{{{1}}} Labor donated

Collection of dead fingernails

no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 37 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

8 June 2024
News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation publishes its Form 990 for fiscal year 2022-2023 Technology report: New Page Patrol receives a much-needed software upgrade Deletion report: The lore of Kalloor In the media: National cable networks get in on the action arguing about what the first sentence of a Wikipedia article ought to say News from the WMF: Progress on the plan — how the Wikimedia Foundation advanced on its Annual Plan goals during the first half of fiscal year 2023-2024 Opinion: Public response to the editors of Settler Colonial Studies Recent research: ChatGPT did not kill Wikipedia, but might have reduced its growth Featured content: We didn't start the wiki Essay: No queerphobia Special report: RetractionBot is back to life! Traffic report: Chimps, Eurovision, and the return of the Baby Reindeer Comix: The Wikipediholic Family Humour: Wikipedia rattled by sophisticated cyberattack of schoolboy typing "balls" in infobox Concept: Palimpsestuous
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

David Russell

See 2:35 [1], this guy is one of the most beautiful sounding guitarists ever, in my top 5 list of greatest guitarists.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, he is wonderful. Here's a guy I discovered about 2 years ago. He has some lovely stuff. And he's really into bat boxes!! [2] Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me more! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the early 1980s he used to accompany the marvelous Cornish singer Brenda Wootton on some of her recordings. As you will see from his contact details, and from some of his video postings, he is also very keen on bat protection! He even records them. He's a great guitarist. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps bats and the supermoon explain the recent sublunarity. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact not. We've run a few tests and I'm sorry to tell you that your page is emitting dangerous vortex-warping mind-beams which are causing it to act as a block magnet. There is little that can safely be done at this stage, apart from perhaps moral support or possibly dry-cleaning your ethereal medium. Best wishes. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're likely correct. I haven't had my chakras (re)balanced in years. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ah! no wonder... Just try and get this principal Chakra balanced and you'll be fine!! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy these!

Musical discussion with Dr. Blofeld

	Some handcuffs for you
	As you've been a very naughty boy I thought you might enjoy having these slopped on you during your term in solitary confinement in D-Block. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hah!

"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ask your captors if you're permitted to watch this.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Dr. B. Barney Kessel is always a treat. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative tunings and "Amazing Grace"

Repetitive open tunings

BTW, I changed the Russian 7-string's tuning from a repetitive open-C (inverted as E-G-C-E-G-C-E) to the open-E tuning E-G#-B-E-G#-B-E. It sounds much better, and my daughter and now wife are having more fun strumming. (I scratched F, G, A, B, C, D, E on the neck for a crib sheet.)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped tuning

I tuned my acoustic guitar to C# drop tuning earlier, standard dropped 3 semitones with a "drop D" like base string to play Amazing Grace♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! I did my best Paul Robeson impression (okay, 2nd best, without the Stalinist pieties) and "Amazing Grace" quieted my daughter, who had had enough Swedish Midsommar. However, Mamma delivered the coup d'boob, which led to both sleeping.

You saw that I'd changed from an inverted open-C to a canonical open-E on the Russian 7-string? It sounds much better. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fifths

Do you know a reliable source for the 5-string claim? It's plausible.

Thanks for your other edits. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can check out bill sethares all tunings guide for a description of all-fifths tuning and other tunings. Note that he refers to it as mando-guitar tuning. It has also been called guitello tuning (for 5 strings).

For more detailed mechanics of tuning to all-fifths, d'addario's sting tension chart is useful. It provides formulas and string weights, as well as a table of tensions for varied string gauges.

From their data, one could tune a 7 string guitar to (e' a d G C F' A"#) with moderate (~13 lbs/string) tension using 9, 13, 20(or 22w), 32w, 49, 74, and 115 strings. That leaves room to tune up to g' or down to c' as a starting point. One could also tune a 7 string to (g' c' f A# D# G'# C'#), with about 15 lbs tension, using 8, 12 18(or 20w), 30w, 44, 66, and 100 gauge strings, leaving room to tune up to a' or down to e' as a starting point. 75.150.168.6 (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that such inferences involve original research or synthesis, which has been avoided per Wikipedia policies since I rewrote the articles on regular tunings. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits seem reasonable, and likely fall within the usual bounds of exposition for mathematics articles on Wikipedia. (Non-research mathematics)/"Trivial" computations and inferences are not OR, although such additions can be challenged and then be evaluated as need arises. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{dn}} not needed

User:Vegaswikian, please revert your addition of disambiguation-needed tags to the article "Guitar chords". "Sixth intervals" refer especially to minor and major sixths intervals. The point of the phrase "sixth interval" is that both intervals are used, and so there is no disambiguation possible, unless you create a new list of sixth intervals, like my recent List of fifth intervals. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? How is linking to a disambiguation page better then linking to a real article? If you know which article is correct, fix the link. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten your contributions to the discussion of categories, where you misunderstood WP:Point. Nominalism is a problem, isn't it?

