Jump to content

User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

A statistical issue

Hi K.,

there is a statistical discussion at User talk:Geometry guy, where I am afraid I am spouting nonsense. When you have a few minutes, could you please have a look with a professional eye?

Best, Sasha (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sasha!
It was my pleasure pleasure! Predictably, I suggested that WMF authorize a randomized experiment with say 30 GA articles, of which half would be randomly promoted to FA and the others left at GA, for 1-2 months.
I of course can say that promotion will increase page views, certainly the first day, among regulars; it would be surprising whether it had any affect on the public. How much of a difference would make any difference in practice, to be worth discussing further?
It may be worthwhile to ask Google whether their algorithms ignore ratings....
Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi K.,
thanks! What you wrote is indeed a more important issue than what I was discussing with Geom. guy before. I think I understand the "randomised experiment" reasonably well (I do not know whether WMF would approve this, but this is a separate issue). The observational study is non-intrusive, but is probably much harder to do (properly). At least, it is now clear to me that an observational study (esp. one that is not very carefully performed) can not be used as a valid argument for/against changes in the FA process.
Sasha (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear Sasha,
The ASA and RSS guidelines for a first course in statistics emphasize the distinction between randomized experiments and observational studies. Empirically, randomized experiments are more reliable. For randomized experiments, inferences can use the objective probability distribution induced by the randomization design specified in the experimental protocol, rather than a subjective so-called "statistical model". (See first David A. Freedman's hardshell Statistics and secondly David S. Moore and George McCabe's softshell Into to the Practice of Statistics.)
Observational studies are essential for generating hypotheses, but then such hypotheses should be studied deductively: What are the consequences of the hypotheses? The consequences should be evaluated in thought experiments, etc. If the consequences seem likely and especially if other observational studies concur, then maybe it's time to do a properly randomized experiment, allowing statistical inference using objective probabilities.
Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
My thanks also to you both. I would like to add that I am not interested in using statistics to make an argument, and have strongly opposed TCO for doing so. In such a position, the protagonist chooses the experiments and the statistics in order to make their case.
I am interested instead in providing information. Of course there is always too much information, so we have to extract from it information that we believe is useful/informative. I accept the biases involved in deciding that, so I can only say what information I believe is useful/informative, and communicate what that is and why. Geometry guy 01:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear Geometry guy,
I am glad that you shall think about doing a properly randomized experiment.
Your statement about choosing experiments to prove an existing point seems cynical. If randomized experiments were so subjective and corrupt, how can you explain their success in improving agriculture, medicine, psychology, etc.? A Baconian experiment specifies the hypothesis and the outcome before the performance of the experiment. (There are discussions of experimental protocols in Hinkelmann & Kempthorne and in Rosemary A. Bailey, whose article has a picture with her wearing an association scheme dress!) The experimental protocol specifies exactly how the data should be analyzed, before the experiment is conducted.
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
You're tilting at shadows again KW, commenting on a position I do not hold and did not express. Remember this is text-based communication: understanding the text is hard enough, without looking for subtexts. I have actually already conducted randomized experiments, though perhaps not in a truly rigorous sense, as I lack the training. I'm on a journey here, rather than a mission. I may need to do some observational studies to understand what hypotheses interest me, but I will for sure not forget your advice about the merits of randomized experiments. Geometry guy 00:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Quantitative structure–activity relationship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Regression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


Dear DPLbot,
You have better people skills than many administrators. Have you considered becoming a leader of RfA Deform 2011? There is a leadership vacuum....
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

Thanks for your comments

You are no doubt aware of the famous article by Barry M Staw, explaining how disastrous events like the Vietnam War can happen through escalation of commitment. This is something that happens at all scales, from the trivial to the global. At the more trivial end of the spectrum, I find that C. Northcote Parkinson offers hilarious yet informative reading. Geometry guy 23:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Onoes! The first thing I noticed about that article was the huge lack of inline citations, etc.! I've patrolled so many damned new pages that it seems I now can't read any article how a "normal person" would! OCD rules OK (and I resisted the temptation to multiple-tag it ;P ) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


One of my favorite books is a Swedish conference proceedings, Surviving failures: Patterns and cases of project mismanagement (Bo Persson, ed.). It has great political essays by independent leftists:
  • Serge-Christophe Kolm's précis of his (French) "The Transition to Socialism", which emphasizes that every (actually existing) radically egalitarian government has failed, and been replaced either by "ballots or bullets",
  • Alec Nove on USSR economics and British universities (emphasizing classics) and British trade unions,
  • Alvin W. Gouldner on "nightmare Marxism",
  • a Finn on "Communist sado-masochism", about the eagerness to change one's beliefs (with the party line) and subject oneself to self- and mutual-criticism, etc.,
  • and a bunch of essays on the psychology and sociology of failures, discussing the Concorde, War gaming, etc.
The ideas you mentioned, of sunk costs, are emphasized by many writers.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The current approach to creating / maintaining / improving the civility policy is a good (bad?) example of lock-in; the way it's currently (mis)managed is never going to be effective. Nobody Ent and I are having a very friendly and civil discussion over the inclusion or otherwise of one sentence; he's pointed out that of course civilised discussion is never going to achieve anything, and what we really need here is a damned good free-for-all snarkfest with the screaming hordes throwing insults at each other and bringing it to AN/I before anything could ever get done ... hehe! If ArbCom ever need an example as to why we need a dedicated rebuilding/rewording team on it, this is the one! Community-build of something like this is as ineffective and tortuous (torturous, as well) as ... hmmm ... can't think of a good example outside of Wikipedia ;P the rest of the world has already discovered that this doesn't work! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The organizational culture must change from monomaniacal rules-orientation to a total-quality management style focus on improving our product by empowering stake-holders (especially writers, but also readers as has been done somewhat with some of the new tools)---more anachronistically, we could try to emulate craft cultures with guild structure, apprentice journeyman, master, grandmaster, etc., with an appropriate system of increasing (reciprocal) powers and duties.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Good batting, Thinkman. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
On second thoughts, if we're talking about "increasing duties", you can leave me out of it! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
"With great powers come great responsibilities"(Nordic syntax, btw).(Everything I needed to know in life I learned from Stan Lee.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I want neither the powers nor the responsibilities! I'd rather have influence than power, any day. But that's just me. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

Kvetching about administrators' double-standards

The 4 humors no doubt inspired the theories of quarternions and fundamental interactions.
Cosssacks writing their reply to the Sultan of Istanbul
Writing their "Civility enforcement" decision may provide less fun for Arbcom than did the drafting of the reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks:

As the Sultan; son of Muhammad; brother of the Sun and Moon; grandson and viceroy of God; ruler of the kingdoms of Macedonia, Babylon, Jerusalem, Upper and Lower Egypt; emperor of emperors; sovereign of sovereigns; extraordinary knight, never defeated; steadfast guardian of the tomb of Jesus Christ; trustee chosen by God himself; the hope and comfort of Muslims; confounder and great defender of Christians—I command you, the Zaporozhian Cossacks, to submit to me voluntarily and without any resistance, and to desist from troubling me with your attacks.

