User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Please sign posts

...Not that I'm always so great at it myself. I put an {{YesAutosign}} on my user page so Sinebot takes care of it when I mess up. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I sign 99% of the time. My failures to sign are usually partial signatures (~  Kiefer.Wolfowitz ) or due to senility.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My user page has the suggested permission, now. Let's see whether it works.

Anonymously,

So far not. Maybe it needs time, or it doesn't sign if I've already signed in the section?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it works in your own userspace, but it works in general. Just signed for me somewhere past day or two. Gerardw (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's give signbot a little time. :) ~~ ~~

Civility, double standards, naughty words, and other classics

Absolutely nothing to do with "a self-confessed player of the pink oboe"...

Wasn't a rhetorical question

I believe you have confused me with Delicious carbuncle, as I don't believe I have at any time posted anything about sockpuppets. I am honestly confused - please clarify. Hipocrite (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have argued against similar abuse of that tool at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence/Archive_1#Note_re:_Collect.27s_statistical_non-evidence. Hipocrite (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) You are quite right. I am terribly sorry for my mistake, and not responding better before. I corrected the mistake on Jimbo Wales's talk page, and expressed my regrets there.

I appreciate your patience and kindness in not blasting me, which you have every right to do.

Such courtesy is far better for Wikipedia than for outsiders to jump into stale conversations threatening blocks, or outsiders (e.g. me) jumping into conflicts trying to stand up for an unpopular editor without thinking twice and writing carefully.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There is discussion on editor McBride's talk page for the stalker tool.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"Interesting" usernames

I spotted TPO first. I actually have no problems with the username, as any child googling it up will have heard far worse in their school playground. I'm not going to explain why I'm pleased that User:Dekkappai is no longer editing. (Nose, meet beans. Beans, meet nose.)--Shirt58 (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Google tells us that there is a "Big Boobs"Pedia, with an editor of the same name. Could "Dekkappai" be a Hellenization of "D Cup"? (c.f. The Beautiful South's 36D.) WP's Dekkappai seems to specialise in "adult" films from Asia.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It's Japanese: "dekai" is slang for "huge", and geminating the consonant adds emphasis. Dropping the "i" from a keiyōshi, oops, hang on, I forgot that I can't speak Japanese any more... --Shirt58 (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"TPO" hails from Glascow, by way of Billy Connelly.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recent contribution about Tourette's has overlapped an email sent by me to the blocking admin. We're pretty much on the same wavelength, although another aspect in the UK is the common use of Warfarin to treat TIAs. It often causes quite severe changes in personality, and the change can be worse when certain foods are consumed. I am not convinced that Warfarin covers this particularly well, but the GScholar stuff is out there and, boy, I know enough people whom it has affected to be pretty safe in saying this outside of article space. - Sitush (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sitush!

Thanks for your note. I was thinking of some elderly acquaintances, who after strokes were prone to temper flashes especially around issues involving status or their children. Strokes contains information about behaviors associated with frontal-lobe strokes, etc., so I can imagine that Tourette's-like behavior can occur. (I am unaware of whether Tourette's behavior involves typewritting ....)

I think that most of us are more understanding of a blind person's having trouble picking up visual cues than we would be otherwise, and similarly a stroke-victim probably deserves more slack than the rest of us.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate also your discussion of Warfarin, which I neglected to acknowledge before hand. Of course, a stroke victim would be likely to have medically supervised Warfarin, which could contribute to changed behavior. Your discussion was much better than my free association about frontal lobes (and use of the Tourette's for comparison, which became the lightning rod rather than a lamp).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

blind support

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi - as per this comment what is your position now? Considering the quacking, and the reality you vocally opposed and then you attacked editors that supported the reality, do you still support your prior comments? Do you realize your blind support is detrimental to the users you are supporting? Support - user is in my clique? Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Hi Rob! I shall try to address what you may have properly intended, and ignore improper or incoherent expressions. My position was stated as a general principal to apply to all cases. In such policy discussions, it is important to remember the innocent cases, be they few or many, and not unjustly remember only the guilty cases. I repeat that it is irresponsible and lazy to link the raw output from the stalker tool, which just lists overlaps among editors. To avoid the appearance of a smear or personal attack, there must be substantial discussion of any discordant edits for the principal editor and another editor; there should be also discussion of periods of editing, and behavioral similarities, etc. These standards were ignored by your direct accusatory edit and the previous (passive-aggressive) edit on JW's page. For fairness to you, I noted at the SPI page that you discussed a few such details at the SPI (rather than JW's page). In SPI discussions, it is important to remember the innocent cases, be they few or many, and not just remember the guilty cases, whether a sockpuppet (TPO) or an editor filing a slovenly request (you).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Please don't post here again. I can forgive you for behaving like a jerk, and overlook the WP:BLP violations. I can forgive you for accusing me of living in Birmingham England, despite my only connection being "Saw one today and in his hands was a weapon that was made in Birmingham!" (Billy Bragg) I can forgive your failing to notify me about these accusations. However, I will tolerate any more of your violations of the English language. You are banned from this page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