For others, I should clarify that a link to one article on either A or B should not substitute for a link to the intended set {A, B, C, D}.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A player

Charles Chapman of Berklee College of Music

Kiefer, wrote up a bad little stub while waiting for breakfast: Charles Chapman (guitarist). Take it away. Drmies (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Drmies.

I've not practiced as much as I'd have liked this year, for obvious reasons, but I've long wanted to work through some of the beginning exercises in Chapman's Finger Gymnastics. (The Berklee method requires finger-stretches to cover six frets, which are two too many for my comfort. I've hurt my tendons with too much typing and luggage-hoisting, already, so I'm cautious.)

I did some work, and then asked for stone-soup contributions hos Dr. Blofeld, who is gazing at mandalas even as I type this. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it; I knew you'd find something to add to it. All I had was that little In Memoriam in an issue of VG that's been in the bathroom too long. He was quite a goodlooking fellow (there was a little picture in the note); I can't tell what he was playing. Some big jazz box, and the (single) cutaway was rounded. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one: Guy Buttery. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Lake Wobegon, Batman! That guy's name is a mash-up of Guy Noire and Powerdermilk Biscuits!

Strange that he credits Eno for inspiring his using a looper, without mentioning Robert Fripp and the Eno-Fripp Frippertronics. Apropos Guy Buttery's admiration for Towner's 12 ways to play one note, Fripp had a student play one note for six months.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Ritenour

He says here that he had lessons from both Joe Pass and Barney Kessell (the best two jazz guitarists in my opinion). Not fair!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. I saw him in concert once, in a nice summer show, and bought a record.

The discussion of the PBS jazz history had a lot of OR complaining about its Stanley Crouch focus on harmony and dislike of fusion, and also about its neglect of guitarists. I wonder whether there has been any influence of guitar on other instruments in jazz? Do saxophonists or trumpet players ever try to play like a guitarist?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question!! Never heard of it. I wonder how you would "tap" or "dive bomb" on a saxophone though! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld:I have no idea about dive bombing. Fripp and Eno dive bombed on Evening Star. Tapping could be a staccatto playing with soft mallets on a xylophone, I suppose.

I'd think that the melodies of the Berklee College faculty (guitarmony) or Vai or Alan Holdsworth or Pat Metheny, or the idea of drop 2/3 chords could have influence....

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interrupt, but I've just put together a short educational video for fans of prog-rock pianists. You may find it quite informative. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the addition of an external link of such quality, DYK becons, I feel. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the ridiculous animation of Kanye West and Robert Fripp on Youtube? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite an amazing insight into how rock stars operate, I think. (But don;t tell my black friends I've seen it). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malcom X as a reliable source on Martin Luther King, Jr.?

Hi Kiefer.Wolfowitz; I reverted your edits at Council for United Civil Rights Leadership because I do not believe you are correct that these connections are "original research".

On the topic of Malcolm X, he was a star critic of the group, and his response to them specifically in Message to the Grass Roots is well known. See this Google search if you're not convinced. (Edited to add: see particularly here, here, and here.)

On the relationship between the March, the creation of the CUCRL, and lobbying for the Civil Rights Act, the sources currently presented make the connection. As do numerous histories of the civil rights movement. These claims border on common knowledge. But also see this relatively recent article in the NYT. It's also made quite clear in David Garrow's popular history Bearing the Cross: you can read the relevant pages in the online preview version here.

