected diffs, and to deal with the issues you raised.

A. I commented yesterday about my "rudeness" toward a "new user"---an SPUSA/SP-Florida officer, with 2-3 accounts and at least 2 cases of WP:Outing his party opponents. I had forgotten the details of the edits for which my righteous indignation violated WP:Civility.

B. I have now written a note, with diffs, for talk page of the article on Penn Kemble. In the RfC, you quoted my removal of text, which you alleged was for political reasons. Reading this allegation, I was puzzled by the diff you quoted, because I spent years working against Kemble's Central-America politics and for human rights, and my edit seemed bizarre---at least until I took time to compare it with the source. In a (later) edit summary, I requested that an editor who lacked my horror at Contra terrorism examine the edits for POV, because that edit restored the (shameful) details of his supporting aid for terrorists. I really have trouble understanding how you could have failed to check that edit summary and to see that I had restored the legitimate content without the OR/BIAS problems., I would ask you to review that talk page

Penn Kemble

Quotation from Talk:Penn Kemble#Explanation of Central-America edits I wish to explain three edits (old A-B and new C). The initial edit (A) occured because the article had this sentence This article (before my edits): "Kemble alienated many activists in the Democratic Party by actively aiding the Reagan administration in its financial and moral support of the anti-communist "Contra" rebels in that country. (Holley) which was based on Holley's Washington Post obituary: Washington Post: "During the Reagan administration, he founded a group called PRODEMCA, or the Committee for Democracy in Central America. He caused consternation among many fellow Democrats by advocating support for the anti-communist contra rebels in Nicaragua. He sought a democratic middle way between communist Sandinistas and former supporters of rightist dictator Anastasio Somoza." (A) I removed the old text because the phrase "actively aiding the Reagan administration in its financial ... support" had problems: OR, because the source does not state that Kemble aided the Reagan administration in anything. It states only that during the Reagan administration, Kemble advocated support. (As usual, however, the OR problem is a real problem, rather than a formality, for which anybody can provide a reference, because of a content concern.) NPOV/BIAS: Kemble lobbied Congress, which has the power of the purse, under the U.S. Constitution. The ambiguous suggestion that Kemble helped the executive branch provide funding is at best an infelicitous paraphrase: The Iran–Contra Hearings featured subpoenaed testimony, given under oath, about illegal support and illegal solicitations of illegal support by members of the Reagan Administration and by its associates. (I think that Cameron's memoir discusses Kemble's shocked reaction on hearing about these unconstitutional crimes; I think Cameron wrote some kind of public belated apology to Kemble in his book.) (B) Having these concerns, I restored the legitimate content, which had been removed in edit A. (C) Today, I moved material on Central-American politics from a footnote to the main-text, and expanded the political context. Elsewhere, an editor recently raised a good-faith (public) concern that my initial edit (A) removed material because of my personal politics. Despite overlooking the middle edit (B) which restored the removed content, this public concern prompted my last edit (C). This sequence of edits exemplifies the complexity of editing political articles and our own limitations.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

and then to consider whether that charge from your RfC deserve amendment. (Being familiar with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and his obligation to refuse to follow an order to murder civilians, TParis should understand my concerns about the Contras's terrorist attacks on civilians (in which c. 60 thousand were killed), and being upset by the allegation that I was removing evidence of Kemble's involvement; he might allow a change to the closed RfC.) On a positive note, revisiting these edits prompted me to make further edits to Penn Kemble, so some good has resulted from this charge, despite my feelings of its propriety.

WTT and other readers, please reflect on the 6 1-2 hours I have spent responding to just one of the allegations today (Kemble), and the hours needed to respond yesterday to another (my indignation/incivility towards the SPA-Florida officer). These two allegations' diffs seemed to be the most severe violations of WP policy, so I spent time addressing legitimate concerns. I repeat my concern that the presentation of isolated diffs seemed sensationalistic; the number of diffs presented precluded any substantive response to more than a few.

Some thoughts for posterity

Before editors opt for filing a request for comment on another editor, they may reflect on points apparent in my RfC:

• Presenting my edit as a diff, and labeling it as a POV-pushing edit or a civility violation---these actions may have taken my critics roughly one minute each.
• Restoring my understanding of the context of each diff, even for the most dramatic diffs, has taken 5-10 minutes even for me, and I have been seriously engaged with these issues for decades.
• Explaining one diff, often takescan take (from 5 minutes) up to 3 hours, if the explanation is to be comprehensible to a general audience. (Updated, following WTT's correction 00:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC))

This gross disparity between the time needed to make an accusation and that to explain a questionable edit suggests a practical conclusion: In the future, RfC filers should limit their complaints to 3-4 of the most serious issues, and the diffs to 10-20 (of the most severe examples). In general, I would advise editors to first attempt to use Wikipedia's formal mediation procedures before considering an RfC.

I agree that time and space can reduce ill feelings, in the immediate future, more rapidly than further discussions.

Sincerely,

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not certain where you got your times from - approx 1min and 1hour, though there does appear to be a disparity and I expect your figures do illustrate it well. Perhaps, to save yourself time you could have focussed on the themes, rather than the nitty-gritty and challenged a smattering, including any that were particularly raised? Just a thought.

I would of course be willing to discuss anything from the RfC with you - I'm not keen on changing anything on the RfC itself, but we could always put a note in big letters at the top that links to further discussion and agreements we've come to? However, I do request a bit of a break from the drama, I've got 3 people running through adoption courses and I haven't written anything significant on the encyclopedia for months. Let me know when you've finished at Penn Kemble, and I'll wander over and review.

Otherwise, I hope your enjoy your continuum. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the time-dilation! I corrected the 6-hours error, leaving it struck-out, and time-stamping the most important updated sentence.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"hand of friendship"

WTT "hand of friendship" included another AGF violation. "I've not commented even once on the National Socialism issue so far - except to inform Lihaas that it was going on, but in my opinion it was simply KW making a stink over a side comment to deflect attention from a long post about... KW's canvassing." (emboldening & italics added)

With friends like these ....