— Turkish Sultan Mehmed IV

"Thou art a Turkish imp, the damned devil's brother and friend, and a secretary to Lucifer himself. What the devil kind of knight art thou that cannot slay a hedgehog with your naked ass? The devil shits, and your army eats. Thou son of a bitch wilt not ever make subjects of Christian sons; we have no fear of your army, by land and by sea we will battle with thee, fuck thy mother.

Thou art the Babylonian scullion, Macedonian wheelwright, brewer of Jerusalem, goat-fucker of Alexandria, swineherd of Greater and Lesser Egypt, Armenian pig, Podolian villain, catamite of Tartary, hangman of Kamyanets, and fool of all the world and underworld, a fool before our God, a grandson of the Serpent, and the crick in our dick. Pig's snout, mare's arse, slaughterhouse cur, unchristened brow, screw thine own mother!

— Koshovyi Otaman Ivan Sirko, with the whole Zaporozhian Host
increasingly bores even KW

Whether cause or symptom, the ArbCom Civility enforcement case has been associated with an increase in the (yellow) bile around Wikipedia....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

From RfA Deform to RfA Reform...?

Kiefer dearest [hugz] – if you have some really good ideas on reducing the snark at RfA, and trying to make sure that those who are going to have a landslide and epic fail don't apply in the first place, consider joining us! You have an excellent mind, and input from what some people may see as "the other side of the fence" (provided that the input is constructively aimed at improving the whole RfA debacle, and not destructively aimed at bringing down peoiple who want to see it improved) would be incredibly useful. I particularly liked your idea at ArbCom that RfA could be made into a community-wide instant sanctions area for serious misbehaviour; no favourites, no scapegoats, same rules for everyone, and zero-tolerance for genuine incivility and personal attacks. (And an absolute veto on "oppose per cabal" votes!) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Pesky,
The main problem, as usual, is political. (I am glad that you have asked me, because you show your usual thoughtfulness and experience.)
RfA Reform/Deform is dead until it enlists the recognized leadership of a serious article writer, like the mighty Carrite, or Malleus, or SandyGeorgia, or Marek69, or Volunteer Marek, or Piotrus, or Geometry Guy. Having such a writer as a leader would make it hard for RfA Reform to be dismissed. Their proposals should at least get feedback and preferably support from recognized writers of content, to be worth the community's time.
RfA Deform has hurt itself in 2011 by its unsavory behavior at RfA towards Malleus, towards Keepscases, in my RfC, in the RfC against BadgerDrink, and in pushing for banning Malleus. I should have hoped that WTT and other RfA-Deform leaders would have stopped turning the current "Civility Enforcement" ArbCom case into another attempt to silence critical voices at RfA.
I think that RfA Deform must first engage in self-improvement and probably adopt a code of internal conduct and external conduct. (I am thinking of the groupthink at the RfA Deform talkpage followed by thuggish removal of Keepscases innocuous/unconventional question and mobbing of Keepscases on his talk page, which was probably worse than the most idiotic "external views" signed at BadgerDrink's RfC.) Its members should also stop writing or signing stupid things. (Similar efforts at cleaning house benefited U.S. conservatism, when William F. Buckley, Jr. and The National Review attacked the libertarian and racist/Agrarianist/anti-Semitic branches of conservatism, and so made conservatism welcome in polite society, according to the usually sharp John Judis.)
Right now, my assessment of RfA Deform is that it would be a waste of time to engage with them, unless they have leadership that strives to make Wikipedia and RfA Reform attractive to writers, even weirdos. Also, as I have been hinting recently, my time is more and more constrained, so I don't want to take on more non-writing roles. (Right now, I am tired of the non-mainspace part of WP, and am now acting to protect my friends against a self-destructive mob.)
Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Could you gradually make a shortlist of people you think should be included, who fit your criteria (sensible criteria, btw), who might be interested in nudging the current RfA Reform group into "more acceptable" lines from the view of the "anti-RfA Deform" people? There's been a lot of stats-gathering and background work, and some good ideas, which it would be a shame to waste. Having put together working groups in the past, I'm all too aware of the fact that for a group to be functional and effective it needs to include some seen-to-be-antagonists kind of people, who nonetheless share the same fundamental aims / goals. The ultimate aims of RfA Reform when it was first set up was to prevent people who'd be subject to mass pile-on opposes (for good reason) getting nominated, and to rein in the unnecessary snark (hmm .... is snark ever really necessary?) An injection of fresh blood with a somewhat different viewpoint but sharing the aim of cleaning up the unpleasant atmosphere (and addressing and eliminating the causes of that) could be extremely helpful. All groups become subject to a degree of groupthink after a while, and fresh blood can produce huge benefits in reducing any extremism. If you have time, maybe you could contact a few people who might possibly be interested? You're more likely to know who'd fit well for changing the effect and image of the group than I am, and as mother's dementia is now at the moderate/advanced threshold I have just as little time as you do, besides not being particularly acquainted with the "right kind of people". (Not to mention the fact that the right kind of people would be more likely to give serious consideration to an approach from you than to one from me ;P) heh!) No hurry, obviously, but worth a few minutes' thought from time to time. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Pesky,
An analysis of the political problems of RfA Deform should precede and largely inspire the selection of writers for leadership roles. I would suggest that SandyGeorgia by herself could calm the nerves of writers, if she argued on behalf of a change.
The deformers, even usually gentle Kudpung, seem to be freaking out about "incivility at RfA" when we have 90% approval rates for candidates who seem like nice people but who have never written much. Where in life does one have 90% success? Salespersons are happy with 30% or less success? One wonders about the experience of the deformers with dating? Perhaps the RfA deformers are all super-models, heirs and heiresses, or future Nobel/Fields medalists? I don't see a problem with 5 out of 50 people suggesting that the candidate wait 6 months and try to write more. On the contrary, I suppose that we should be glad to have a minimum expectation of maturity (emotional equilibrium) that our administrators are not so dependent on group approval that they are afraid of 5-10% of the voters raising objections.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anybody really wants admins who don't have the level-headedness and emotional maturity for the job, or admins who don't have a clue about content work of one kind or another. I see a lot of use for admins who specialise in dealing with problems in one particular area (e.g. templates) as they are more likely to make good use of admin tools in that area than another editor who knows next-to-nothing about templates. Nobody should need to be frightened off by a reasonable oppose which is factual and rational; it's the snarky, snidey, NPA-violation opposes, and the pile-on opposes after one editor has said something untrue (or wildly exaggerated), either deliberately or not, when the pilers-on have done no research of their own and take the initial oppose as gospel and unvarnished truth ... that kinda thing, we need rid of. Some candidates are absolutely excellent and should clearly have been admins long ago (I'm thinking of people like Fluffernutter, here), and some candidates are the opposite, and shouldn't (yet / ever) be nominated. I have no problem at all with a number of people opposing on the grounds of lack of experience, that's fine, but some people are extremely good at gnoming around behind the scenes doing valuable work despite the fact that they aren't from-scratch article-writers, or even really writers at all. Gnomes can make excellent admins provided they have the required level-headedness and emotional maturity, and don;t bring their admin tools to bear in areas where they don't have much personal strength. If we could just get some editors to realise that there is no mandate (or even reason) for RfA to be an anything-goes free-for-all snarkfest, much of the problem would just disappear. Having it as an AE strict-sanctions area, applying to the entire community, would be extremely good. I personally liked my own idea of people not being allowed to !vote for a period after a genuine civility violation, with the period of non-voting being extended for each violation; I also really liked the ideas which came up of people having to acquire some kind of voting rights before weighing in there, and the idea of page clerks was also a good one. It's a huge subject; if we could get away from the "them and us" atmosphere which has developed around trying to improve it, and get a really representative team working together on improvement, putting aside (at least on the team pages!) all old enmities and wounds for the greater good, that would work. We could "fix" it. And I never was a supermodel, or an heiress, and unlikely ever to be a Nobel/Fields nominee, but I do care about the fact that the RfA arena is, at present, a thoroughly nasty one to walk into at times, even just to read what's going on there. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