TS

I have never seen anything in any of the medical literature that suggests that TS would cause someone to swear online. The cause of that is more likely that they a) have some other issue or b) they are an asshole. Take your pick. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Compared to Rishabha, Buddha, Jesus, Sufi masters, Leo Strauss, and Steffi Dandridge, we are all meanies.

You should read the TS article's description of the experience of TS-afflicted persons, who experience a sense of tension that is released only when the swearing occurs, and reflect upon what you have read elsewhere: One editor's personal revelation of his experiences writing seemed uncannily similar to the description in our TS article. Just think about it, please.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please reread what I wrote and read it for the first time with due care.

I never stated that he had TS. I wrote that he had revealed that he had suffered a stroke, and I made a comparison with TS, to help readers' understand that similar behaviors can happen with strokes. A stroke (e.g. to the frontal lobe) can diminish impulse control, as stated in WP's article stroke.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Read the note about Wafarin above, please!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

My reaction to a swipe at MF at SG's page

Thought you'd like to chat privately

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is quite probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this website. If you think it's your place to "discipline" me then I strongly suggest logging off for a very, very long time. Juliancolton (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Julian, your previous sarcastic provocations were unworthy of you, as an adult(inserted: worthy contributor and as an 21:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)) administrator! Seriously,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC) My position as an administrator has nothing to do with it. I felt the reaction to my colleague's well-intentioned post was unfair and far too hostile. I barely edit these days, let alone use the admin bit, so I'd like my comments to be taken in the context of another user rather than as an administrator. And, FWIW, only half of that post was sarcastic: I'd no doubt vouch for Malleus at RfA. Juliancolton (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC) I believed you and now believe you even more that you would support MF. However, your statement was unhelpful. Expressing a protective concern for the editor you nominated at an RfA would have been appropriate.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC) The problem, though, is that Sandy and her talk page stalkers are highly unreceptive to anything genuine and positive. An attempt at sincerity would have seen me lumped with Ks0stm as his "IRC/skype/RfA/admincabal/hurricane buddy/friend/pal" and been even more destructive for both of us. Juliancolton (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Hi Julian! I wrote "over the top" earlier, and am glad that you did not take my school-marmish posture too seriously. It was ridiculous, of course, and written ironically. My personal obligations distracted me from replying earlier and clarifying that I had been writing in a (unsuccessfully) humorous but intentionally ironic voice.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Julian, that comment is seriously unwarranted and unbecoming of a mature contributor, admin or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC) I was happy about peace being recovered. :) However, I should have read more closely, and now I register an objection to one comment, which I think could be fairly rephrased---I leave the rephrasing as an exercise! ;) SandyG does not respond well to denial, which makes her one of my heroes. She also wants WP to be a good encyclopedia, so she has high standards. Whenever I go to her page, I try to show appropriate respect to her, because her work has earned her respect and this is only fair. Going to her page and wasting her time with impudence or ignorance is not recommended. I would wish that thoughtless writers would learn from their mistakes and not repeat the errors: Negative reinforcement is an important part of a our education! (Look at my involvement with a DYK-nomination with a few close paraphrases! I won't make that mistake again!) SG easily forgives people, even when they do not express contrition (at least not for a long time), and helps us all be better writers. I have spoken and saved my soul. ;) Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose youth at RfA! Face an RfC!

Badger Drink made the mistake of opposing a youth at RfA, and so was accused of creating an unhealthy environment at RfA---eek, unfairness---and thereby frightening worthy administrators back to the hugging cirlcle of Barney and Friends.