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

From Macbeth

Quoting a villain reveals character, like Senator Alan K. Simpson quoting Iago on the importance of reputation in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing .... *LOL*

"2 WITCH. Fillet of a fenny snake,

In the caldron boil and bake;

Eye of newt, and toe of frog,

Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,

Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting,

Lizard's leg, and owlet's wing,—

For a charm of powerful trouble,

Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.

ALL. Double, double toil and trouble;

Fire burn, and caldron bubble."

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

ive been a bit pissed off at these WP "admins" willy-nilly doing what tickles them too, but id forgot to comment on your dispute. Do you still need support on some issue, because your edits were more valuable than the vast majority of nitwits whod rather complain to admins than do work.Lihaas (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lihaas!

I'm glad that you are well.

My RfC is over. I am irritated that a charge stands that I removed material on Penn Kemble's advocacy of congressional funding of the Contras (AGF/NPA violation) because of my personal politics, when I had restored the content in a later edit. I give a euphemistic discussion above.

However, there is extensive discussion of a very selective discussion of a few of your user-boxes, which shamed the editors slanderingsmearing (15:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) you and shamed Wikipedia, in the judgment of honorable men.

Sincerely,

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Kiefer.Wolfowitz_continues_to_make_allegations_of_slander Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, ArbCommer and Administrator!

You should have chosen another issue for the next battle in your campaign.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I quote previous discussions, for ease of reference:

The propriety of "national socialist"