More thoughts

Hi KW - I noticed this thread whilst I was on my wikibreak and since I didn't have sufficient time/internet access, I made a note to comment. Before I begin, I'd like to apologise for the accusation of harassment, whilst I was feeling harassed by your comments I believe I over reacted due to the off-wiki stress of moving house. With that agreement above, I'm hoping we can move on. I'm hoping to get RfA Reform wrapped up 2012, there's been some very good research done, a few very resonable proposals which will be brought to the community to decide on them (even if I don't personally agree with them).
You mention above that the RfA Reform project is dead without an an article writer as a leader, though you and I disagree on what constitutes an article writer, I would love to see one of those names helping in the project - even as co-ordinator. However, since none of them has shown any interest in RfA Reform and they are all busy with other things, I'm not going to hold my breath. Please do feel free to nudge any of them though - I'm sure a comment from you would go down much better than one from me, since I haven't interacted with any particularly.
As for the unsavoury behaviour towards editors, I am actively trying to minimise this. For example, Keepscases, I did much research into his questions in the last quarter of last year, who removed them, how they were answered and so on. I don't believe I published it on wiki, though I could dig it up for you. From that, I came to the conclusion that Keepscases questions were not a major issue - and discussed that with a few of the editors who had issues with that user. I don't believe there has been any comments regarding Keepscases since, though I know there are still editors who are unhappy with the questions at RfA.
Regarding Malleus Fatuorum, I do endorse a topic ban from discussing administrators, as I believe that would remove the majority of problems and would be a much better solution than a blunt instrument like a block. Unfortunately, that does mean also topic banning him from RfA, which is a pity because his votes generally appear to be well worded (it's the comment's outside the votes, and the comments at WT:RfA which are problematic). In any case, that's a personal opinion, which I've explained with evidence at the the ArbCom case. If ArbCom choose to disagree, I'm not going to persue that further.
All in all, I'd love to see RfA Reform actually improve RfA - I'm not 100% it can, because of project wide failings, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to try. I'm hoping to do some work improving the de-sysop process too, I'd like to see a more clear system there too. Finally, would you mind laying off the "RfA Deform" comment? It belittles the project and only serves to make things more difficult, you are the only editor who uses that phrase - so I'd appreciate it if you could drop it. WormTT · (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am in a hurry.
Change the name from the question-begging RfA reform to something NPOV, like RfA Working Group.
C.f., Ralph Nader calling "tort reform" tort deform.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

GiantSnowman's RfA

Don't get me wrong, I'm every bit as anti-status quo as yourself. But with your current stance, you're very strongly implying that GS is a crap candidate, but that you daren't oppose him for fear that you might be banned. If you want to link this back to Malleus, then minus using the c-word it's the equivalent of saying "I think so and so is a useless cunt, but wouldn't dream of calling somebody that." While not a personal attack, it is close enough to one that sooner or later one admin or another will take it further, whether the letter of policy explicitly allows them to or whether they claim to be invoking the spirit.

For what it's worth, I suspect you already knew all that, and that it's your intention to poke holes in what is admittedly a subjective and inconsistently enforced area. I can't blame you; RfA and civility are both in a mess. It may very well be that there is no other way of drawing attention to the problems than in a demonstrative manner, and if that is the case then technically you can't break WP:POINT.

To be honest I don't really care how your actions work out for you, what concerns me more is that you might be playing into "RfA deform's" hands. —WFC— 18:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi WfC,
Thanks for writing.
Nobody is (even weakly) "implying that GS is a crap candidate". Would you explain your contrary assertion?
Editors have had little incentive to vote in a landslide like the current RfA, which now has 89 supports and no opposes or undecided. What difference does my vote make? The biggest difference is to improve my conformity to the majority, and so evade an attempt to ban me from RfAs, following previous muzzling attempts.
In the current ArbCom case, Malleus F has been urged to be banned in part because of his voting statistics. I am posing questions such as
  1. whether we wish to conduct RfAs under the cloud of such consequences?
  2. whether it is proper to argue for banning Malleus from RfAs because of discordant voting statistics, etc.?
I wish that such banning motions and such arguments should no longer appear on Wikipedia. (It would be proper to discuss allegations of violations of policy, of course, but I should have wished that such discussions were not focused on one target, for the sake of justice and productivity.)
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
P.S.
  1. Thanks for using "RfA deform", thereby providing a new counter-example to a recent assertion of WTT/David. ;D
  2. At RfA, you stated that you would reply here to "avoid further disruption". This is rather loose use of "disruption", which is a blocking offense, particularly when this candidate has 100% support. I have posed the question before of whether RfA candidates should have fragile egg-shell personalities or whether RfA should exhibit the tolerance that exists in democratic fora in free socities (e.g., "public comment" sections ending city-council or school-board meetings).
I wish that your description of the reasoning and behavior of some administrators were false: However, dumb mistakes can be corrected by administrators with sense. 20:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Administrative leaning on non-administrator