Of course, the guilty bully had to suffer, and a few years of editing offered a handful of edit summaries with an uncivil word (where Badger was removing junk from WP). Thus, another RfC led by the RfA-Deform mob!

Belated reply

Hiya, saw your note on my talk page a while back, haven't really gotten around to reading/replying until just now. Nice statement, you basically seem to have hit the nail on the head. I did see SW's comments just after I posted my response - a very amusing piece of performance art on his part, the segue from "he is obviously trolling with these comments" to "he doesn't assume good faith of others" was a breathtakingly subtle display of irony (at least subtle when compared to the heavy-handed irony more often displayed by amateur-hour internet comedians). Figured there was no point in going back just to mention the obvious - he knows he did a nice job on that piece, he certainly doesn't need me to tell him. Hope everything's well in whatever neck of the woods you currently find yourself in - thanks again for the breath of sane air. Badger Drink (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Users Supporting This Statement

1. As author Badger Drink (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There could be an RfC on the mobbing/bullying behavior of the RfA D/Reform gang, many of whom can apparently "be tried as adults". If they had experience with reality, they might have understood that an RfC is a place to wear a monkey suit, comb the hair, shave, and say "Yes sir. Please sir. Thank you sir" and and "no ma'am" etc. and make an effort at fairness, if only to win political points. Acting like a pack of attack dogs doesn't win points with outside editors. Their behavior just discredits everything they say.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Badger RfC/U

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

---

Just curious what you see as hypocritical in the view I expressed. —SW— ^verbalize 15:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi SW,

Your wondering what character flaws motivate his bad behavior is inconsistent with WP:NPA; your disavowing interest in such flaws would have been better expressed by deleting your possible explanations of behavior. You accused him of violating WP:NPA.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

So, you're saying that the view I expressed at Badger's RfC was actually a personal attack, a violation of WP:NPA? —SW— ^babble 17:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Engage in relevant discussion, rather than rephrasing my clear proposition as a assertive question, please.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please enlighten me as to which bullet point(s) within WP:NPA#WHATIS my comments fall under. —SW— ^express 18:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have neither the time nor the interest to continue this non discussion. Maybe you are having a bad day.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Not having a bad day. Just wondering how my comments could possibly be interpreted as a personal attack. If you don't care to explain yourself when called out on it, then I'll interpet that as a realization that you misspoke, and I accept your apology. —SW— ^prattle 19:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Playing pretend is a non-destructive use of an active imagination.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Couple of thoughts

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey Kiefer, having just noticed the info on your user page re Copyright cleanup, you might be interested in a real long-term nasty which I've dropped into Moonriddengirl's lap. I have a horrible, horrible feeling that the entire article will have to be re-done from scratch, though I haven't actually gone to hunt down every instance where my copyvio-nose screamed at me. Take a gander at the article; problem(s) date(s) from at least 2006. I'm not generally into the clean-up aspect myself; I'm more of a sniffer-dog than a crisis-manager, but if the whole thing does need to be re-done, I'm prepared to get involved in a re-write. My younger daughter (Noooo! Don't panic! She's an adult!) might be temptable with that, too - though she's only just joined t'wiki, she has an interest in copy-editing. And is really quite bright. (No COI, whatsoever, here ... lol!) On an almost-entirely-unrelated wossname, I'm absolutely sure that your comment here doesn't reflect where I'm personally actually coming from, though I do appreciate that you obviously weren't aware of that. I've been a Kindness campaign member since very shortly after my come-back to WikiLand at the start of this year - it's no new thing with me. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Hi Pesky! The copyright vio project is helpful, but its members seem prone to nice statements when a problem arises, rather than prone to calling a close paraphrase a close paraphrase---even when they then rewrite articles. You can see what happens in Badger Drink's RfC what happens when you try to remove junk from articles, and don't engage in euphemism. Talk about civility is cheap, and dramatic postures of indignation and instigating mobs remains an unfortunate temptation for many of us. It is much more impressive to watch Black Kite in action defusing conflict, even when he is the victim of an ignoramus's over-reaction to a face palm (mistaken for a talk to the hand). Real kindness and concern for others are beautiful to behold. A number of editors have died, sometimes by publicly reported suicides, after reporting despair. You can see the people who tried to say encouraging words when the person was declining, and many of those good people were ones who are often criticized for "civility" violations---e.g. SG or P. It is useful to recall that one of the worst periods of England, especially English literature, was the Glorious Restoration. The style of euphemism was prized by Cavaliers, and enforced with swords, private armed guards, incited mobs, and draconian laws. Here, the euphemistic style of WP:Civility emphasizes form rather than thought. It is frequently enforced with self-righteousness, when a discussion would be better. WP:Civility and the civility-police may be increasing the class-barriers to participation, particularly to those who have not been groomed to speak like catamites.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC) I'm mush more into sniffing out copyvios (they just seem to leap off the page and grab me by the jugular!) than actually re-wording them! Most of my CSD log seems to be copyvios, sadly. Oh for Coren Search Bot to rise from the ashes! As for the whole civility thing, I sometimes (often?) wish I could just wave a magic wand full of pixie-dust across the 'pedia. As for the Cavaliers .... well ... I used to be (many years decades ago), a member of a UK Civil War re-enactment society. There's something very therapuetic about steering one's mount at a hand-gallop towards "the enemy", screaming and yelling as you go ... on the other hand, I'm actually descended (probably via the wrong side of the blanket) from one of Cromwell's mob! For civility, I want the real thing here in the wiki. Genuine kindness, and more helping hands out to newbies, and just more general niceness. If people could only feel more kind, the rest would come automatically - and without any of the white-man-speak-with-forked-tongue bit. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC) I agree, and I too miss F Troop.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Decapitation barnstar