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, I fear you cannot tell the difference between irony and political statement - lihaas's statements that he supports National Socialism, Self Determination and the British Empire neatly positions him between the British National Party and the English Defence League - both of which I am regrettably familiar with in my neck of West Yorkshire. I'm sorry, I think you've been had. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC) We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell." Elen, I remind you that WP:NPA prohibits unsubstantiated allegations about an editor's politics. I can imagine that Lihaas displays far-right userboxes to provoke hypocritical hissy fits, which you and Demiurge have provided. Was it Lihaas's country where the King had to abdicate largely because of hanging out with Nazis? What is Lihaas's country where a PM worried about being overun with Blacks, although there was not a single Black MP, according to Michael Dummett? Was it Lihaas's country where the President 41 led his campaign rallies with a national socialist (but also Christian socialist) pledge of allegiance? Was it Lihaas's country that presented a sword to Pinochet for saving civilization? "Tell me, my main man, what is wrong with Michael Jackson? What is wrong with your country that a Black man cuts up his face and straightens his hair?" (Three Kings) Lihaas has been one of the prime writers of articles in contemporary politics, among them articles on the Arab Spring. Demiurge smeared him as a Nazi, as part of his smear campaign against me. You have no business participating in this smear campaign. Look at the company you are now keeping, Demiurge and Pedro, and wake up. You still have not apologized for signing off on that RfC with the bullshit opening of non-issues. If you can do all this, without an apology or consequences, then Wikipedia can go to Hell along with you.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC) We're already in it. L'enfer, c'est les autres ... /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Continuation Kiefer.Wolfowitz, what on earth is the above set of statements about? I am making no "unsubstantiated allegations about an editor's politics." I simply note that the user has chosen to place a number of userboxen on his userpage which make political statements that are consistent with the manifestos of the BNP and the EDL. If it were only the latter two statements, then this would be consistent with the manifesto of UKIP, but UKIP holds no truck with national socialism. You are the one who "imagines" that these are not simple statements of his political position, but instead represent some elaborate game. I don't know the chap, I can only go on what he chooses to say. If he's using some clever definition of National Socialism that separates it from Nazism, point me to the edits where he does it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Elen, Both Geometry guy and I have explained that Lihaas displays more than a hundred of wildly inconsistent user boxes, so you and Du have been violating WP:NPA by picking a couple extreme right-wing boxes, as you continue to do. As I have explained, I am unaware of any POV-pushing by him, and certainly none on behalf of national socialism, as we understand it today (not as in the Bellamy brothers Looking Backwards or the Pledge of Allegiance). In my limited experience, he has been attacked by those (at best) acquiescing to (and at worst ...) nationalist violence. A month or so ago he was blocked, after a cry in anguish at the seeming disregard of non-American victims of war on Wikipedia. It would be very strange for him to support parties advocating discrimination (or practicing physical battery) against Muslims, Middle-Easterners, Arabs, Indians, Pakistanis, etc. Again, I remind you of his writing about the Arab Spring, including articles describing attempts to overthrow nationalistic, militaristic dictatorships, such as the Baath dictatorship in Syria, which was started by French-schooled enthusiasts of European fascism. I am truly sorry that you continue to defend the national-socialist charge. Cannot you imagine your husband [aforementioned 16:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)]a friend shaking his head at your stubbornness, yet again? Finally, let me quote from the Gawain poet the line to which I previously referred: 'Maskelles,' quod that myry quene, 'Unblemyst I am, wythouten blot, And that may I wyth mensk menteene; Bot "makeles quene" thenne sade I not. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (forgot to sign, 16:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)) Can I recommend you not make personal remarks about my husband. It makes you sound creepy, and I'm sure you did not intend anything like that. As for Lihaas, I think the subtlety of his position is lost on you. The chap must be very interesting - given that most people in that neck of politics only use their heads to bash holes in walls. What's on his userpage isn't a random collection of userboxen, it's based on a consistent political viewpoint (although I had to think quite a bit about the British Empire one) which is right wing, libertarian, anarchist (not all anarchists are left wing), nationalist (but globally nationalist, hence anti globalization and interest in nationalist movements around the globe), anti positive discrimination (consistent with libertarianism), anti organisations that have control over multiple countries such as the EU and NATO (consistent with libertarianism and nationalism). None of these are personal attacks - before you say it - they are just based on his edits, his statements, and knowing as much as I do about politics. If you think the edit that got him blocked was "a cry in anguish at the seeming disregard of non-American victims of war" then you really have been had. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Elen, About the "husband". I quoted a middle-English poem as a compliment/olive-branch, intending makelesse as matchless, as it is ordinarily translated. Elen noted the other (sometimes primary) meaning, as unmarried or widowed, and introduced her husband. Then I tried to clarify that I was referring to the matchless meaning as in Pearl....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Another voice A plausible interpretation Ellen, and it would be interesting to be corrected by Lihass themselve, but just as likely the boxes are merely playfully mischievous. Or perhaps they reflect an attempt to transcend apparently contradictory positions. Whatever, their editing clearly shows they are not the sort of person to side with national socialism! Keifer, one thing I am sure about with our friend Lihass is that they're sharp enough to know their user box collection will cause some to make false assumptions, and if they were bothered about that they wouldn't have certain boxes. So I hope you don't make this a quitting issue. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Hi Feyd! There have to be some minimal standards of honesty. I am willing to grant the usual portion of hypocricy to other editors that I wish to claim for myself. I am willing to grant XXXL portions to those who reminisce about spankings in British public schools, where they had great practice in the gentile arts of subtle insults and postures of effortless superiority. However, some standards of honesty must prevail. I am tired of being lectured about civility and NPA and threatened with ANI by an ArbCom member who defends a sociopathic smearing of a valuable editor as a Nazi. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Im just old enough not to have missed out on that strangely agreable bodily experience . Never saw the point of subtle insults though. I put 'literal minded' in my edit summary as I was thinking maybe that accounts for the absurd assumption and its defence, rather than dishonesty? It will be very sad if we do loose you over this. That said I edit less myself than I used to and I dont miss the specatacle of regularly seeing some of the best editors being attacked. So whatever you decide Im sure it will be for the best. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC) I had the advantage of attending a girls school, where corporal punishment was considered beyond the pale. As for Lihaas, as you say, he put the things on his page himself - I'm sure he's able and willing to take care of any fallout from them and doesn't need quite such an avid defence. The only thing I would say is that I have never called him a Nazi. I would probably disagree with the political views espoused in most of the userboxen, but none of them necessarily make him a Nazi.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Elen, As an ArbCom member and administrator, you are an officer of Wikipedia. It is unseemly and unbecoming for you to fail to have distanced yourself from a suggestion that Lihaas is a national socialist, based on the standard "reasonable person" test; it is worse that you have been defending the smear. Is Wikipedia a place where non-writers smear leading writers as national socialists? Or anybody smears anybody as a national socialist? Unfortunately, your actions, so far, have answered that question affirmatively.