Please let me know if I have misunderstood something. Peace, groupuscule (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you want. Wikipedia deserves more articles based on Malcom X. I'll check whether the human evolution article is based on the teachings of the Honorable Elijah Muhammed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I think Stephen Jay Gould might be more so the Malcolm X of evolutionary biology... E. O. Wilson never put out a hit on him, though. groupuscule (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to claim Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, was a critic of evolutionary biology? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Gould might be an American independent updating of J. B. S. Haldane, with his Marxissant analyses and support of the American New Left, as well as "popular front" (baseball) writings---but perhaps the latter makes him a complementary particle to George Will? However, the good-humored courage in dealing with cancer makes Gould an update of Haldane. (His dislike of flash photography and willingness to leave the stage when flash photographed reminds me of Robert Fripp.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your subtitular question, "Malcom X as a reliable source on Martin Luther King, Jr.?", the issue is of course not whether Malcolm X is a reliable source on King and the CUCRL (no, he's too close to the issue, though his factual claims happen to be largely accurate) but whether his criticism of the CUCRL is noteworthy (yes, it is mentioned frequently and exclusively, with James Baldwin's a distant second). Aloha, groupuscule (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My foot could easily replace his head up his ....
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your recent editing history at Wikipediocracy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] We've had enough ridiculous complaints from administrators for this week. Can't you find something better to do, like block yourself, instead of wasting my time? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Wikipediocracy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Who has taken control of your account? Maybe you really tried to block yourself? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] BB23, did you really just block KW for removing unsourced contentious material? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] His widdle pride was hurt.... *LMAO* Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: This is a ridiculous block, which has not been documented properly. Editors are free to remove unsourced material, such as a New York Brad's original research. Accept reason: Your edits on Wikipediocracy doesn't constitute edit warring so I accept to unblock you. But I must admonish you regarding your edit summary made at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipediocracy&diff=prev&oldid=561266813 which I hope I wont see again. →AzaToth 23:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Tack! Har du läst historien om denna artikel (som byggde på "allmänt känt" och var falsk)? Denna artikel handlade om en historiskt viktig organisation med ett rikt intellektuellt liv, som fick stor uppmärksamhet. I motsats härtill är Wikipedia ... Wikipedia, dvs en lekplats för Qvorty & Co. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] I agree with the unblock (AzaToth typed faster). My comments were going to state that the history is not one of edit warring -- rather, it's one of vigorous editing involving multiple editors, not a war. Seeing the incendiary nature of comments there and here, I suggest staying away from the Wikipediocracy article for a while to avoid additional confrontations. --Orlady (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Seems to me that Bbb23 is clearly unfit to be an administrator. Eric Corbett 00:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict) Not that anyone asked my opinion, but none of the other editors came close to the number of reverts Kiefer had (seven on June 22 and June 23, and three on June 23 alone). I believe the most any of the other editors had was two. I also warned Kiefer before I blocked him, and he obviously didn't care about warnings given the messages he left on my talk page. "Vigorous editing" can be avoided by continuing discussions on the talk page without battling in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] A bot could simply count, is that what you are, a bot? Eric Corbett 00:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Nobody cares about your opinion, Bbb23, because you are behaving incompetently. I dismissed your idiotic warning because it had no basis in policy and was disruptive. Please block yourself for 24 hours for disrupting Wikipedia, unless you truly are a hypocrite rather than just having a temporary leave of your senses. You blocked me i.a. for re-inserting a hyphen into a phrase that needed a hyphen. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Insert generic warning section header {{insert passive-agressive "suggestion" to be more obsequious in tone}} {{insert signature of random admin nosing into others' business}} Other people were doing it, and it looked like fun, so I joined in. Tremblingly submit and obey! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] The behavior of editors on wikipedia is admins business. If editors are behaving uncivil then they might have to be blocked so it doesn't disrupt the wikipedia. Admins are not nosing in others' business, they are just doing their job. →AzaToth 15:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Or, more accurately: the behavior of editors on wikipedia is serious business, and we must all conduct ourselves with the utmost importance and sobriety at all times. Jokes, amusements, and various merriment are abolished and will not be tolerated. Grrrr! that is to say: dude, that was a joke. Why so serious? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] AzaToth, you may wish to review the civility pillar and WP:Block. Consider copy editing your "uncivil[ly]", "it [their incivility]", "the wikipedia [Wikipedia]", and the comma splice in "business, [;] they" and then delete this sentence, with my blessings. Do you read Swedish? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent wisdom

from User:Giano at AN or ANI

For posterity ...:

4. Question from Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Do 248 responses of "Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad" set a good tone for the evaluation of RfA candidates. Why or why not?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know I revised the article and copy-pasted the text to Word so as to check any typos and spanish words that could have remained. I corrected every mistake I saw. I reckon its prose is good enough to be GA, though I think those mistakes had to be corrected. I have also taken away unnecessary flag icons. I've replied saying this same thing, in Talk:C.A. Peñarol/GA2, but just wanted to make sure to inform you.—Nuno93 (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind notice, Nuno93. :)

You and other editors obviously put a lot of work into the article, which does display a lot of references.

Your strategy of using the grammar and spell checker of Microsoft Office's Word is a good idea, which I should also use. All of us have trouble catching duplicates (e.g., "the the", especially at ends of lines). :)

May I make a suggestion for the medium-term, please? Consider reading George Orwell or Dwight MacDonald or Voltaire or Schopenhauer or other other great prose-stylists for at least six months, under whose influence you should revise one paragraph at a time in whatever article interests you.

Then it might be useful to read a guide to English usage---like Fowler's or Strunk & White---and try applying each heuristic to your favorite article. For example, rewrite every sentence in the active voice, paragraph by paragraph, and then revise each for continuity of flow. (For example, for continuity of flow, the passive voice is often useful for linking old information to new information.)

The language maven William Safire wrote a column about his grand-daughter's writing and the fault-finding of Microsoft Word's grammar checker, which you might enjoy reading. Beyond mathematicians, general writers could consider reading George Piranian's "Write it Better" and Paul Halmos's "Say it Gooder".

Kind regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are actually accomplishing something, I find it pretty easy to tolerate poking people a bit with a sharp stick. Poking just for the sake of poking, however, it isn't productive. I don't claim to know your motives (for anything) but I just fail to see what good with come of that discussion. Putting my admin bit to the side and speaking solely as a fellow editor with a love of all things guitar, you might consider dropping the stick. Nothing good will come by continuing it, you know this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis,

TRM has not retracted his NPA violations, yet he continues to pontificate at RfA in his role as a bureaucrat. Perhaps he does good elsewhere, much as the Borgia Popes had their good sides...? The simple solution would be for TRM to write "I'll go and remove any falsehoods I wrote in ignorance, and I'll try not to make false accusations in the future".

