User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Labor donated

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
17 July 2013 WikiProject report: WikiProject Square Enix Traffic report: Most-viewed articles of the week News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation's new plans announced Featured content: Documents and sports Arbitration report: Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case opens; July 22 deadline for checkuser and oversight applications Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] 24 July 2013 In the media: Wikipedia flamewars WikiProject report: WikiProject Religion Discussion report: Partially disambiguated page names, page protection policy, and more News and notes: Wikivoyage turns ten, but where to now?; Wikipedia Zero expands into India Traffic report: Gleeless Featured content: Engineering and the arts Arbitration report: Infoboxes case opens Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Demographics of Wikipedia editors: Minors, especially neurologically disabled boys 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

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello Kiefer. As you might know, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement as soon as you can. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 21:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] I reduced my statement below 500 words. Thanks for your message, reminding me of my duty. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] No problem. Since Hahc has recused from the case now consider his post issued by me. That's why he had reverted his removal of it. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] You've seen that I removed the humorous section and shortened the rest? You were told to hide the section on IRC canvassing in the discussion of my ANI discussion? Did Worm That Turn participate in the "instructions" or did he recuse? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] The specific instructions were to "please hat and collapse the section entitled "IRC's corruption:A liability" and retitle it to "IRC". Please also warn Kiefer that he has gone well past the word limit." Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Answer the question, which I repeat: did WTT recuse? Who authorized it? Was it a committee instruction? Why are you clerking despite already having participated as a community member? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] The instruction was given by an individual Committee member who has not recused, as is standard practice. No Arbitrator, including myself, has objected. WTT has not commented in any related thread. NW (Talk) 22:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] I am still clerking because clerks are allowed to participate in arbitration cases as members of the community (with some exceptions). See WP:AC/C#Recusal for more information. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Hey KW. Just to be clear, I've been away from Wikipedia for the weekend, I've given no private instructions to clerks on the matter at all. I am recused on the incident in question, just as I am recused on any Arbcom requests related to you, I'm sure I stated that a long time ago. Because I've not participated, the committee couldn't say if I'd recused or not. I have commented on the more general issue of IRC, you can see my comment at the the case page. I hope that answers your questions with respect to myself. WormTT(talk) 10:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Email via WMF
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What would make you think the WMF has access to people's email accounts? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] I intended "email sent by the account throughWikipedia/WMF". A gentle, non-alarming request for permission to examine related emails and IMs of minors (those flagged for suspicious approaches and a reasonable random sample of the others) sent to the minors' parents via the minor should also be made. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] I assume you are aware of recent concerns about your community-development staff and IRC. Let us leave aside those concerns. Apart from your department, there are still problems with sexual banter in children in IRC discussions like this. Such discussions are common enough that any reasonable person should be concerned about further problems with chatrooms and email contacts as well as WMF-affiliated events (meet ups, Wikimania). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] I assure you, the WMF keeps no copies of the emails that are sent through Wikimail. We couldn't audit those if we wanted to. I know that you are aware that the WMF exercises no authority to police servers owned by another company, so we are not in a position to police freenode. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] WMF logs the dates and recipients of emails, which suffices to send requests to the parties. WMF's CIA/NSA liason can help with the examination of the information. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] LOL - I suppose it would do no good to assure you that we have no such liaison to CIA or NSA? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:36, 10 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

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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]

@Drmies:

I want to purchase sniper diapers, stockpiling them for my older age, where they will have more virility than Depends undergarments, I'll wager. (Although, the improvements in diapers fill me with hope for humanity. I could go on for hours about the wonders of diapers from Pampers, Huggies, and ICA!) Our user fee for day care is substantially less, so much so, that I would be embarrassed to tell you. :D I don't know whether it's good to go into the philosophy of science. Developing statistical methods and concepts seems to be the best route towards understanding and advancing science. (In Sweden, too many social scientists want to talk about only issues related to Karl Popper....) I've never regretted time I've spent studying logic. Logic, lattice theory, and linear algebra (real and complex fields) have the biggest bang for the buck! :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:01, 5 November 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" [1]

[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 [2] - 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)

CSM article

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]

Blocked

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. [3] 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]

@Charmlet: Thanks for your honest and clear comments, which should have been read more carefully by those edit warring. Good luck in the future! Beware of Pv=nRTs and the sun in your eyes. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banned by a clerk apparently unfamiliar with block logs

Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds Arbitration case

Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Chinese name
Traditional Chinese	批鬥大會
Simplified Chinese	批斗大会
Transcriptions Standard Mandarin Hanyu Pinyin Pīdòu dàhuì
Tibetan name
Tibetan	thamzing
Transcriptions Wylie ‘thab-‘dzing Lhasa IPA tʰʌ́msiŋ

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]

Comparisons to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mugabe, etc.