Warning

As the header on my talkpage should clearly indicate, I'm no member of the imagined "civility police"; regardless, this is completely beyond the pale. If you really don't know what Kudpung's name means, I'd be quite happy to enlighten you, but if I saw a new user make a comment like that I'd have immediately indeffed the account as a troll. Had I seen it closer to when it happened, I might have just blocked you then, but I don't think that would be fair this far after the fact. Don't do that again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I have believed that Kudpung's name referred to a Thai village, but have no interest in his name. I have no idea to what the other editor was referring when he/she wrote "Saint Kud of Pung". My comment asked for an explanation, and I suggested the most likely homonyms of Kud and Pung known to me.
To understand that my suggestion need not be pure evil, the reader is invited to read discussions of double entendres involving 1200s vikings and cunt on Malleus's page. Medievalists can make jokes in 20 languages.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Have you blocked Kudpung for his recent trolling?
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Now that's a really daft question KW, of course not. He's an administrator and you're today's (supposedly) soft target who isn't. Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I haven't, lest I have to block everyone else involved (not going to single anyone in particular out, I'm pretty sure you can discern who I mean). I'm not interested in being dragged before ArbCom right now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you referring to me, the target of Kudpung's recent trolling? Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Given that it's your talkpage, not you specifically. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What does "not me specifically" mean exactly? So Kudpung comes to my talk page and starts throwing around unsubstantiated accusations and your first thought is to block me? Nice! Malleus Fatuorum 19:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
If you had bothered to read what I said, I wouldn't block you. It's your talkpage, and I think users should get a lot more leeway on their own talkpages. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I haven't, lest I have to block everyone else involved (not going to single anyone in particular out, I'm pretty sure you can discern who I mean). I'm not interested in being dragged before ArbCom right now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
First, if you are discharging your duty, why do you care about being dragged before ArbCom? You have a very low opinion of ArbCom and your fellow administrators if you are worried about leaving a note on Kudpung's talk page that he should not behave like a child needing milk, cookies, and a nap, by leaving a nasty note on Malleus's talkpage and then saying he's taking a Wikibreak.
First is enough.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I have a fairly low opinion of ArbCom. I also don't want to see Kudpung leave, because he has done a lot of great work (i.e. he was one of the driving forces behind getting WP:ACTRIAL worked out before the WMF decided they knew more than us about what we do) and we need all the help we can get. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Be that as it may, ArbCom is an intellectual utopia in comparison to Wikipedia.
I suspect that you are tired. In the morning, you shall read your note, and your admission of bias in not reminding Kudpung to return to his habitual civility, with a more self-critical eye, I believe.
Best regards,
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course I'm biased; everyone in any given situation is, and I know where my sympathies lay. New Page Patrol is an extremely broken process, and I don't want to see one of the few people trying to pick up the pieces driven away by people who refuse to recognize the good he's done here. I can list plenty of things he's done outside of RfA reform that you'd have a hard time disagreeing with, and to be so vitriolic towards him isn't going to help anything. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
good. encourage him to do more good works. Encourage him not call for banning our best editors on BS charges, and then violate NPA and bait said editor before announcing a wikibreak. Aren't you shocked at his recent behavior? (I am. I had considerable respect for him previously.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I can say I was somewhat surprised. I've had a little off-wiki conversation with him, and he's trying to decompress. Hopefully he'll be back at full-strength; I don't know how much you know about the ACTRIAL and the IEP fiascos, but those have badly drained us; the WMF people have contributed greatly to this as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Kudpung's other hats were somewhat known to me. I remember him being articulate and standing up on behalf of the English Wikipedia against the WMF, with authority based on his knowledge and dedication, at least in the WP Newspaper coverage.
Well, I suppose his perspicacity and self-knowledge are far better than most of ours, and we should be thankful that he knew enough to take a Wikibreak only an hour later than he needed to. Most of us probably wait weeks too long.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[Pesky offers either soothing hugz or suffocation-by-cleavage] Though I haven't had any private communication with him, I'm sure Kudpung's a bit burnt-out. He's been doing a lot. ACTRIAL and IEP has been responsible for a lot of editor-stress (I can immediately think of one other very experienced editor who still goes up in smoke about ACTRIAL, and, from my view, quite justifiably). And I now feel creepingly guilty for not having been doing my share at NPP [Pesky cringes and tries to find sofa to hide behind] I will try to get back to it. Blade, you must be not far off burning out, too, I think. I think WikiStress has got to a lot of people recently. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm doing better than you might think; Burmese articles keep me going. When I need a quiet moment, I edit Zoya Phan, and that always gets me back on track. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I used to find helping editors at GA whose first language wasn't English to be quite therapeutic. By and large they were committed and knowledgeable about their subjects, just needed a bit of help with some of the commas; Santikhiri comes to mind. Same with the Singapore editors and their articles, but they seem to have drifted away ... Malleus Fatuorum 03:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Although the forms of politeness change, the extreme politeness of Asian and many Pacific civilizations is refreshing. It is also refreshing for me to detect delicate occasional sarcasm or irony among Chinese friends.
Nothing beats an evening of Gamelan!
Born-again or even church-going Christians are usually very nice, much nicer than one would expect watching Swedish public television's documentaries about the U.S.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Y'know, I still haven't been able to work out whether the Wikipedia Script was written as a surrealist modern tragedy, a cautionary tale, or a sitcom; nor whether my own part is that weird genius in the basement, the disposable security officer who gets killed within seconds of beaming down, Falstaff, or just yer bog-standard cameo appearance or comic relief ... Perhaps, when all's said and done, I'll turn out to have been Gaspode, after all ... Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Use diffs when commenting on edits

A general request

Hi Kiefer - this is just a general request when you are commenting on conflicts. It would help greatly if you (a) presented diffs and (b) adopted a more neutral tone. In the various comments that have been made recently you have raised a number of potentially valid and serious issues, but it is very hard for me to unscramble what is going on without diffs. Also by making statements that clearly indicate your position on a matter, you only give others the opportunity to escalate the rhetoric, which achieves nothing. The evidence always speaks for itself. Regards Manning (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Manning,
I don't provide diffs when they have already been provided. The first diff presented was the one in which L said that female editor SG should get a boyfriend or a dog or otherwise have contact with the real world.
No explanation can be given for such a sexist insult, but it was kind for ANI to give the opportunity, indeed many and probably too many opportunities, for L to retract and apologize for the statement(s). Diannaa's statements bordered on enabling behavior or surrealism.
I do not adopt a neutral tone when editors are subjected to e.g. racist, sexist, or anti-semitic insults. You may start an RfC requiring editors use a neutral tone when responding to WP:NPA violations with such group insults, which the present policy singles out as particularly objectionable, if you wish to have this be a policy or guideline.
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't even look at that kerfuffle; KW I agree in the broadest sense that it was "sexist", simply because it referred to the gender of the proposed partner, but (remember I haven't read the thread!) telling a man/boy he should get a girlfriend or a dog or a life would be just the same. From that one phrase alone, it's not what I'd see as demeaning-to-women. Now if someone had said "Go back to your knitting, it's all your good for," that would have annoyed me!
Manning does have a fair point (ish) about the way you word things; because I "know" you, as 'twere, I take the trouble to read underneath the Kieferism and see what your actual points are, and they're generally very sound. But I think maybe other editors take one look, think "Oh, that's KW going off on one again ...", and maybe don't take the trouble to understand your underlying points. Which is a shame, really. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
My time is short, so I would rather invest time in sweetening my notes to newcomers. Lis a Brazilian lawyer, hardly to be cowered by my remarks.
I would be more receptive to your concerns if they were stated after agreeing with me that L was out of line. Let me spell out my reasons for viewing his statement with contempt:
  1. Consider remarks to the effect that L should get a girlfriend (or boyfriend). In general, that is bad advice for straight women, most of whom answer that they are happier outside of relationships. (And there are more women then men, so the utilitarian argument fails to support heterosexual relationships.) I am happy that I am an outlier, as you can imagine from beholding my saintly behavior here.
  2. If in the 1980s Morrisey had listened to such advice, instead of listening to his inner muse "I know I am unloveable", then Manchester and world music would have been poorer. Narcissistic celibacy may be necessary for some celebrities.
I was once one of two men in a lecture hall (in the last row!) in which Mary Daly began by invoking the moon, etc. At one point, she told how her group of (all female) friends was having dinner, when a man came up and began to join them by asking, "Are you here alone?" In particular, some women don't want male partners, and shouldn't be given idiotic advice about their personal lives by puppies walking on their ears in their first steps along the path of condescension.
I'm in a hurry now, so I won't sweeten this. My back is sore and time is short.
Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Good points; well made. [Pesky offers long-distance back massage] Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Rlevse

Extended content

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.