Instead, he is stone-walling, leaving lies standing.

Until you deal with TRM's WP:NPA violations, please don't bother offering even cliche-laden political advice.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Kiefer, you know as well as anyone that I have approached TRM at WP:BN, and I approached him at that very discussion before approaching you, so to most people it would seem obvious I haven't carved out a "side" and just trying to keep the peace. If that isn't obvious to you, then the flaw is your own. Sorry that you see my sincere expression as political or cliche-laden. Obviously, my assistance is unwanted, so I will just unwatch and move on. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For how can you compete,
Being honour bred, with one
Who, were it proved he lies,
Were neither shamed in his own
Nor in his neighbours’ eyes?

— William Butler Yeats, To A Friend Whose Work Has Come To Nothing

Dennis,

I thank you for being impartial and principled.

I would prefer that problems are resolved rather than denied. I would prefer that lies and injustices are challenged, even if "peace" be disturbed.

In this case, TRM's malicious and unwarranted accusations of my sockpuppetry and of my having driven-away editors remain as falsehoods standing on Wikipedia, monuments to the failure of administrators normally so full of do-good advice on civility—New York Brad, BWilkins, Brown-Dent, et alia—to require (or even ask) that a fellow administrator abide by WP:NPA, and strike falsehoods.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on AN/I Discussion

Dear Kiefer Wolfowitz: Thank you for responding as you did, in a very gentle manner, in this AN/I discussion If it is not against Wikipedia rules, I would very much like to invite your father to speak with me on the telephone. My phone number can easily be found on the Internet and I would welcome the opportunity to have a discussion with him. Thank you again, Factor-ies (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, shucks.

Gentleness is second nature to yours truly, 09:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC) KW

Manufacturing?

I thought Toyota manufactured the scion. What is the Wolfowitz connection? – S. Rich (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC) (Note, this comment was intended as a friendly remark, referring to another TP edit that KW had made. It has nothing to do with the section above.)01:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult a dictionary. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't really read the talk page as often since that big yellow banner is no longer shown when you get messages. But in regards to yours, I'd ignore it. People here would rather resort to ad hominem attacks than debate and, more importantly, add content. Not worth fretting about their attempts to turn this to the stereotypical local council. (not to say I disavow local government, sometimes its very good.)(Lihaas (talk) 09:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Yup. (I am not allowed to discuss the right honourable editor on Wikipedia.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

#wikipedia-en-admins on 26 June:

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

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

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

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

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

You are welcome to admire yourself in your mirror.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion of 3-month block

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

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

Thank you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

:Fram,

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

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

Arbcom filing notification

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

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

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

The Signpost

17 July 2013

24 July 2013

You

Are open, honest, refreshingly direct, very funny, and crucially, consistent. They are trying to grind you down. Stick to your guns. Ceoil (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! When I was recently blocked for i.a. welcoming a gentle editor to pick up his teeth, I thought of your being blocked for threatening to jump through a computer screen, a la Tron. I've always liked that chivalric bit from The Crying Game, and the "It's in my nature" ending....

Well, I'll have to do until writers form a WikiProject Go fuck yourself!

(C.f., the Undersecretary for GFY)

Warm regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still amazed I got away with that, revealing my special internet/screen powers. Could happen any day now, if the wrong person put a 'the' in the wrong place. I'm a force to be reckoned with. Tremble fools. PS Block record or not, I'd still prefer to be the one that told it straight, and not behind a back. Ceoil (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that fall under a task force of WP:WikiProject Pornography? WP:WikiProject Pornography/Masturbation work group. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom questions

Kiefer, I don't particularly want to join the IRC/Arsten discussion just to ask you a couple of questions, so coming here seemed easier and more direct. Do you have anything to back up your assertions that the median age of editors is 17 and that "many editors have neurological or social disabilities"? The second asssertion is a bit vaguer (what does "many" mean and how do we define neurological and social disabilities), but I'd still like to know what you base the claims on. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think 17 years old was from a survey of WP users, which was described in the weekly newszine.

"Many" was purposely vague. Regarding neurological disorders, many editors have identified themselves as suffering from Aspberger's syndrome, autism, and bipolar (manic depression) disorders; presumably others also suffer from (adult) ad(h)d.