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC) And you still have not addressed the issue about your WP:NPA violation of unsubstantiated allegations about politics, or the issue about your signing off "regretfully" for the RfC without even Worm's apologies for its passive-aggressive opening.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Kiefer.Wolfowitz, you have stopped making any sense at all. If a man puts a sign in his window saying he votes Conservative, I assume he votes Conservative. I don't agree with the politics of the conservative party, but it's not an attack to say that this man has a sign in his window supporting the Conservatives. Lihaas has a sign in his window supporting Antonin Scalia, and the Scalia/Thomas presidential run, Jobbik, National Union Attack, and the Popular Orthodox Rally. He says he is a libertarian and an anarchist - a recognised political position, see the article on Anarcho-capitalism which he also says he espouses. He says he is a nationalist who believes in Self-determination. This is perfectly consistent with his opposition to big government, and organisations such as NATO and the UN, and his support for such causes as Irish Republicanism, and the Turkish man who set fire to himself as a protest against continual police harassment. It also explains his comments on the ITN about the Tottenham riots [5]. Like I said - they are not a mishmash of random boxes, they look to me like a consistent, thought out fairly unique political position. If his actual one is the reverse of what the userboxen represents, he maybe needs to say that a bit louder. I am going to end this conversation now. You are not making sense any more - at least to me, and you are simply becoming abusive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Elen, You neglect to consider the wildly contradictory boxes he has. In particular, anybody supporting Scalia/Thomas cannot be a libertarian or anarchist. Those two dissented, finding no "cruel and unusual punishment" about a prisoner having his face smashed in, while in police custody. Thank you for explaining (with links!) that anarchism and libertarianism is a recognized political philosophy. Again, you have failed to deal with your problem behavior, such as spreading an allegation of national socialism. Further, you show a shortcoming of empathic imagination: Lihaas was concerned about the lack of attention to 10s and 100s of thousands and even of millions of victims of war (when they do not have a whiter shade of pale), and the attention given to a handful, 10s, and 100s of American or British victims; I disagree with his tactics, but I understand his concerns. (It is a pity that no editor is similarly complaining about the effects EU tariffs on Africa and Asia, which kill even more people.) Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC) And another voice Kiefer. Your relentless complaining about personal attacks and citing WP:NPA is in direct opposition to the very specific personal attaks both further up this page but specifically here where you directly called an editor a "contemptible shit". Hypocrisy is not a pleasing trait. Please feel free to remove this - but also please feel free to stop moaning about something you do - and have done recently - making personal attacks when you're just as guilty. People, houses, glass and stones.. Pedro :  Chat  17:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Pedro, Reasoned responses and criticism are welcome. The account mentioned made the allegation of national socialism, which you apparently think is consistent with WP policy. (For the record and in your response to your posting at the RfC, I remind readers that you are claiming that stating that User:SandyGeorgia is "courting the Wikipedia fraternity", etc., is not sexist.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Apologies, I'm really not sure what you mean by the above. Let's make it a little more simple for us all. You have repeatedly accused editors of Personal Attacks. You, I assume, find Personal Attacks unacceptable. But you, in the diff I link above, made a personal attack. You are acting like a hypocrite and the evidence is for all to see. The wise man would recognise their hypocrisy and at least apologise for it, in order that proper debate about other perceived issues can resume without the taint of dishonesty hanging overhead. Just my 2p. You noted once on your talk that "adding value" was a good thing. Well I believe I am adding value when I point out that you cannot, in all honesty, continue to complain about perceived attacks when you, with the language of the gutter, are also guilty. Pedro :  Chat  18:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Pedro, The "editor" smeared a valuable WP writer as a national socialist, and earned his rebuke. Now, please consider whether further discussion between us can be more fruitful.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC) You called someone a "contemptible shit" (which you seem to think is a rebuke - how laughable); your sanctimonious hypocrisy is revealing. As I said at your RFC/U this is clearly a hobby you're not cut out for. I'd suggest that instead of "retiring" in a hissy fit as you did before, your actually retire properly. It would be better for you and, frankly, likely better for Wikipedia. With that I shall now "go away" [6] I think your "go away" message was frankly more honest than the softened version you changed it to. Pedro :  Chat  19:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Kiefer.Wolfowitz, when you return from Planet Janet, then maybe discussion is possible. In the meantime, it is impossible to find any of your posts where you don't sound like your head has exploded. You seem to have come apart at the seams. Please take a break, leave this stupid bone you are worrying at behind, and come back to contributing content with a fresh enthusiasm. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Oh and by the way, in English, "courting" has two meanings. The older, but still very much in use meaning of "to court" or "to pay court to" originates with the practice of attending upon the court of the king or a nobleman, in the hopes of gaining some advantage thereto. The word then also came to mean paying attention to a girl you hoped to marry, but describing someone as "courting favour with the boss", "courting the Press" (as Princess Diana did) etc has no sexual component whatsoever. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Pedro and Elen, Calling anybody a national socialist (Nazi) is not a small matter. Calling Lihaas a national socialist was outrageous. A lack of indignation is a sign of a lack of knowledge or a character defect (among other causes). Any reasonable contemporary person understands that "courting the fraternity" sounds like a sexist jibe. Secretly exulting,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Yep, my little girl (she was three in August) "secretly exults" too. You're a troll Keifer and you're going to get blocked then banned if you carry on. That's not a threat; it won't be me that does it - it will be you causing it however. Trust me I've seen enough people on Wikipedia who think that their intelligence means their inability to interact socially will win through. It doesn't. Take a break (maybe a week) and come back to what you're good at if you wish. If you don't, you're going to wind up on the INDEF pile and that would be a shame. Pedro :  Chat  20:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Pedro, I leave your post because it does contain some nuggets of good will, despite the "troll", "inability to interact socially", etc.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Regretfully the "troll" and "inability to interact socially" are how you're coming over mate. A rational person would realise that a simple "Yep, I screwed up and apologise for calling someone a shit - that was a heated over-reaction" response would be easier on us all. You clearly are rational - but you're not being at the moment, and haven't been for some time. Honestly, no-one wants to see an editor who contributes like you do banned; but you need to start developing a thicker skin and not seeing stuff you want to see. Pedro :  Chat  20:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Pedro, Kiefer, everyone else, just stop replying here. Kiefer.Wolfowitz says he is now retired. That means we can leave him alone now, because he's leaving us alone. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC) "Planet Janet" Elen's insult "Planet Janet", about an emotionally troubled teenage girl, was new to me. Here's the lede of the Janet Dillon article. "Janet Dillon (née Marlowe, previously Green, and often referred to as Janet From Another Planet) is a fictional character on the daytime soap opera All My Children. Mostly known for terrorizing the residents of Pine Valley, including her sister Natalie Marlowe, while under psychotic delusions, Janet has had extended periods of sanity, which she and her psyche have been studied within scholarly contexts. " Apparently, Planet Janet also the name of a series of young adult novels about an EMO teenage girl.