Did you and Rlevse have prior notable interactions before he commented on your RfC using his PumpkinSky account? I'm asking because he did revisit old issues that could reasonably be described as grudges with both the BarkingMoon and the PumpkinSky account. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, noting that you are statistician, I'm sure that my approach to socking tests would likely fail STAT101, but if care to suggest how to improve that without requiring a Ph.D. from the practitioners, it would be interesting to hear. There was much similar talk in the famous Mantamoreland case; see this and that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"The main error in inductive reasoning"

The concern would be that your selection of peculiar phrases was made after noting similarities, and so might have over-represented chance coincidences. (For example, we may have some coincidental similarities, which, once identified, might suggest we are the same person.)

Reasonably, you could ask somebody unfamiliar with either account to read exactly one of the accounts' contributions, and make a list of peculiarities. Use that list to search the other account and then, as controls, other established editors who edit the same articles.

It may be better to use metrics that work in general, and just evaluate the scores of the accounts. However, I am unfamiliar with such methods. Frederick Mosteller and another fellow wrote a book by on the authorship of The Federalist Papers.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind as possible socks, perhaps...

Idle speculation which irritated some named

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.

Soon to be archived, if conversation is over

"probabilities that are strictly objective and at the same time very great, although they can never be absolutely conclusive, ought nevertheless to influence our preference for one hypothesis over another; but slight probabilities, even if objective, are not worth consideration; and merely subjective likelihoods should be disregarded altogether. For they are merely expressions of our preconceived notions"

— Charles Sanders Peirce, 7.227 in his Collected Papers

"But experience must be our chart in economical navigation; and experience shows that likelihoods are treacherous guides. Nothing has caused so much waste of time and means, in all sorts of researchers, as inquirers' becoming so wedded to certain likelihoods as to forget all the other factors of the economy of research; so that, unless it be very solidly grounded, likelihood is far better disregarded, or nearly so; and even when it seems solidly grounded, it should be proceeded upon with a cautious tread, with an eye to other considerations, and recollection of the disasters caused."

— Charles Sanders Peirce, Essential Peirce, volume 2, pages 108–109
File:Sexy Cora - Venus Berlin 2010.jpg
A DYK (of possible interest to a sock-puppet master) revolved around this unfortunate woman's apparent misunderstanding of the inductive scheme of the natural numbers (the fifth axiom in the "Peano" axiomatization).

Rlevse's interest in pornography suggests looking for socks in the DYK discussions about using the main page for a DYK about a woman failing to perform a record number of blow jobs or dying during breast-enlargement surgery. I disagreed somewhat moralistically with editors

  1. EdChem (perhaps the closest in interests to Rlevse, at least in recent ANI discussions),
  2. The Bushranger,
  3. Manxruler, and
  4. BabbaQ (archive of sockpuppetry investigations),

whom I mention in case any might be another (still unknown) sock of Rlevse.

In that discussion, editors NewYorkBrad, 28Bytes, and Kaldari introduced themselves as reasonable decent persons. (Of course, Volunteer Marek had shown his virtue many time before. 12:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC))

Clarification: It has been pleasant and informative to hear from each of NYB, 28B, K, and VM afterwards. I have not had the pleasure of hearing from EdChem, Bushranger, Manxruler, and BabbaQ afterwards, and I suppose each of them also to be reasonable and decent. 13:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Even suggesting the first three is laughable, unless you really believe Rlevse could have maintained full-time participation on all of these accounts for the last four to seven years. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Before you wrote this, I had glossed the English phrases "any" and "might be" to help you. You seem bent on misreading my statement, or to misunderstand "all" (c.f., "every"), or both.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Alleged Possible Rlevse sock(s)
"European tree squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) ... give a scolding alarm call in response to danger. It takes little imagination for you to think that the squirrel is saying nasty things about you."[1]
  1. ^ Thorington Jr. Richard W. and Ferrell, Katie (2006). Squirrels: The Animal Answer Guide. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-8403-9 (p. 142).
Anybody know how to work one of these? Give a holler!

Hi Kiefer... I have been notified of the section above in which you suggest I might be a sock of Rlevse. Just FYI, the suggestion is so utterly ridiculous that I'm not going to respond to it. I might even have decided to ignore it except that you also imply that I am not a decent person (unlike NYB, etc) and I find that objectionable and impolite. In that DYK discussion, which for the record was the first time I'd ever heard of that person, I agreed with the consensus that the original hook was inappropriate. I suggested a compromise hook that highlighted a less sensational fact - IIRC that she died during her sixth breast enlargement surgery and that the surgeons were charged. My motivation was to move the discussion forward. I also supported the nomination being declined if the editor who proposed it did not address the length issues, which I raised directly with that editor. I consider these actions were a reasonable contribution to a DYK discussion from an uninvolved editor, and not in any way indecent. I did not debate with users like NYB who felt the nomination should be declined outright, nor did I pursue it when the nomination was ultimately removed from T:TDYK, as I saw that as a reasonable outcome, even though I offered an alternative. I ask that you remove your suggestion about my decency and to reconsider more generally whether that section is appropriate for a collaborative environment like Wikipedia; failing that, can we have a calm discussion about this? For the record, I have deliberately not mentioned the contentious "CIV" policy / pillar because I would prefer we resolved this through reasoned discussion without arguing about a policy that has major problems. Please take this post as a polite request and not any sort of threat or demand. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 05:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
PS: I have notified editors The Bushranger, Manxruler, and BabbaQ of my post as they are the other three alleged possible socks. I have also notified Newyorkbrad as I mentioned him in passing. EdChem (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi EdChem,
What I wrote was ambiguous for the general reader, and I am sorry to have irritated you. My intentions should have been obvious for anybody who reads this page or regularly reads other talk pages to which I contribute.
I was asked to think about why Rlevse or one of his sock's would have a conflict with me, and I tried to answer the question.
Sexy Cora worked in pornography, one of Rlevse's interests. Rlevse and his socks concentrated on DYKS and biographies. Sexy Cora's proposed DYK was a source of conflict, in which you four might have been irritated by my "moralistic" tone---"moralistic" has negative connotations, of course, and my statement was retrospective self-criticism.
New York Brad and Kaldari are regularly criticized by Malleus F, with whom I am friendly and for whom I have due (i.e. tremendous) respect. I try to say a good word for both, once in a while, for the sake of peace and justice. The Sexy Cora DYK was the first contact I had had with either. (I think that it was my first contact with 28Bytes also 10:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC))
If I say that NYB is A, then there is no implication that you are not A, of course. ("NYB is male" does not imply that you are not male, for example. 10:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC))
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kiefer... As I said originally, the sock suggestion doesn't bother me because it is so easily refuted, and I do understand your reasoning. Anyone who disagreed with you in any way in that discussion *might* be Rlevse, though if the nominator was not Rlevse then a Rlevse-sock might have chosen to post in agreement with you to misdirect observers by appearing un-Rlevse-like.

Re: the DYK discussion and for the record, I didn't see us as being in any sort of conflict in the discussion. I offered an alternative that might have advanced the nomination, but I recognised the position that you and NYB took as reasonable. It was an issue where the 'right' outcome was not clear cut. I was not invested in the discussion and was certainly unbothered that it was your view that prevailed; indeed, given the nominator never addressed the length issue, the final outcome was the only one possible.