I don't have time to respond for the next hours. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No rush. When you have time, if you could identify the newszine and maybe the date? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked briefly and found a survey that had a census with only 30% response. It found 13% of editors were aged 13-18. The census threw out responses by children 12 and under (and adults 82 and older), without stating the numbers thrown out. (It also confused editors with accounts.) I updated my remarks. Thanks for the question. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it and, particularly, thanks for the source of the survey (which led me to a Wikimedia table online). You've probably read the report more carefully than I have, but I couldn't find the 30% response figure in there. It's also important to bear in mind that the survey was taken across all Wikipedias, not just the English one. Anyway, it looks like the biggest group, based on how they sectored it, is the 40+ crowd, but the average age is 32. Based on my own virtual observations, which don't count for much, that sounds about right here. And my observations sometimes include how old someone says they are, but the rest of the time are based purely on what editors say and how they say it. Anyway, I often say more than others want to hear, so I'll stop. It was nice having a friendly chat with you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I typically am a friendly fellow, and even in my wrath at your block I mentioned that you were normally a good administrator. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement

Regarding Salvio's statement on the page.

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

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

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

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

ArbCom, even in declining the case, could state

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IRC: Corruption and liability

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

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

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

Your comments on the Evidence talk page

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

Callanecc,

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

Glad that you have your priorities straight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IRC is off wiki, but then...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi @TCO:

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

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

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

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

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

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

@TCO:

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

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

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

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

Workshop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark can answer the question or leave it stand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me try again, also responding to Master Hatchsomething.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More censorship

Copyright infringement

Remind KW to use an irony font

Hi Kiefer.

I was wondering whether I can be of assistance to with regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tiptoety#Copyright_infringement.

Could you explain to me what the issue is?

Many Thanks

Seddon ^talk 17:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• See this for my counter-arguments. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 17:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  As I understand it, copying text from one page requires an edit summary like "please see the history of Talk WP:ArbCom/Case/Get_the_bastard_once_and_for_all for contributions and history".

  Without the page-history handy (or noted in the first edit summary), editors sinking deeper into the abyss of senility or searching for duller phrases than "net negative to Wikipedia" may have difficulty.

  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Kiefer. The issue is that you should not have told Tiptoety what you wrote on their talk page. The way case pages are created is not Tiptoety's responsibility, but the Committee's. All your concerns about copyright infringement should be presented directly to ArbCom for evaluation. We, [former] and current clerks have no individual authority over ArbCom procedures, and are not responsible for this kind of things.

  Now, as a personal note, there is no copyright infringement whatsoever. Wikipedia works under the cc-by-sa 3.0 license, and as long as your comments have your signature attached, copy-pasting them to anywhere complies with that license. The source must only be added to the edit summary or any other visible place when the text that is being copied does not have a signature or any other mark to recognize its original author. I'd recommend you to read the entire text of the license. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Your second paragraph made sense. Carrite would likely remind me that I should have used an irony font for "copyright infringement". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Since you took my joke seriously, you should consider its truth. If a single arbitrator has ever commented in the proceedings and failed to sign his comment while leaving a comment elsewhere (as often happens on talk pages), then there would be no attribution to the arbitrator, which in principle would violate the "by attribution" licensing of CC_3.0 BY. Some of the more persnickety arbs (of today or of the golden age) could care, others less. If I put up 10 USD, how many USD will you put up to show your confidence that such moves have never violated CC BY? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro

• I was going to write a full reply, but DFTT and all that - and make no mistake Keifer - you are a troll and it's a pity you can't distance your trolling from your good work. You know the answer to the above - and you also know others point out your regular cut and paste moves and then you can come back with some clever remark. Kudos though - you really are effective in your trolling. Hopefully, sometime, you'll grow up. Pedro :  Chat  21:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Nice to hear from you. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I did mean to ask, how is first child? Must be a year or so old now (I forget); I did see it on your talk page. You're going to shame me now and tell me the they're three! To be honest, when I saw you became a family man I was, as everyone should be, delighted for you; it adds a lot of perspective to life. Best. Pedro :  Chat  21:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh - and re: the edit summary - you can get ¡ into them, apparently. One at the start, the "right way up" at the end. Makes the Mexican more authentic. Troll. Pedro :  Chat  21:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, my piropo.... ;) At least one WMF staffer advised cutting and pasting non-English characters and punctuation into Visual Editor, which is another spectacular WMF failure. (I wonder whether Swedish writers leave angry yellow notes on Wikipedia?) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pedro:

  You do arouse mixed feelings in me, even when I forget that you are apparently still an administrator.

  Well, I'm still a Pedrophile, but really you should get to know a mathematician or logician sometime. (Drmies too.) TParis seems to have, or at least has watched enough episodes of The Big Bang Theory to interface with me, when his sense of duty overpowers his economy of time.

  Our daughter is nearly one and is about to be enrolled in day-school: I know that I'm supposed to wait until later to see which mutant super-power(s) she has. So far, it seems to be finding the shortest path to what we don't want her to have. Now we are raising to have her stop practicing Ramadan fasting during the day while mama inserts and knocks out the darndest genes at the lab. She has to eat normally before daycare begins, or I will consider myself a certified failure as a dad.

  (I'll soon have more than a few minutes consecutively to work during the day, which will be very much appreciated, professionally and personally.)