Discussion from WikiProject Logic's talk page:

Discussion of Logic

Principle of explosion and my RfC My Request for Comment now has a discussion of whether I am wrong to assert that at most one of two contradictory statements can be correct. My statement of this consequence of the principle of explosion is misquoted and judged to be incompatible with WP policy.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Sadly in real life it rarely turns out that two apparently contradictory statements are in fact contradictory. It is amazing the amount of spin people can put onto what appears to a neutral observer to be a clear cut fact. Be interested to see a further theoretical discussion, but I think if this focuses on the RfC, participants risk causing problems for KW (see [7]) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Giving just a little background, I understood the comment to not be about the theoretical issue, but about what should be the contents of Wikipedia articles or the outcome of discussions at Wikipedia . As Wikipedia articles do not seek to establish the truth but just to state fairly the status of the topic, in proportion to all non-splinter current opinions, it certainly does not apply to what we do here. In the context of the particular rfc, it was a side issue, but not totally unrelated to being the possible basis behind an overly argumentative approach. With regard to the general proposition in the abstract, it only applies to properly posed questions or propositions. Most discussions in real life are not of that nature. Whether any proposition can be truly such in the real world, as distinct from a subset of the real world abstracted for the purpose of discussion, is an interesting question & I do not think one to which there is any general agreement. I decided long ago in college I would not pursue such issues, because I prefer to discuss matters which need a practical conclusion of some sort in order for humans to take action. I see no reason to change my mind, but those who want to discuss it are certainly welcome to do so. I agree with Elen that it should be pursued without connection to the current rfc. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Dear logicians. I request assistance. RE the apologia of Elen and DGG: On the contrary, the RfC concerns i.a. my correction of many falsehoods in the Socialist Party of America article, where biased falsehoods had been introduced e.g. by using a 4-page "history" published by the contemporary Socialist Party USA. One falsehood asserted that event A preceded event B, while reliable sources assert that event B preceded event A. The event was the exiting of Michael Harrington (A) and the SDUSA-majority having control (B). These statements do not involve the uncertainty principle or the failure of bivalence in game-theoretic semantics or Topos theory. Their assertions about "the real world" would have greater authority if Elen and DGG had ever bothered to contribute to the articles in questions, before lecturing me about irrelevancies. In DGG's case, his investing all of 11 minutes in reading the 103-kilobyte RfC (and writing his self-congratulatory sermon) and his logical fluency are responsible for the quality of his contributions. Would that his decision "not to pursue such issues" had induced due humility and caution here or in his writings at RfC. Elen neglected to quote her being threatened with a block, I add "for context". For more context, please see the discussion of administrators' treatment of article writers, and concern for civility over content, on the talk pages of User talk:Malleus Fatuorum and of User talk:SandyGeorgia.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Kiefer.Wolfowitz, please stop repeating the personal attack on DGG. He has already stated that he had been reading the bloody RfC for several days before he decided to comment. The time between his previous post and his post at the RfC is therefore irrelevant, and your continued assertion is nothing but a smear.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Space for apology by Elen (reserved by  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)) Elen, On the contrary, you misread him. DGG has already stated that AFTER HIS INITIAL CONTRIBUTIONS he has read the RfC as it progresses. (He acknowledged that he had written much of his "outside view" before viewing the RfC, also. 21:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)) Honestly,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC) On the contrary, you have a serious problem with following a threaded conversation in the English language. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC) And that second diff that you added AFTER I had responded to you (and how many times now have you been asked not to refactor your posts after people have responded), just illustrates the problem even more. I don't believe you can even make an attempt at understanding what most people say to you in conversational English. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC) The second diff was made with a time stamp, showing the 3 minute gap between your response and mine. Please stop speculating about my intentions.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Where have I speculated about your intentions in my post relating to you refactoring your post? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC) " I don't believe you can even make an attempt at understanding what most people say to you in conversational English."  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Space for apology by Elen of the Roads (reserved by  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)) I will see you at ANI tomorrow. Your behaviour is absolutely deplorable, your attitude to other editors stinks, your ability to reflect is zero, and you are not, in my opinion, a net asset to this project no matter how erudite your content additions.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Elen, Your behavior to me stinks. You have left falsehoods here, which you still haven't had the decency to correct. Huff and puff all you want! Your sneers about my abilities and attitudes, and irrelevant statement about my content additions (one of dozens, which should be irrelevent outside of Jante) do not help this RfC or set a good example. I have tried to set an example of admitting faults as long as I have been a part of this project, as anybody can see. I do not deserve your sneers. More importantly, you do not deserve to be giving sneers---you are much better than this. I am sorry that I made you angry, but you should retract the errors, please.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC) yes, one section of what I wrote contained some phrasing I've used repeatedly, as it repeatedly applies. Abruptness to new users is a common problem. Each time I need to comment on it, I read the specific context to adapt what I have to say, not think it through from the beginning. And both of you are correct about the sequence: I made some initial comments, checked it from day to day, but then added additional comments after I saw something there I felt I strongly disagreed with--and after that checked more frequently. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC) DGG, That is a non-denial non-denial. Why don't you just admit that you cut and pasted your essay after reading the RfC for 6 minutes? Since you accused me, I demand an answer: Where was I ever rude to a new user? Answer here and at the RfC, if you have any concern for correcting your slothful falsehoods. I have asked you for days, and it is time for you to act like a man and take responsibility.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer, are you willing to learn about creating diffs? This practice of constantly copying in full people's comments from other pages bothers me. It not only clutters the discussion, it makes it very difficult to see the context of the discussions. Karanacs (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Karanacs,

In my reply to WTT/David, I used diffs.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A friendly suggestion

You have been kind to me and my son, and I have great respect for the labor you donate here. I hope that we will collaborate occasionally for a long time to come. My suggestion is that you consider disengaging from Elen of the Roads, and instead consider devoting some of that effort and mental energy toward improving an article or two. Thank you for thinking about it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What Cullen said. It seems to me that both you and Elen have the impression that the other is "out to get you". You may each have justifiable reasons for that belief, but it is driving your interactions in such a way that it becomes self-fulfilling. This disqualifies you both as objective judges or critics of the other's behaviour or competence. We all have flaws and we all make mistakes, especially under stress. Throwing stones isn't going to help either of you. Disengaging and walking away with your own sense of personal integrity will. Geometry guy 23:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Geometry guy,

You have repeatedly praised WTT, indeed calling his behavior in the RFC [something good], and even awarded him a barnstar of good faith.

Please view the above discussion, where WTT violated AGF and NPA in alleging a political motivation for my removing information about Penn Kemble, even though I had already restored that information!

The shameful charge still stands uncorrected.

I agree with your statement "We all have flaws and we all make mistakes".

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi both of you!

I had forgotten that I had mentioned the "national socialist" smear in the note on Lihaas's page, else I should not have referred to it explicitly above.