You know, you're not making matters any better with that humor.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah; that isn't really the best thing to do. I'd say the best thing to do is to drop it and move on Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 11:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No, not likely to make things better at all. - but I understand completely why you did it, and share much the same sympathies. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand your concerns.

Nonetheless, a wikihound and an "administrator" indefinitely blocking a productive editor because of incivility should receive negative reinforcement. Laughter is the best medicine.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not just negative reinforcement though, it's also the rope for when they come to lynch you. Probably for "economic terrorism", "incivility to a party apparatchik" or some other traditionally 20th century oligarchic complaint. I had an email from the WMF today that started with the (evidently serious) question, "Do I support the goal of attracting new, quality contributions to Wikipedia?" WTF? The cabal's witch-hunt is spreading already. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has the ability to lynch me.

Wikipedia is a hobby, whose utility has declined in the last year, as others pursuits have proved more valuable.

It is important that the writers exercise our duty to laugh at authoritarians who cannot tolerate being questioned, who would obviously be better suited to being cub-scout den mothers and pack leaders, than being associated with an encyclopedia.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A lengthy message which I hope you will find informative and perhaps somewhat entertaining

Mr Wolfowitz, I'd like to politely suggest that you modify the message which you left here. You have unfortunately fallen prey to the fallacy known as the fundamental attribution error, a fallacy which can poison discourse.

To be blunt, Mr Wolfowitz, neither you nor I have any direct knowledge as to the subjects about which Scott Mac does or does not care. To say that he "obviously" does not care about X (regardless of the nature of X) is -- effectively -- to assert that you do completely understand his motivations, his desires and wants, his likes and dislikes, his thoughts immediately prior to, and while committing, a given deed. And with respect, Mr Wolfowitz, you are not a telepath. Whether Scott Mac guzzled a celebratory melchizedek of champagne, or wept bitter tears as he burned the name "BADGER DRINK" into his arm as a permanent reminder of his failure to peacefully resolve the issue, or anywhere in between... you do not know.

Please note that my intention is not to downplay the overall meaning of your message; I simply wish to improve its factual accuracy, in such a way that will facilitate future discourse -- not only in this particular dispute, but in disputes in general (because, although I have no particular recollection of having interacted with you prior to today, Mr Wolfowitz, my reading of your contributions indicates that you have a certain combative tone to your personality -- that you are never one to shy away from a dispute to which you feel you can contribute helpfully).

"Obviously", you said, "Scott Mac does not care about (X)". Statements which begin with "obviously" or any of its near-synonyms are often flawed, in that what is obvious (or 'clear', or 'evident', etc) to one person may be less so to another, and not at all to a third. Remember the principle of NPOV; this, I feel, should be held to apply not only within Wikipedia articles, but within Wikipedia's meta-discourse. "Scott Mac has driven another productive writer off Wikipedia", you could say, which is factually true, insofar as a) the blame can be wholly laid upon his shoulders and b) BD could be considered a net asset to the project (neither of which are issues about which I would be willing to argue, even if I were familiar with the background events, which I am not; however, other individuals might dispute either or both of those points).