  Swedish daycare makes me appreciate social democracy and feminism even more, even as they (singular?) are burdened in Sweden by the rise of the new class, whose road to class power is featuring some very strange obsessions.... We've been fighting summer colds for almost a month now, courtesy of drop in daycare, where the toddlers lick the toys. What does not kill me strengthens my immune system. I forget how old your daughter is.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah - nearly one; I think between one and three was perhaps the most magical age; suddenly you see so much development. You also start ruing the development;

  You can't wait for them to walk, then you wish they'd sit still. You can't wait for them to talk, then you wish they'd be quiet! :)

  My little lady is nearly five; she's just finished her reception year at school - very frightening! Enjoy her whilst she's at that special age. Best. Pedro :  Chat  12:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies

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

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

WMF CEO Sue Gardner (talk · contribs) jokes about pinning a female employee up against a wall, the way "Ironholds like it" [3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbcom secret evidence

Hi KW. Regarding [4] - you are right to push for this. Arbcom do hold secret evidence pages from time to time, and I have on wiki and off wiki evidence where Arbcom members have both denied and confirmed this. (refactored comments) Pedro :  Chat  20:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

(UTC)

Another IRC discussion by WMF employees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

eh...

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

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

Rorschach (Walter Kovacs)

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

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

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

— Walter Kovacs, October 13th

Your rebuttal to evidence by WTT et al

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anthony,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

People who have eyes know what is going on.

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

The Christian Science Monitor breaks story on Ironholds and Sue Gardner

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

Comment at Titan (supercomputer) FAC

Hi Kiefer, The comment you left in this FAC was placed above the nomination, causing it to appear in the Dresden Triptych FAC when viewed at WP:FAC. It's also not editable at the Titan FAC as far as I can see. Could you please fix this up? (the only way I can see to do this is to revert your change and then re-post your comment, but it's best if the editor who made the comment does that to stop the nomination's history getting confusing). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick-D!

Sorry I did not fix this before. I tried several times last night to edit properly, but it did not open to the correct page/section.

I'll try to fix it now. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My improperly formatted comment was corrected by Mahatama John (talk · contribs), who deserves my thanks. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question on Huon's RFA

I decided to remove it [5] because I feel it was highly inappropriate for you to ask Huon that question. Please don't ask such questions again. _→AzaToth 12:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that many will compliment the question, which the candidate has already pledged to answer. Take it to the talk page of RfA. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since, again, the RfA page supported me and opposed your actions, wouldn't it be honorable and civil to drop a note acknowledging an honest disagreement (and perhaps hinting that in the future the instructional tone could be avoided when you are uncertain)?

You are not evil, but you are an administrator, and your behavioral suggestions ooze the threat of blocking like a lutefisk oozes lye. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: This is one of many instructive discussions I've had.

The last months have seen clueless administrative blocks and warnings descending like --- like --- like MIRV droppings and not this kind:l

Knock knock!

Who's there?

Ka!

Ka! who?

Ka-BOOM! I'm a smart bomb!

You need to lower your expectations, and recognize the reality of Wikipedia. We've become a training ground for Wikia, and clueless administrators are running amok. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Azatoth: You should stick to bullying editors with sanctimonious bullshit (backed up by your block button) and stop violating WP:TALK, particularly by removing my retired notice, here and at my user page. You should clean up your apartment or room (including taking out the trash) before leaving for a new place, as a courtesy, as I explained to Bishonen already. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I could really need some help from a Swedish Wikipedian. I have made an article on Elisabet Höglund which I have nominated for DYK, I could need some help with additional copy-editing and translation of some of the words that perhaps was lost in translation from Swedish to English and links that are without proper redirect. Any help is welcome. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I'm up to my neck in Yahoo shit. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK no worries man. When in shit... dig!--BabbaQ (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waist Deep in the Big Muddy

The Big Muddy....lol. The only creek for 100 miles in the semi-desert conditions of west Texas.--MONGO 14:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Pete Seeger's performance of "We're waist deep in clueless men, but the WMF says IRC is not a problem". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think IRC should be avoided mainly since in most situations full transparency is best.--MONGO 14:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Report

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Freedom of Speech for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -buffbills7701

Thanks!

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The first amendment and "The Right of Revolution"

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

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

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

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

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

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

[6]. Volunteer Marek 04:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Song by Vladimir Vysotsky. English translation by Margaret & Stas Porokhnya. Original title "Moy drug uekhal v Magadan".

My friend has moved to Magadan; Play him a fanfare, play him a fanfare. He went himself, his own free man; He wasn't sent there, he wasn't sent there.

It wasn't that his luck turned bad Or done to make somebody mad; It wasn't part of some big act: He simply packed, he simply packed.

If someone asked him: "What's it for? Why just abandon your life at random? The jails have killers by the score - That's where they crammed "em, that's where they crammed' em!"

He'd shrug - "Whatever people say There's more in Moscow anyway" - Then pack up everything he can For Magadan, for Magadan.

I wouldn't say my race is run: I'd jump the night train like in the old days; But I won't go to Magadan Leaving my old ways, starting a new phase.