My impression, after looking through the entire list of Lihaas's user boxes for the first time, is that the editor is comparable to a political button collector, with a propensity to display a disparate group of provocative ones. Only difference is that they're free here and take very little effort to collect. I've never seen a Strom Thurmond '48 Dixiecrat button for sale, but if I found one, I might buy it for a buck or two for private display along my polished hammers and sickles, but I certainly wouldn't flaunt it to people who barely know me, let alone strangers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My interest in Elen has long been limited to minimizing damage in areas of Wikipedia of greatest interest to me. I briefly responded to her posting at ANI yesterday, no more and no less.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Dittos on Cullen's comment... Ixnay on the Olemicspay. Recall the saga of Cirt, in which his enemies couldn't touch him at RFC so they kneecapped him elsewhere. Fisticuffs are all good fun in their time and place, but the final bell has sounded and the bout is over. Stop chirping. Forward and onward. Carrite (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you witness the AGF violation by WTT?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Double standards: "Bitching and moaning" gets a block

For convenient reference, I quote the discussion from ANI.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not a smear. It is a self-proclaimed fact. His edits confirm it. BTW, I pointed out his user box on talk page long

Resolved  – User blocked for a week I'll try and keep this brief. The other day, I noted a nomination by Lihaas (talk · contribs) at WP:ITNC was posted on the wrong date [8]. So to get back at me, he undid one of my revisions on the page marking a seperate nomination as ready [9] (it was eventually posted by an admin). Later on, another editor moved the nomination to the right day [10] but Lihaas later red-added it [11] and decided to take a shot at me unnecessarily [12]. So I warned him not to do it and explained that he was wrong in assuming I moved it [13]. In response, he made this somewhat threatening response [14] and now he's comparing me to deposed dictators [15]. Hot Stop talk-contribs 21:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC) hot stop whos vengeance mongering started eons ago takes it upon himself to REFACTOR other comments without any authority whatsoever. Thats not his prerorgative. And the issue is the same of the Nigeria attakcs (something he did before before because he did not like yet he has whis cake and eat it too with the current ITN on JOe Frazier) Umm he did remove it! not MOVE IT! Anyways hes quite pov in assuming notoriety...Lihaas (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC) This isn't Lihaas' first time at ANI. Sigh. I've issued a final warning. m.o.p 21:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC) and youre authourity like his? Furthermore the subject title here is CLEARLY an NPA to make prejudgements where he has no authority at allLihaas (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC) I should clarify that I've changed the section title here; Lihass is objecting to a previous section title, not "Lihass". --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC) I wish you'd both dial it back a few notches. I realize this kind of spiraled out of control, and I hesitate to criticize only the person who went the furthest over the line, but Lihass, this is too far over the line. If this conflict is a single instance, can't you disengage and go back to your corners? And if this is a long-simmering dispute between the two of you, then I guess you should say so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Off the top of my head, I've also noted other instances when items he posted are "stale" (too old be posted), but it's never devolved to this point. Hot Stop talk-contribs 22:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC) If there's a relatively harmless pattern of posting stale items, then I'd ignore it. If there's a pattern of posting stale items that you think is disruptive (being careful not to let your current antagonism cloud your judgement), then that sounds like a job for WT:ITN. I meant, a history of you two arguing unproductively with each other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC) this is not something beyond AN incident...not a recalling of all thing that pissed people off. His "current antagonism DOES cloud [his] judgement." I dont cry to ANI or elsewhere when things dont go my way...thas whymy complaints dont appear here! Lets note he inclides a history f bitchinginstead of productive additionsLihaas (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC) but fine i agree to tone it down if its MUTUAL...his accusation above that i maliciously posted stale posts is also "over th line" and Not AGF...i cant keep sitting back and takiong nsanctioned NPAs just ebcause i dont complain!Lihaas (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Calling another editor's actions 'bitching' and 'crying' is past the final straw. I've blocked Lihaas for one week. m.o.p 00:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC) But Lihaas can get smeared as a "national socialist" for a week and you administrators just sit on your hands and do nothing .... What a political crib you crawl in if "bitching and moaning" is worse than Nazism.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC) The user has a userbox proclaiming himself to be a national socialist. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Lihaas has hundreds of contradictory user boxes, as you know, BB, yet you shamelessly repeat the ns smear and neglect his boxes identifying himself as a classical liberal, as a supporter of Pahlin, as an opponent of Pahlin, etc. Your user name Baseball Buggs contains "ass" but it would be unfair to say that you identify yourself as an ass.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC) OK, so you're saying he's not necessarily any of those things, he's just being funny. 10-4. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC) And in this ANI, you were told by around 10 users (admins and editors alike) that pointing out that a user has a userbox (self-created I might add) is not a smear. It's time to drop that stick. WormTT · (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Lihaas has been blocked for the straw "bitching and moaning", yet the smear "national socialist" went without chastisement of the administrator and familiar. This is a double standard. Who cares what 10 lightweights think when Geometry guy has explained the impropriety of smearing Lihaas?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC) I have warned Kiefer.Wolfowitz on his talk page that any further discussion by him of the whole "Lihaas was smeared" topic will get him blocked for disruption. This has gone on for far too long. Fram (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC) I certainly can discuss the smearing at appropriate venues, such as ArbComm Elections, RfAs, RfCs, etc. Please redact your "any" and replace with "inappropriate".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Oh yes, wikilawyering, that will improve things. Just drop it. Fram (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC) It is not a smear. It is a self-proclaimed fact. His edits confirm it. BTW, I pointed out his user box on talk page long before Elen ever did. Paul B (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Can I please ask everybody else to not respond to these comments either. Any response will only invite further comments, and if he then gets blocked, he may claim that it was one-sided, and that he isn't even allowed to respond to comments and so on. Fram (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Kiefer.Wolfowitz now blocked for 24 hours for continued discussion of the "national-socialist" issue after ample warning. Fram (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, drop the whole "Lihaas was smeared" thing[16], or you'll get blocked for disruption. This has been discussed to death, no action is going to be taken, no one is going to do anything about it. Rehashing this over and over again is disruptive. Fram (talk) 09:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Lihaas was just blocked for using the phrase "bitching and moaning". Blocking Lihaas was disruptive of writing an encyclopedia.

Your double standard is disruptive to writing an encyclopedia.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not stating that you can't oppose the block of Lihaas, but it is a completely separate issue of your anti-smear campaign, which has to stop. It doesn't matter whether you were right or wrong about that, but when discussion is over (and that discussion is clearly over and done), you should drop it instead of restarting it any tangentially related discussion. Fram (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Lihaas was just blocked. This is hardly "any tangentially related".