My only concern here is the implication about who is a "reasonable decent person" and who is not. In some circumstances a comment about A has no implication about B, as you suggest, but I contend that the way comments about A and B are juxtaposed in your post does create the impression to which I have referred. If I say that "I met A, B, and C today, and A and B are really nice people" then I have made no direct comment on C but a comment can certainly be read by implication. In a circumstance where you are talking about socks, a loaded term on-wiki that implies wrong-doing, I believe that a clear implication can be drawn from your post, no matter your intent. Surely you could rephrase your comments in such a way that it is clear that you are making no comment about the reasonableness and decency of the "potential socks"? EdChem (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi EdChem,
By your suggestion, I have added a paragraph clarifying my intention. I understand your concern, which I had not considered when I was writing for a rather small group of readers. Let me know whether further clarification be needed.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate you adding that clarification. I would not have minded if you'd added a caveat that if we are socks, then all bets are off - that's fair. I would probably not have used the word "aftwords", though; I think you meant "afterwards". :) Regards, EdChem (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
My blind spot! Thanks!
Hi Kiefer. So, let me see if I got this right. I disagree with you in a discussion, and that leads to you calling me a "possible sock" more than a year later? Wow, just wow. Manxruler (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I was asked about Rlevse, and the most likely candidates for another sock would among you four, and the names were given in case one jogged another editor's memory. (One of the reasons that I abhor the idolatry of maximum likelihood estimation, which is a useful heuristic.) Of course, discussing other socks of Rlevse entails discussing other editors, most of whom are innocent, by the nature of such investigations, I trusted my readers to understand.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I was one of "the most likely candidates" because of what? A single discussion where we disagreed? Furthermore, a notice from you when you started including me in the investigation would have been appreciated. Manxruler (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Rhetorical questions are hard to answer. You have been alerted by one of my friendly page stalkers, per usual.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Kiefer, FYI Manxruler was notified by me and I had not watchlisted your page until after I was directed to your post by Demiurge (sp?). And FWIW if I'm one of the most likely candidates then either it is near-certain there are no remaining socks, or your identification system and likelihood estimator are seriously flawed. EdChem (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
To sum up, Kiefer: 1. You base your view of me (and possibly the other users you've mentioned here) as a most likely sock candidate on a single encounter where you and I disagreed. 2. You don't alert people when you bring them up in such contexts, you expect other users to do that for you. Very well then. Manxruler (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
@EdChem,
You are correct that the maximum-likelihood estimator is seriously flawed, a conclusion that has been known for hundreds of years. Your conclusion is flawed, because you commit the base rate fallacy, common to non-probabilistic approaches to inductive inference. I am writing quickly, because this tar baby has removed enough layers of skin. I trust future encounters will be more enjoyable for you. :)
@Manxruler,
I did not name you most likely. My speculation occurred after my having been asked by an administrator who has my confidence. Of the names that came to mind, you and the others could be pardoned for being irritated with my "moralistic" approach. I asked my readers to consider whether any of you seemed plausible, based on knowledge of other interactions, no more no less.
You are over-generalizing from one interaction to formulate a general proposition about my alerting others; this is unwarranted.
You could better understand my failure to notify you better by considering ... the low (reasonable) probability that any one of you were sockpuppets of Rlevse and the consequent improbability that anybody would judge you any worse after my extemporaneous comment.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Ahem: "...the most likely candidates for another sock would among you four" I'd say that's pretty much the same thing as naming me as (one of the) most likely. As to over-generalizing with regards to your alerting people you are talking about in contexts such as this, you said yourself that page-stalkers alert people you are talking about ",per usual.".
If the probability of me and the others being socks is so low, why start mentioning the names in question? I'd still like to know why you felt I could be a sock, other than me not having your confidence? Finally, what exactly do I need to be pardoned for? I've done nothing wrong, unless it is considered generally wrong to disagree with you in a discussion (a discussion which took place more than a year ago). Manxruler (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Manxruler,
I begin with good faith, which suggests that all accounts have low probability of being sock puppets. When asked, of persons who could be irritated with me (and I suggested that you all could justly be irritated with moralism) and might be Rlevse, I thought of you 4, and suggested that another two might be worth more of a look than you and another. I did not suggest that you were most likely. (That distinction went to somebody with whom peace has been restored, I wish.)
About alerting you, you should read the ellipsis in my sentence above. What can be said on Wikipedia can be said honestly. Of what cannot be said honestly on Wikipedia, thereof one should remain silent. 'Nuff said.
I am sorry for upsetting you.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll accept your apology. Just for the record, I hadn't given the discussion in question any thought since it was concluded a year ago, not until it was brought back up here. And I would never create a sock, that's just not what I'm about. Manxruler (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry, and I am glad that this is the first time I've discussed sock puppets (apart from an obvious Detroit-area case in my youth). Sockpuppets do more damage to the trust and good will of the community, compounded by clumsiness by me no doubt, than they do to the articles.... Again, I'm sorry that I did not put a lot more caveats and warnings on my discussion first.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:09, 6 February 2012 (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.

Rlevse and another fat bastard

Rlevse was reasonable in discussing Daniel Lambert, as was another distinguished writer who had trouble understanding this American's difficulty with British discipline and punishment.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You're playing with fire here with an edit summary of "Rlevse and another fat bastard". What evidence do have that Rlevse is a fat bastard? ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking of Mike Myers's Fat Bastard!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved from below  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The things one discovers searching for Rlevse and KW

Old business

The journey can be more revealing than the end:

" Good honest God fearin' folks and their corner for evil toxic critters
all the other SD supporters roll in for a group hug, naturally. If you care for further colourful material on that particular complainer versus Bishonen, check out his talkpage — sorry, I mean the History of his talkpage — because only happy things get to stay on the front of the page. Here comes the relevant history—RexxS has taught me a wonderful trick for permanently linking to a particular part of a page history — how's that for useful? Great guy, isn't he?"

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:17, 4 February 2012 (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.

Could make a preacher cuss

Extended content
Lihaas politically outs himself as a libertarian, not surprising KW at all, following the end of a bad business....

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.