I'll sing, my guitar on my knee, Of all the things he's going to see Of all that's left unseen, undone, Of Magadan, of Magadan.

My friend had nothing left to lose; It's his decision, it's his decision; He won't be beaten by the screws - He's not in prison, he's not in prison.

But God has made for me a plan... Or should I go to Magadan? And like my friend just go to ground And make no sound.

Fantastic. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The dishonesty of ArbCom

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Martinevans123:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @AGK:

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

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

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

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

Really?

Other comments

Joe Camel's success in addicting children to nicotine cigarettes was only the beginning. Now Wikipedia is targeting 7-8 year olds:

Sick, but apparently not a joke

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.

---

Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

If you have any questions, you can ask me personally. I'm Ocaasi. I'm glad you're with us :) -- Ocaasi ^{leave me a message}

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Participants

• User:Ocaasi
• User:Dcoetzee
• User:Demiurge1000
• User:Pine
• User:Guerillero
• User:Rcsprinter123
• User:Sonia
• User:Worm That Turned
• User:Ebe123
• User:Jojalozzo
• User:RexRowan

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.

That ... such IRC regulars ... are looking after 7 year olds .... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Will they be handing out Komsomol badges at the end? Intothatdarkness 14:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks more like the Young Pioneers, which gave out cute Teddy Bears (with red hoodies, of course). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I figured they'd give them the Young Pioneers kerchief when they finish Mission 4 (NPOV - the bastion of all that is correct and proper). Intothatdarkness 15:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Looking good together". How to send pictures of yourselves and your friends at the beach! Nice that a self-identified pan-sexual is also on board. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freakin A! how do you make this thing stop??? Volunteer Marek 16:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's neat, huh? Volunteer Marek 16:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I though the general idea was an interesting one back in 2011 but had no contact with the project since. It is far too cutesy for my tastes and most people abouve the age of 16 but YMMV. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R.E.D.: Retired, Extremely Dangerous

• • Mission 8: get blocked indefinitely/ retire/ get blocked before you get blocked indefinitely or retire? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Better R.E.D. than intellectually and morally dead. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • • A gift for you from "Uncle Gnome" at WMF. Enjoy!! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure! Metastatis

Are they out of their cotton-pickin' minds?!?		!
Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started. The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge The Teahouse new editor help space Wikipedia Help pages If you have any questions, you can ask me personally. I'm Ocaasi. I'm glad you're with us :) -- Ocaasi leave me a message Get Help About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

TWA spreads like herpes but threatens to damage the brain like untreated syphilis, which used to be thought could be cured with the help of a child. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate!

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure

Nominated in Miscellany for Deletion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for removing the tag, I didn't clearly read your reasoning, I thought you just put the template there. Oh well :P Prabash.Akmeemana 20:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. Everybody misses something, and you are a new editor. Welcome! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guerrillermo del Toro had an early movie called Cronos (which I saw 20 years ago), which is set in Veracruz, but I don't think La Bamba appears in the soundtrack. Yo no soy marinero.... It is likely better than the Kronos movie you wrote about. Keep up the good work by writing articles! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have removed the second part of your opening statement made here as a personal attack. Fram (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you object if somebody would object to my heading the WikiProject Understatement? I wouldn't. If I wanted to head the Understatement Project, I should try understatement. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

1. [7] WP:UNDUE as it's an opinion piece by User:Dan Murphy
2. the link contains is a blog piece, contains BLP violations and concerns the current arbcom case
3. alternative source as suggested by mangoe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Cullen328: @Beyond My Ken: @Sphilbrick:

Wikipedia and WMF should benchmark their child-protection rules against leading organizations, like the Scouts (Boy and Girl), each of whom are not-for-profits and which declare policies to satisfy both COPA and COPPA.

Above, I have commented on specifics, which were censored from my ArbCom case.

1. In particular, there should be a ban on private chats in person or by email with minors. There must be a responsible adult cc'ed on any email (e.g., selected members of OTRS or oversight or ArbCom) responding to a minor disclosing personal information, and the minor must be warned not to disclose further personal information. (I would favor alerting parents, if feasible.)
2. Any adult who is found to be carrying on one-on-one private chats, correspondence, or meetings with minors should be banned.

Wikipedia and WMF do not aim to have their copyright and paraphrase policies only meet the legal minimum, but strive to do what is right. Why shouldn't kids be protected the same way?

Wikipedia is a bad activity for children, in that it crowds out schoolwork. Its goods are poor substitutes for schoolwork. Also, exposure to computer light disrupts sleep, especially for children.

BMK/Cullen328, I would at least require an affirmation of adulthood by editors. That is not enough, because kids will lie about their ages. I would ask the Boy/Girl Scouts or YMCA or Luther League for help.

Any one of you is welcome to copy my comments to the ANI discussion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Boy Scouts have made homophobia the core of their failed "child protection" program for decades, I simply don't see them as a model. Why should WMF base its approach on compliance with a law that never went into effect, and another law directed at commercial businesses that exempts non-profits? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read what I wrote?