Please see my reply at ANI, where I object to to the overly broad scope of your gag order.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The comments about his userbox had nothing to do with the current block. Fram (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please acknowledge that many editors are concerned about double standards.

That Wikipedia blocks for "bitching and moaning" (etc.) and not for "national socialist" WP:NPA violations (etc.) is evidence of a double standard. (10:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC) striking through "national socialist")

That said, a discussion of double standards may be made constructively in another place than ANI.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hours. What was so hard to understand about "drop it"? Fram (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org.

Discussion of block

I don't understand your block.

I just acknowledged that a general discussion of double standards is better made elsewhere, and I did not respond to Paul's statement at ANI.

This seems to be punitive.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid rhetorical questions, particularly when acting as an administrator and especially when using the block button.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)No, you just continued comparing the Lihaas block with the national-socialist thing, and how that is a double standard. "That Wikipedia blocks for "bitching and moaning" (etc.) and not for "national socialist" (etc.) is evidence of a double standard." How is that compatible with multiple warnings to "drop it"? Fram (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The next sentence stated that it was unproductive to discuss "double standards" at ANI:

"That said, a discussion of double standards may be made constructively in another place than ANI."

Obviously, your block was punitive.

Admit it!

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

And what's your problem with rhetorical questions? Isn't "Who cares what 10 lightweights think when Geometry guy has explained the impropriety of smearing Lihaas?"[17] a rhetorical question as well? And a loaded one to boot, of course. Fram (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Did it hurt your feelings?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't edit my comment again.[18] You did not "restore diff improperly censored from incomplete quotation", you inserted a later version of your post. Please don't accuse people of "improper censoring" when nothing of the sort has happened. As for your reply: you asked for the avoidance of rhetorical questions, even though you used them in this duscussion. And why would my feelings be hurt when I have never offered an opinion on the whole thing, and when I couldn't give a rat's ass about your opinion of whether some people are lightweights or not? Fram (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You quote deliberately from the version without the diff, then---all of 7 minutes later. ^{(Sadly, I am no longer surprised by such behavior by administrators.)}

Why did you bring it up the "lightweight" rhetorical question? Why did you use "rat's ass"?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec, again)I went through your edits to that ANI discussion, thinking that I had seen a rhetorical question from you, and used the first diff of it, as it was an example of a rhetorical question. Whether you changed it afterwards was not (and still isn't) relevant for this discussion and the example at all. Why did I bring it up? Beacuse I didn't understand your reaction against my rhetorical question, something which you still haven't tried to explain, and I needed an example of you using one as well. When using it, I noticed that it was quite a loaded question as well (with or without the diff), so I noted that in my reply. I don't believe anything in my behaviour here was problematic, unlike e.g. your edit summary when changing my post. Fram (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for hurting your feelings.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

So you apologize for something you didn't do, and remain mute on the things you did do? You did not hurt my feelings by adressing a loaded rhetorical question towards other people, how could it? Fram (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Review of block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

This seems like a punitive block, given my acknowledgments: * I had just acknowledged that it was unproductive to discuss the "double standard" issue at ANI. * I had not responded to the latest mention of "national socialist" at ANI. * I had just written at ANI that discussion of the "national socialist" issue should be limited Wikipedia venues, e.g. RfCs, RfAs, ArbComm elections. This seems like a punitive block, given my acknowledgements that future discussions of "national socialist" were improper except perhaps at these venues (and only in rare circumstances, which I would imagine would only involve 2 editors).

Decline reason:

Right up to your last edits before being blocked you were persisting with your disruptive editing. Saying "I acknowledge that it might be a good idea to beat something other than this dead horse" while beating the dead horse is not putting the stick down and walking away from the dead horse. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I shall format the diffs outside the appeal box, because the diffs choke the compiler.

• I had just acknowledged that it was unproductive to discuss the "double standard" issue at ANI.
• I had not responded to the latest mention of "national socialist" at ANI. This latest mention again violated WP:NPA by making unsubstantiated political allegations against an editor, and Fran's response was only to ask that no further comments be made, to avoid giving me a reason to complain of a double standard! (Nobody has left any message at the gloating administrator/provocateur's talk-page.) (Fran's response voiced no concern about the WP:NPA violation by a gloating administrator, but worried that a continuation of such comments would make his forthcoming block appear to be one-sided.)
• I had just written at ANI that discussion of the "national socialist" issue should be limited Wikipedia venues, e.g. RfCs, RfAs, ArbComm elections.

Changing this section's header from "Lihaas" to "Double standards: "Bitching and moaning" gets a block"[19], and starting the following section on "free speech", doesn't give me confidence that unblocking would be wise, but I'll let another admin decline or accept the unblock request as they see fit. Fram (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Fram,

You violated talk page guidelines by putting Lihaas's name in the header. If you can propose a better NPOV header do so. Please acknowledge your mistaken misuse of Lihaas's name.

Fram, would you explain yourself.

My comment about "free speech" (below) comments on another editor's inappropriate request to Lihaas, which is the only way I can comment, given your punitive block (of 24 hours).

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment from an uninvolved admin: I must say I disagree with this block, but I would like to see Kiefer acknowledge he was in the wrong here before an early unblock request is accepted. — Joseph Fox 13:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I struck the "national socialist" word from above, which Fram cites as triggering the block (which he foresaw at ANI, when he cautioned others to stop commenting).

I commented above with diffs showing my public pledges to stop discussing "national socialist" at ANI.