Lihaas at ANI

I think you posted in the wrong thread there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks! This stuff gets old....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI

thanks for your words. and sorry for blowing up like that ;) just been through this before and feared it, weve had our fair share...just got a lot of frustrations going on, hence been on/off wp pretty inconsistently ;)Lihaas (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That guy was behaving badly, for some time.
This community shows itself to be more intolerant, petty, and vindictive every day, I'm afraid.
But please consider a rephrase of "national" to "nationalist", which would at least cause some neurons to fire in good-willed persons. ;)
Just writing accurate articles should help reduce Eurocentrism, etc. User-boxes are less effective than campaign literature in changing preferences, and campaign literature is ineffective. Discussions are more effective.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
wasnt a silly suggestion, but i guess its sorted now :)Lihaas (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi again!
I think that this sorry episode is over, too, and the wise words that David/WTT habitually writes have confirmed that judgment.
Anybody who looks at your writings knows that more than other WP editors, you are concerned with the victims of violence. You get in trouble once in a while when anguishing over our failure to describe a non-European group's suffering, sometimes in a provocative and poorly expressed way, but not one that gloats over the suffering of e.g. U.S. soldiers. This is the opposite of the glorification of violence and the humiliation of the weak that originated in European fascism, and was taught in France to the future leaders of Baathism.
Now you should be able to return to writing carefully documented NPOV articles on the most difficult topics in contemporary political events, a contribution unmatched on Wikipedia.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Mostly election though. But we should collaborate on article at some pt. Got any in mind? At least then we won't fight over an article ;)Lihaas (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
What an odd statement? and more NPA. To be frank, I hadn't relied because I didn't want more fights so I didn't even read my talk page but I should have. it was quite fair.Lihaas (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lihaas,
Well, Drmies usually knows enough to squash some of his impulses, and I'm sure that now he wishes that he had tried to understand what you were trying to do before he wrote so much so quickly. I have worn his shoes many times, (and if the foo shits, wear it). I am glad that you have revised the user-box.
The Finns had an election, which was won by a fellow who used to have a beauty-queen girlfriend and who survived the Tsunami by climbing a telephone pole. Yet my Finnish is finished---mildly better the level of my Hungarian and Uralic competencies, negligible. But Google translate could be useful....
Exit, Voice, and Loyalty:
For me, my time on WP is limited. On the good side, my personal and professional life are both more satisfying.
On the bad side, the RfC(s), the general bitchiness and unprincipled self-righteous moralizing, and the evil ArbCom case against Malleus F (perhaps WP's most productive and certainly WP's most helpful editor)---these downers really have reduced my enthusiasm for the project ("this hateful organization").
In particular, political articles (on anything of general interest) are far more trouble than they are worth, it seems. On the other hand, I did some work in the last year on some lesser known figures in the US, who helped Poland's Solidarity. Take a look at the article on Tom Kahn or Social Democrats, USA, if you like; Kahn's life and contributions are interesting in their own right, and I would like to get Kahn towards A-class or FA status.
Lately, partly to relax, I have been playing acoustic guitar and slowly working on articles on music: Ovation Guitar Company, Guitar Craft, etc.
Mathematics remains a calm oasis on WP, but now I would rather write real-life mathematics articles in the early evening than relax by popularizing mathematics. I am also toying with the idea of working on the R programming language, and developing a package or two....
I should finish the FA revisions of Shapley–Folkman lemma also. It has been disgusting the level of (apparently but often coincidentally) orchestrated attacks against the FA project in the last year. Even worse than your mistreatment or Malleus's (although perhaps not after ArbCom announces its decision).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Benediction from retiring author

User has been instructed not to post here again

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.

Calling for me to clean up the page of the self-described fascist that was talking to me after I stated I wanted no further conversation?
User R-41 announces his retirement, continuing to discuss user boxes of Lihaas

I have decided to retire from Wikipedia because of administrators' mishandling of the report I put in, in which I took most of the blame for accusations that are false. And what is this?: "I wish that those who have written impulsively or wrongly consider apologizing to Lihaas (who has been called a "Nazi" on many pages now)---or help edit one of his articles as private penance.". First of all look up National Socialism and see what it redirects to, Nazism. Do you know why Lihaas objects to the term "Nazi" - because it was historically a quasi-derogatory reference to the NSDAP and its politics - and Lihaas says he is not a "Nazi" because he does not affiliate with the NSDAP of Germany. If there is any question as to whether I falsely claimed he was a fascist and Nazi (in the sense of the broader "National Socialism") - look at this userbox on his page: User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Fascist

The infoboxes repeatedly state "National Socialist" as "NS" on multiple infoboxes. He also has other infoboxes that support far-right ultranationalist political parties- that indicate even further that he is aligned with fascism and National Socialism (as in Nazism), such as:

This user supports Jobbik.
- Jobbik is a far right Hungarian ultranationalist movement with a paramilitary movement called Magyar Gárda (Hungarian Guard) - it is anti-Semitic - it accuses Israel of "buying up" Hungary and its paramilitary group attacks Romani (Gypsy) people.
This user supports Attack.
- Ataka - Greek short form for National Union Attack - far-right Bulgarian nationalist movement - acknowledged by all parliamentary parties as a xenophobic movement and a national threat to Bulgaria's ethnic minorities, it known for hate speech, the Ataka's leader's son sent an anti-Romani email to members of the European Parliament - sniding that Hungary is "full" of Romani.
This user supports LA.O.S.
L.A.O.S. short form for Popular Orthodox Rally - a far-right Greek nationalist movement - it opposes any immigration from outside the European Union

True, he has contradictory userboxes - it may mean he is politically confused or has mixed opinions. Bottom line, from the statements of his userboxes, he is not merely a nationalistic socialist, his userboxes make clear that he is a fascist National Socialist and that he supports multiple far-right ultranationalist political parties - two of which have promoted xenophobia towards ethnic minorities - Jobbik towards Jews and Romani, and Ataka towards Romani. When Lihaas started confronting me, I stated on Lihaas' userpage that I fundamentally opposed his views and do not want to associate with him or talk with him because of those views - that is my choice and my right not to be forced to accept unwanted postings on my talk page. I don't care whether he wants to keep them or not, I think he has the right of personal liberty to post his political views - but he should not expect everyone to respect his stated support of fascism, National Socialism, and far-right ultranationalist movements - as I said, I do not want to talk with a person who adheres to such views.

I am preparing my final retirement from Wikipedia so please respond here, but I want an apology for administrators' mishandling of this, I was honest and stating what he himself posted on his user page when I said he was a fascist and a Nazi, his userpage says that he "is a Fascist" and that he "is a National Socialist" and his support of Jobbik and other far-right ultranationalist parties - just put those together in your mind and take note where the term National Socialism redirects to on Wikipedia: Nazism - and I referred to Nazism in its general form of an ideology and its continuation in a general form as neo-Nazism. Lihaas may claim that he does not support German Nazism, but when I first noticed these tendencies on his talk page - I noticed the anti-Romani, anti-Semitic Jobbik movement first of all, then looked on and saw the other two infoboxes I mentioned. He is a self-described fascist and supports the exact kind of political movements that advocate the very elements of Nazism that I find morally reprehensible in my opinion - I do not want to talk with someone who supports far-right ultranationalist movements that promote xenophobia - that is my choice not to talk to the person and my right not to have the person talk to me after I have told them not to.--R-41 (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi R-41!
Thank you for writing.
I have discussed Lihaas and his user boxes many times, so I shall be brief.
  1. WP:NPA prohibits unsubstantiated allegations about e.g. the politics of an editor.
  2. Lihaas has long collected political user-boxes, and he displays contradictory user-boxes. Each pair of contradictory boxes, e.g. supporting and opposing Scalia-Thomas, implies everything (and hence nothing informative about his politics). Confusing, yes. Suitable for conversation, perhaps. Suitable for accusations, no (per 1).
  3. Regarding "national socialism", Lihaas has changed his old national-socialism user-box. However, per point (1), he had no need to, and we had no business hounding him about his politics, because his editing is known to be NPOV despite his writing about the most contentious issues on WP---contemporary politics.
  4. That said, Lihaas has previously voiced concern that nationalism and socialism have a long history, long before, outside of, and after national socialism (Nazism). Apparently, his user box was an attempt to remind us of the complexity of history. I have reminded you and others of the Bellamey brothers, Looking Backwards, and the Pledge of Allegiance---well known examples of American Christian nationalist socialism, which influenced the Presidential campaign of George H. W. Bush, whom I should like to wish you would not denounce as a Nazi, now that you are banned from commenting on Lihaas.
  5. To make his point better, Lihaas has changed his user-box, voluntarily but much to my liking and relief.
  6. I am tired and have been suffering from a cold, so please forgive my bluntness. Your recent behavior combines obsessiveness, aggressiveness towards Lihaas and anybody in your path, and moralistic exhibitionism that belongs would shame Fox News or The 700 Club.
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I did not "smear" Lihaas, please apologize for this false allegation
Rant beginning with falsehood, "You compare my behaviour as to a naive protestor going to a neo-Nazi demonstrating and shouting across "I don't agree with your views" "stop talking to me" where I should expect to get my face punched in for my behaviour - that is a gross exaggeration."