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 here 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]

Revert

Hi, thanks for the revert. Is it normal for the workshop being closed without any template put up (or am I blind and missing it)? I don't really have much experience with arbcom cases. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio left a note, which is not as eye-catching as a template. Discretion is his middle name.

It used to be that I submitted a lot of evidence on the topic, e.g. "Civility Enforcement", which was ignored, and I was surprised to learn that "Civility Enforcement" was not the topic of the case after all; I learned later that Iridescent (talk · contribs) had already forecast the decision based on knowing the personal politics of the arbitrators.

Since then I don't worry so much about ArbCom. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ex arbitrator PhilKnight, protector of Arbcom

48 hour block

I've blocked your account for 48 hours, because of this comment. From my perspective, you are making an entirely unacceptable attack on the Arbitration Committee. PhilKnight (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight:

"Loves" was too strong. I agree that "accept" would be better.

Former "arbitrator" PhilKnight (talk · contribs), you know how to search for "greedy, slot, ...". Do you accept or reject an adult to "fill the second slot" of a child editor, coyly suggesting that Wikipedia talk-pages are not the best place for such conversations?

Could you explain why you think the statement is false? Or are you stating that the comment is true? If so please explain why a true statement is unacceptable.

Can you explain your inaction with respect to Qworty, that Angel fellow who was just banned, etc., when you were an arbitrator? Why did it take so long for this year's pathetic Arbitration Committee to admit that it could not handle existing child-protection cases and that it needed help? Why didn't you take responsibility when you were on Arbitration Committee?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kiefer, to be honest, I don't entirely follow your comments above. In regard to my inaction when I was an arbitrator, I think it's a common misconception that an arbitrator is a kind of super-admin whose role is to go around making difficult blocks. In my view the role of an arbitrator is nothing of the sort, and should be focused on deciding what cases to accept, analyzing the evidence, and voting on the proposals. PhilKnight (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it unacceptable to state that ArbCom is accepting such behavior?

Aren't you ashamed of your personal failure to deal with child protection while you had the community's highest office?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Phil, I had forgotten that you were one of the arbitrators harassing Eric Corbett through the Civility Enforcement case. You and others responsible have no business complaining about criticisms of ArbCom, since you are largely responsible for discrediting it in the community's eyes.

You and other arbitrators have a curious choice of priorities, letting mimicry (or the real thing) of child predation occur while harassing Eric. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Blocked for criticizing a governance committee on his user talk page?24.19.234.62 (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"You, slave, will be torn apart by horses, to the plaudits of the troops and the amusement of the children."
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ooooh. The irony. Behold the hypocrisy of it all!!! Kiefer Wolfowitz cannot stop going hysterical imagining arbs solicit children's company through wikimedia events. But conveniently ignores noticing his blue eyed boy when he expressly says [4] and does not even notice when youngsters are welcomed to an event where alcohol is on the menu [5]. Wow!!! So much for self righteous child protection crusaders !!!!OrangesRyellow (talk) 3:36 am, Today (UTC+2) By any chance, are you from Crete? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Reaper Eternal: Thank you very much! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My friend has moved to Magadan

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[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]

Responses

• Free bird by Lynyrd Skynyrd
• Ramblin' Man by The Allman Brothers
• Ramble On by Jimmy Page, John Paul Jones, and The Foo Fighters
• "Good Advices" by R.E.M.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