What more do you want?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Replacing "national-socialist" with NPA is the kind of wikilawyering that could be predicted, sadly. I warned you mutliple times to drop the Lihaas "smear" issue: i did not warn you to stop referring to "national-socialism" specifically, but to drop the whole issue, not only at ANI, but at user talk pages, unrelated discussions, or nearly everywhere else imaginable. Yes, if there would be an Arbcom case about anyone directly involved, you would be allowed to discuss it (or it would at least fall outsie the scope of my warning here). If you would start an RfC about the issue (one of the venues you mentioned as appropriate), you may well get blocked for it though: if there were recurring, similar problems with an editor, and this was one of them, then using it as an example would be logical (no matter if you were right or wrong): but starting another discussion about this (e.g. starting an RfC about it, or a talk page discussion), or hijacking unrelated discussions (and discussions involving you or Lihaas or anyone else involved are in most cases unrelated to this issue) would be considered disruptive and would lead to further blocks. Fram (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You "told me multiple times", "sadly", etc. Who do you think you are?

I'm telling you to enforce WP:NPA now, and I've told you multiple times. Should you be blocked?

You all failed to enforce NPA, and acquiesced when WTT disguised your double standard with a "There's nothing to see here" cover up.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

(reply to an earlier version of this page after multiple edit conflicts, again)If by "there's nothing to see here" cover up, you mean the collapsing of the discussion: that was done by another user[20]. Apart from that: you started by introducing the Lihaas - userbox issue into the discussion, and continued after you were warned to stop (not only by me, admin User:Worm That Turned also told you to drop it). Other users didn't start this, and didn't continue after a warning. I'm not going to warn someone more severely for one remark uttered by the provocation of your continued disruption. By the way, if you consider it to be a personal attack, why did you add it as the header text of your ANI recap[21]? Fram (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The quotation shows your and ANI's double standard. You don't take WP:NPA seriously.

This is what you allowed to stand unchallenged at ANI: "It is not a smear. It is a self-proclaimed fact. His edits confirm it. BTW, I pointed out his user box on talk page long before Elen ever did. Paul B (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)" (end quote)

Lihaas was blocked for his sentence showing contempt for the atmosphere at ANI, a contempt which is shared by many writers.

WTT has been involved from day one, and just days ago was approving of Elen's description of me as an "idiot", quoting the villain of Macbeth---rather appropriate, that! :)

He hushed up the discussion at ANI with a misleading edit summary and a cover-up description of the events.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• This is clearly yet another poor block, but obviously you need to drop the national socialism thing Kiefer. I've rarely seen a request for unblocking granted anyway – Joseph Fox's observation above, that you have to express some remorse for something you don't agree you did – is typical of the convoluted logic that's so prevalent here. Best just to maintain your dignity and let the clock run down IMO. I've never requested an unblock and I never will. Malleus Fatuorum 15:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  Malleus, thanks for your advice. I shall be secret and take defeat.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  Think of it as more of a tactical withdrawal than a defeat. And remember that the only real purpose of blocks is to infantilise both the blocker and the blockee. Don't play into their hands by apologising for anything you don't agree that you did. Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• I shall e-mail you.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Disruption: A refresher of policy

I quote the disruption-section of the blocking policy:

A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to:

• vandalism;
• gross incivility;
• harassment;
• spamming;
• edit warring, especially breaches of the three-revert rule;
• breaching the policies or guidelines, especially the sock puppetry policy;
• attempts to coerce actions of editors through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite.

How was I disrupting anything? I agree that I was drawing attention to the double standard at ANI, but this was not in any way disruptive.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Refusal to "get the point", and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Signs of disruptive editing: "continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors". When something is (repeatedly) discussed, no action is taken, and when you restart the discussion, you get asked by different editors (uninvolved admins) to stop it (with a clear indication that you will get blocked otherwise), and you continue anyway, then you ar acting disruptively and can be blocked. See also WP:FORUMSHOP, part of the consensus policy. Fram (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

For reference, I quote the policy, so you can see from what Fram is cherry-picking:  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Signs of disruptive editing

This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.

A disruptive editor is an editor who:

• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.
• Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
• Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
• Does not engage in consensus building:
  • repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
  • repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
• Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

In addition, such editors may:

• Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles.

WP's description of "disruptive editing" does not apply to me, and so this block was improper, or at least its rationale was mis-stated.

I was not asking for sanctions against those violating NPA, so your description of "forum shopping" is grossly misleading. I was protesting against the blocking of Lihaas for his complaint about an editor's "bitching and moaning" at ANI; there is no policy warrant or "consensus" that expressions of contempt for "running to ANI" over minor or even moderate irritations should be blocked---otherwise, you would have to block half of the regular contributors at FA. Lihaas is a victim of a double standard.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of template

The hidden archive template was misused by WTT at ANI. Here are its instructions:

This template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors.

The reason for closing can be changed with the |reason= parameter which defaults to "This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it." Be sure to sign the closure statement. If the default statement is to be left, you may use the |closer= parameter to indicate which user closed the discussion.

The close was by

• an involved administrator, with
• a POV-loaded and misleading reason= ("User blocked for a week, tangential discussion closed - nothing left to see here."), and with
• a misleading edit summary ("This should be closed.") .

This was an abuse of tools by an administrator.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech

A good-faith editor suggested politely and with good humor that Lihaas remove the n.s. userbox. While I would welcome its removal, it is extremely improper to make such a request, per WP:NPA.

An editor's politics are irrelevant; if an editor is POV-pushing, then diffs should be provided on a talk page and if need be an RfC/U conducted. I have never witnessed any POV-pushing by Lihaas, so it is grossly improper to discuss his politics.

There is also an honorable tradition of liberals championing freedom of speech by publishing provocative things. For example, The Waltons's John-Boy published extracts from Mein Kampf ....

The principle of free speech is preserved by protecting the rights of minorities, even despised minorities, not by celebrating conformity and staging dramatic conniptions.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

C.f., The Pledge of Allegiance and Looking Backwards, for "national" socialism by the Bellamy brothers: "I pledge allegiance ... to the nation", was repeated by George H. W. Bush, who volunteered and fought against fascism.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)