I agree Wikipedia is not a place to impose one's morality but it is also not the place to allow unwelcome posts. You compare my behaviour as to a naive protestor going to a neo-Nazi demonstrating and shouting across "I don't agree with your views" "stop talking to me" where I should expect to get my face punched in for my behaviour - that is a gross exaggeration. First of all where I encountered Lihaas was not at a neo-Nazi blog or an article on neo-Nazism, it was an article about Kosovo. Secondly, the more correct metaphorical situation is a person standing in the backyard of my property saying aggressive things to me, I ask him to get off of my lawn (in this case my talk page) - I don't want him there and thus he is trespassing. He refuses to leave - I call the authorities to remove him - i.e. you, the administrators. You did rightly ask him to leave but at the same time you say to me "you were mean to the trespasser whom you didn't want to speak to, hmm in order to be fair to both sides we say that you personally attacked the person when you asked them to stop talking with you stated he was a fascist." Lihaas chose to represent himself as a fascist and a National Socialist - and also quite prominently at the top of his userboxes - his userboxes designed by him that state he supports the far-right ultranationalist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Romani Jobbik movement. Have you even looked at what Jobbik is when I told you? - if you did that of course you would know that he is a real fascist - as he states he is, and possibly a neo-Nazi. He has the right to represent himself as this and the right to his beliefs, and I have the right to decline him from entering my talk page because I fundamentally disagree with his views as he promotes them. Am I supposed to assume that it is a joke that he says he supports Jobbik - a movement associated with fostering hatred towards Jews and Romani (Gypsies), that he specifically chose a userbox that states "I am a Fascist"? And you put more attention to me saying the following, that is not smear, but statement of facts on his userboxes, this is what I said, in order:

FIRST POST TO LIHAAS ASKING HIM TO LEAVE: "I am long gone from that discussion. Yes I was frustrated with it and I left, I don't know what you are angry at? That I stated as a matter of fact, from your user page available to public view, that you are a Nazi - a.k.a. National Socialist and addressed to users that you had a specific POV on the issue at hand as you state on your user page that you believe that Kosovo is naturally part of Serbia, and that you have taken strong POVs on other nationalist issues - I thought you would have taken that as a point of fact. Well sorry then. But now that that is done, I should say that I have little to nothing in common with you and I do not want to converse with you any further on the topic at that article about Kosovo or any other topic. I left that discussion, it is over, please stop posting on my talk page.--R-41 (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)" My first post, asking him to stop posting on his talk page - fairly polite given that I know a Holocaust survivor and strongly disagree with National Socialism.
SECOND POST, more frustrated but honest - I noted that he had a strong opinion against the Republic of Kosovo and in favour of Serbia's claim on Kosovo as stated in one of his userboxes - based from his discussion I thought he had an axe to grind on it, I also stated that I did not agree with his stated views and didn't want to talk to him further: "I have been inactive on that page on Kosovo for months. And I pointed out that you held extreme POV views on Kosovo and other nationalist disputes - you included them in your public profile. And that you consider yourself a fascist and a National Socialist - you posted it on your user page, and people should know that you are a neo-Nazi with an axe to grind on Kosovo - you staunchly support Serbia's claim to Kosovo and hold contentious positions on multiple ethnic nationalist conflict zones in the world. This is the last post I ever want to post on your page. I do not want to be party to a conversation with someone who is a fascist, National Socialist and thus an anti-Semite.--R-41 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)"
THIRD POST, very frustrated that the user did not stop posting on my page, I told him why I did not want to talk to him. "I told you that I do not want to speak with you on any topic. I do not want to have a conversation with you, a self-described fascist and National Socialist whom I have nothing in common with and have no desire to talk with you about anything. I happen to know Holocaust survivors and their relatives and I have sought to avoid conversation with you on that article and since because I could not carry on a conversation calmly with someone associated with fascism and National Socialism in light of the Holocaust and the horrific stories I have heard from an elderly Polish Jewish man I knew who survived Treblinka as a 12-13 year old boy who worked there as a slave labourer and saw his friend of the same age have is face and body smashed to a bloody pulp dead by Nazi guards because he was a few minutes late for a routine in the camp. I told you to cease commenting on my talk page. Now I am reporting you for harassment. Here is the report, address your case here: [1].--R-41 (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)"

Lastly, I showed you the userboxes. The retorts by Kiefer Wolfowitz that claimed that I was "smearing" Lihaas as a fascist and a National Socialist are completely baseless - the userboxes show that I had evidence to state such claims as matter of fact. I apologize for bothering or frustrating Lihaas because quite frankly I did not want to talk with him in the the first place. So now that this is clear and sorted out, I believe I deserve and apology for the false allegation by Kiefer Wolfowitz of "smearing" Lihaas - I was stating what he himself posted on his user page - you cannot deny that he says "I am a Fascist", along with statements of support for a form of National Socialism and his own designed userbox stating his support for the far-right ultranationalist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Romani Jobbik movement - all indicating that there is strong evidence that he is a neo-fascist or a neo-Nazi as I have stated. Secondly, the allegation of personal attack is not in my posts that I have showed you - perhaps the last post showed my strong personal frustration with further conversation, but look at the original post. Bottom line, regardless of what I said here, in my communications with him I behaved as courteously as I could given my strong frustration - I did not attack him for what he believed in the first two requests - I said that I strongly disagreed with it and did not want further conversation with a person associated with those beliefs that I oppose. The last post I admit was somewhat confrontational - but bear in mind that was in response to his failure to accept my request to stop posting on my talk page, and that I did not want to talk with this person - because the thought of talking to a self-declared fascist and National Socialist reminds me of the same people that the Holocaust Survivor elderly man I knew described to me. I would like an apology recognizing that I did not in fact "smear" him in any way, I observed what he himself stated on his user page and took it at its word (I don't assume someone puts in their userpage that they are a supporter of the anti-Semitic and anti-Romani Jobbik, fascism, and National Socialism as a joke).--R-41 (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything good coming from your posts. Please don't post here again.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:13, 8 February 2012 (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.
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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive_27&oldid=1167153066"