Other comments

I guess we can all see the writing on the wall by now. I know your complaints regarding certain problems were made in good faith (even though I believe some of them to be flat-out wrong). Thanks for all your work on various articles and for keeping attempting to keep a lot of complete nonsense and silliness off Wikipedia. I wish you the best in your life off Wikipedia, although I'm pretty certain we may occasionally notice each other on Wikipediocracy. (I do have an account there, although I virtually never post comments.) Good luck. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I trust you have my old emails and can reach me anytime you like! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see the way this has turned out, but I guess it was inevitable given the way things work here. Eric Corbett 22:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, they're not forgiving you.. And you're not even wrong.. All the best, Kiefer -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 13:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Stay tuned. Friend of the banned, Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I'm surprised by the outcome. Disappointed and disgusted, yes, but not surprised. Who will be the next enemy of the state? Take care, Kiefer. Intothatdarkness 13:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am an enemy of this state, and a party in the next case. So quite likely I will join you, tuner, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's never good news to be a party in an ArbCom case, but one day they'll achieve their goal and we'll all have been banished. Only a matter of time. Eric Corbett 14:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the good wishes. Remember to follow Mencken's advice on pleasing his ghost and forgive some sinner and wink at a homely girl. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For your way. (I forgive the popcorn maker, but now I don't believe he's a sinner, so it doesn't count.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Come out and take it, you dirty, yellow-bellied rat, or I'll give it to you through the door!". So long, KW, and thanks for all the humour, fireworks, honesty and wit. Don't worry, it's not the end, it's just light and the end of your tunnel. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the best KW thanks for the welcome you gave me earlier on your talk page, enjoy life and hope we talk again, as for me, Im probably going to be off for a bit, and come back by time for Christmas. Prabash.Akmeemana 19:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! All things must pass away. Good luck! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you really meant All_Good_Things... :-) ES&L 23:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, BWilkins! :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good Night, and Good Luck seems doubly appropriate. December will be interesting this year, not just because Santa Claus puts in an appearance. Nick (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I pray you to believe what I have said.... I have reported what I saw and heard, but only part of it. For most of it I have no words. If I've offended you by this rather mild account ..., I'm not in the least sorry.

— Edward R. Murrow, Report from Buchenwald

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC) (added a few days ago without signature)[reply]

• Cheers KW. We've had our battles, but it's been okay. Enjoy your little one - time passes quickly. *tips hat* Pedro :  Chat  20:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  ¡Qué te vaya bien! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Good luck from me too. I expect its only a matter of time before my number comes up too. Kumioko (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although we've had our differences and battles, I never considered myself an enemy of yours.
I hope you have a great time off Wikipedia. Good luck and ¡hasta pronto! — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Take care Kiefer. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rest in peace, time to let go. You fought the law, and the law won. It was a good fight, but dont be tempted to aim back with sock during your ban....thats sort of giving in, playing into hands. Anyhow....some ridicilious fun to distract, guessing you will appreciate the studio wizardry. [7] - 1968, analog, tape. Best. Ceoil (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You fought the law, and the law won. - but if you're an admin then this remake of that old song is more appropriate: [8]. The law is for little people.Volunteer Marek 01:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access?

• Is Kiefer still allowed to use his talk page? Is there any realistic chance of a future appeal being successful? Eric Corbett 18:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:PROTECT, as far as I am aware the talkpage will only be locked in cases of "continued abuse". WP:BAN says pretty much the same thing. So, for the first question, I would say "yes". For the second, I'd say "don't hold your breath", unfortunately. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed: Yes and no—unless there be

  1. a greater scandal resulting in the banning of another editor, a reassessment of Wikipedia by the reading public (who may still think that Qworty was an isolated event----of 5 years!), and the strengthening of WP:Child Protection, or
  2. a revolt among writers at the next ArbCom election. Perhaps CasLiber will run again? Already, Worm That Turned and AGK have announced that they will not seek re-election, and one hopes that Risker will step down. (The treatment of Elen, with whom I've had heated disagreements, was unforgivable, particularly given her distinguished service and humanity.)

  Perhaps in some months I shall write a public appeal to ArbCom, which the wicked may mistake for ridiculing the present committee.... ;)

  I shall be happier away from Wikipedia for a while. If I write something, it's easy for somebody else to add it.... :) Now I am tired, and I wish to focus on other pursuits (as I've long planned). Please forgive me for not writing personal messages and acknowledgments to every greeting, but I am rather tired of this place, and I have a lot of personal and professional responsibilities.

  Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Kiefer isn't blocked from editing his talk page. For the second, I think Black Kite is right. One wonders, though, if there are bonus points for his contributions to the ArbCom case. That is, if ArbCom is correct, then Kiefer was right (in part or in whole) in his assessment of Ironholds and his use of, for instance, IRC. And like it or not (certainly plenty of people won't), he was persistent and successful, if that desysop was his goal. It takes some big ovaries (sorry for the sexist term) to do that. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm very much against these indefinite blocks/bans, because the basic message they send is "you'll remain blocked until you post a sufficiently self-abasing request, and you'll probably have to do that repeatedly". Eric Corbett 21:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've written extensively at Wikipediocracy about my motivations. I've never cared about the administrative status of Ironholds or his employment (apart from the title). The WMF should continue to employee him, since they knew about his IRC activities and he should also be treated as a person. However, Wikipedia must deal with the rhetoric of violence, particularly against women. Many of the young editors no doubt have read and can probably discuss violence fluently; alas, until they've known somebody who's been beaten and have had her boyfriend repeatedly cry about how sorry he is, repeatedly, they just don't understand the importance of a no-tolerance policy and an insistence on dealing with violent rhetoric.

Similarly Wikipedia must always consider its treatment of vulnerable users: examples have included editors in crisis who suddenly demand to have their confidential emails released to the public; children and young adults, especially those with Asperger's syndrome, etc.). I have tried to be consistent, and I have no apologies for my stands. Of course, some rhetoric was counter-productive or needlessly hurtful, and of course I regret some of my comments (as I've regretted receiving many comments...).

I get too tired to look closely at the decision. How many of the diffs that were cited in the case were provided by me, quickly censored, and resulted in my being threatened with blocks? I am too tired to count, and the activity is bush league. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"no longer an editor"

I am heartened by the greetings and good will messages from friends, colleagues, and the loyal opposition (of the loyal opposition). However, already Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) has been chastised for discussing his expansion plans for articles on American law with me:

"I don't quite understand why you're having a discussion with KW on his talk page. Talk pages are provided to editors to help facilitate their editing, and a certain amount of general conversation and so on is not a problem, but Wikipedia is not a forum and, in any case, KW is no longer an editor. Since he is banned, he has no use for his talk page, since he cannot ask for an unblock using it, but must go through BASC or ArbCom to be reinstated."

and I feel that I should warn others to stop writing here, lest they also be accused of consorting with a non-editor (or non-editor per WP:MOS). I already should have repeated the instructions to his friends given by Egon Balas before he had his public denunciation as an enemy of the Communist paradise of Romania (after which he would develop rickets from serving two years of solitary confinement in a dark cell):

Please protect yourself from recriminations and accusations of disloyalty by simply repeating the official accusations against me. You don't need to add new accusations. I will know about your sympathies and not have to worry about your fate. (Will to Freedom, from memory)

Moral: Fall in line and conform with shunning. (Reader's of Balas's autobiography may agree that my being banned is better than my being beaten on the bottom of the feet with a rubber hose.) Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's an impressive contribution on the part of BYK. It's so good to see such a commitment to expression and unfettered access to knowledge. Intothatdarkness 20:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have this quote on my user "every editor is a human being", but should probably add that "non-editors" are also human beings. See there also "The Ban on Love" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly the ideal has reached the "enemies of the state" point. Enemies of the state are of course non-persons. Disappointing to see. Intothatdarkness 22:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointing, but not entirely unexpected. Kiefer will soon be airbrushed out of WP history, as will we all who refuse to join the cult. Eric Corbett 22:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me a lot of the caste system in India. Banned users are the Dalits, those to be shunned, hidden, and unmentioned; admins, to a much lesser degree, are the Brahmins, and all other editors are the Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras. I find this development in people's mindsets to be particularly unhealthy, and even concerning when I read pompous and almost, in a sinister way, excited pronouncements by individuals on the admin's noticeboard that now "...it's time to propose a community ban on <name>. I think the community needs to step up and say to him, 'You are done here.'" This isn't healthy for the targeted users and especially those proposing the bans. But meh, I'm no psychiatrist; it's just my opinion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel pretty much the same, it's disgusting. Eric Corbett 02:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a small step from labor donated to editor no longer. Really? - "Mindsets": I just read about "(mental) health", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the step from person to non-person in the glorious Peoples' Republic of Wikipedia. And serves as a reminder why no one should get attached to the place. Intothatdarkness 14:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked here ... damn. I am very sorry to see this, and it makes no sense to me. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words.