I did increase BD's block from 24 hours to indefinite, as well as removing his access to his talk page, and to the EMAILUSER functionality (although that last may have been misapplied on my part -- I'm not certain whether he had ever activated it in the first place), and I regret having done so. However, this should not be perceived as a statement that I intend to revert my actions in this case. I regret it thoroughly whenever circumstances lead me to the conclusion that it is necessary to block a contributor, but I will do what I have concluded is necessary. [interspersed with my composition of this message, I am also writing one on the talk page of user:Hipocrite, who had asked me why I had blocked BD's access to EMAILUSER; you may wish to read that message as well, as it pertains tangentially to the BD issue. Note that I have multiple edit windows open, and that I have clicked the 'save' tabs one after the other, thus providing the illusion that I've constructed two lengthy messages within less than a minute.]

I do care about retaining Wikipedia's contributor base, Mr Wolfowitz (although you have only my word for that). But one point which many individuals do not factor into consideration is that Wikipedia is not just a collaborative encyclopedia, it is a collaborative encyclopedia. This may seem like a truism, but it is not; without the collaboration, the multiple otherwise-disconnected individuals working together towards a common goal, there is no encyclopedia.

One day, Mr Wolfowitz, I will die. One day, Scott Mac will die. One day, you will die. One day, Badger Drink will die. One day, the last person who had any awareness of this dispute will die, and the last person to have any awareness of that person will one day die too. The disputes are nothing. They are grit and clashing in the gears, horrible grinding noises and flashing sparks that draw attention but inexorably wear away at the teeth, until such time as the wheels to which those teeth belong are too damaged to continue participating in la grande engrenage. Sometimes an engineer must remove an individual gear from its place because it is causing too much conflict with other gears -- perhaps it is turning in the wrong direction, or perhaps it has insufficient lubrication to allow proper meshing, or perhaps it has already broken and is spitting off splinters of metal in all directions and damaging other gears... the allegory is deeply flawed, as are all allegories, but I presume my overall point is understandable.

I seem to have diverged from the main thesis of this message, as is often the case when I speak or write at length, but I do hope that you have found it to be informative and useful -- and that you are willing to, at the very least, amend your initial message regarding Scott Mac.

And hey - isn't it fun to do research into obscure subjects so you can write articles about them? DS (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This is very long and I shall have to reply tomorrow.

I appreciate the obvious care you took in writing, and I shall try to give you an appropriately thoughtful response.

Thanks again for writing.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I honestly couldn't give a shit what you do. is quite specific as to whether Scott Mac does or does not care. It's also quite strange as a comment from someone blocking another editor for aggression, abuse and profanity.

Admins aren't required to be perfect. Nor are they required to act instantly, at least not as specific individuals, or at a particular moment. An admin who can't resist this immediate temptation without descending into the same behaviour as the one they're blocking isn't usually acting on the most considered or helpful manner. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Scott's perspicacity left something to be desired, it's safe to say. I'm more concerned about his blocking without having looked at the recent contributions and seen that he was disrupting a productive ANI discussion---which I would have thought to have been a contradiction in terms before today.

Now the question is whether WP administrators will grovel sufficiently properly for Badger to return.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi DS,

You should immediately end the block on Badger Drink. The first block was disruptive to the ANI discussion. Your block and blocking e-mail was worse. Please reduce the damage you caused.

Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't pay much attention to the block log do you... "(Block log); 00:57 . . DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs)‎ changed block settings for Badger Drink (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, autoblock disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (as per user:Hipocrite, my selection of 'block e-mail' was misapplied.)" and then later "(Block log); 00:59 . . Wgfinley (talk | contribs)‎ changed block settings for Badger Drink (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) (User requested indefinite self block, honoring request, see no need to block talk access. Please don't change further without contacting me.)" Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me

You still have indefinitely blocked Badger, so that he must ask to be unblocked.

This is objectionable, on several levels.

WP Policy frowns on self-requested blocks, and only a minority of administrators offer to block on request (typically under stringent conditions): An angry editor daring you to block him would not be accepted as a good reason for voluntary self-blocking by any administrator I know.

Regardless of the original merits of the indefinite block, your unblocking Badger (perhaps for time served) should reduce tension and improve good will, and so is a rare opportunity for you.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)