A ban on private encounters with children and a 2-adult deep requirement has nothing to do with homophobia.

As you should know, Wikipedia welcomes adults who have a history of soliciting private encounters with children.

You also seemed to have missed my comparison of WP's child-protection weakness with its proactive rules on copyright and paraphrasing. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the Boy Scouts or Little League will be helpful in this regard, as they are real-world activities where the minors are actually, physically, present, not on-line activities where identity is nearly impossible to prove. Further, the Little League requires parents to give permission and to show the child's birth certificate to prove their age. Again, this is not an online-capable action, as no parent in their right mind is going to allow a copy of their child's birth certificate to get online, where it would potentially be subject to abuse.

I think you're going to need to come up with a more coherent plan of action than this if you want to keep banging this particular drum. It's all well and good to say "you must do this", but to continue to say it without having the foggiest idea of how it can be accomplished is irresponsible, Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comment above. A ban on private encounters is easy to implement. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree and disagree with you K.W. - First, the Scouts are an organization specifically geared toward and advertising to 6-10 year old children, as well as older children (don't bring up WP:TWA). Thus, it makes sense they will have protections in place for those people they advertise and get into their programs. Second, I think you need to look into your claims that COPPA and COPA apply to Wikipedia. Multiple people, including the WMF legal counsel, have said that they don't apply. Regardless, it shouldn't need a law to have good policy.

Get together a proposal that doesn't mention things that the WMF has said aren't true (i.e. don't base it on COPPA/COPA/other laws that don't apply), and you'll get a lot more support. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 15:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated many times, WP and WMF can---like other non-for-profit corporations have done---choose to hold themselves to higher standards in child protection than that required by the law.

WMF Legal Counsel can write coherent sentences that do not reek of dishonesty (which makes them better than many others at WMF), but when push comes to shove WMF hires outside counsel. So take WMF Counsel and interns as sceptically as WMF trustees do. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I agree with your first statement, there's not much for me to refute there, nor anything really for me to comment on. Good day. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 18:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A hundred years ago they knew how to protect their minors -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be explicitly forbidden for an adult Wikipedia contributor to contact a minor without his or her parents' approval. This would not necessarily stop it, any more than wikirules against sockpuppeting, reverting or incivility stop that, but it would at least raise it to the level of something we care about. As it is, editors could be meeting up with minors on the sly, and people would say, "Well, okay, but did this violate policy?" If I'm not mistaken, minor contributors being regularly molested would not violate policy as it is currently written (WP:CHILD) For starters, this "adoption" business has to go, and with it whichever adult contributors have been promoting it. Adult contributors who show a pattern of attempting to contact minors should be banned.24.19.234.62 (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The policy as currently written, WP:CHILD, is reasonable advice, but note that it places the onus entirely upon the minor to avoid posting his or her age and personal information. It says nothing about how to deal with adults who inappropriately gravitate towards child editors like moths to a lamplight, several of whom are right in front of our faces. Hey, I spent the evening with your boy: assume good faith.24.19.234.62 (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has pointed me to this:Wikipedia:Child protection. I'm not sure why those are different pages.24.19.234.62 (talk) 06:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom loves editors who tell boys when they shall visit their town, tell them how to get around their parents' attempts to stop them emailing strangers, tell them to meet at off-Wiki sites, offer to fill their greedy slots, etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you see this doc[8] is on the way. As a foul tempered and potty mouthed ex drummer myself, I'm hoping it will live up to the hype. The clips are certainly unflinching and very, very promising. Drummer docs are few and far between...I wait with baited breath. Ceoil (talk) 10:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil:

That looks like an interesting documentary, particularly Ginger Baker breaking the filmer's nose with his walking cane. As a dangerous codger moment, it reminds me of the old Italian stabbing an American General in the eye with a rose during liberation day in Catch 22.

Jack Bruce and Ginger Baker played on Letterman in 1990.

I missed Bill Bruford's barnstorming of Sweden, which included lecturing at Malmo. Bruford is articulate and funny. His comment on being a drummer reminded me of dealing with administrators:

"I love seeing the whites of an audience’s eyes instead of being stuck in the back and seeing John Wetton’s ass. Life for me is a series of asses that I played behind. Adrian Belew has got a very nice ass, slim. John Wetton’s is a little bigger. Jon Anderson’s is very small. Nice legs, lousy ass. It’s a series of asses."

— Bill Bruford

Have you read Stanley Crouch on jazz? He used to be a drummer. He does seem to dichotomize jazz good (swinging blues) and bad (other, especially symphonic or rock or both). His Notes of A Hanging Judge is worth reading, if only for his quoting a friend's riff on "house niggers"---"House nigger! House nigger! I do declare that Toussaint L'ouverture was the greatest house nigger of all time. These [clowns] had better go to a library and start reading a whole stack of books, to cover their dumb ... asses".

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, Ceoil has been blocked for talking to a friend. "Personal attacks and harassment" LMFAO. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]