User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/AC2012

Just a heads up

While I appreciate the good words (and the good-faith criticism), I'm not going to be running for re-election this year. I firmly believe that the Committee must not become stagnant, and new blood, new ideas are always needed. And being a D&D geek, I had to smile and appreciate the (now-deleted) RPG stats section :) SirFozzie (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sir Fozzie!

I do wish you well, although I hope that you will change your mind.

You and Elen did the Lord's work on the Monty Hall Problem, and you have been an asset to ArbCom.

I think you were also good about protecting vulnerable persons from extensive on Wiki discussions and publication of emails, which was the most important test in 2010-2011.

We all have to work on resisting temptation, and so I must forgive you for briefly proving that Malleus could exactly provoke you with the hypothetical "If I see a dishonest twit, I will call him a 'dishonest twit'". Of course we have further disagreements about the Civility Enforcment case, but that is only one case in your long tenure.

It's not clear how most Arbs should be classified, at least in their race and class, and I'm glad you saw the humor as intended. I foresaw that it would be distasteful to assign scores to candidates that I would not support, and I'm glad that I removed it.

Enjoy your sabbatical from ArbCom.

Sincerely and with warm regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rcsprinter123

I'm curious... is he running? --Rs chen 7754 03:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You doubt my infallibility? I'll forgive that personal attack! ;p

Last night it seemed he was. Let me see if I can find some explanation and link it. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I think. He created the Talk page at the ArbCom elections candidates page. I must have just read the "new" and "Candidates page" and misjudged that he was a new candidate. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've been following pretty closely, and I was wondering how I could miss a candidate... --Rs chen 7754 10:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've been impressed by a number of your interventions lately. Keep up the good work!

However, when it comes to ArbCom elections, we still are speaking different languages. In fact, I created my Dungeons & Dragons character ability scoring after seeing your most recent scoring of candidates! ;p Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha thanks! --Rs chen 7754 11:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I feel neglected!

I demand to have my character in that list! (Hell, you should put all current and former arbs you are familiar with on there). I don't remember the last time I've had such a laugh. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 16:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful what you wish for!

*LOL*

Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Some sort of bizarre Dr. Manhattan arb-analogue? That gave me a goofy grin and a snicker. — Coren ^(talk) 18:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yama is a much more sympathetic character than Dr. Manhattan. Apparently Yama is red while Dr. Manhattan is blue, so there may be some US politics resonance, which I had not considered. I don't follow ArbCom cases with a few exceptions, and so I don't really feel up to the task of capturing you with a few numbers---not withstanding my affection for principal-components analysis. However, I've used your copyvio search-bot, and that reminded me of Yama's death-gaze. Perhaps the muse will whisper in one of your ArbCom colleague's ears? I thought the contrast between the 18's and poor Vulcan's appearance would be funny. Others are welcome to suggest improvements. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think that David Letterman or one of his colleagues noted that Dr. Manhattan had a 5-foot--long blue penis, and so any such comparison would have been beyond my competence.Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RPG

Paladins have to be lawful good. Also, multi classing is a thing now. Or at least it was for a bit.--Tznkai (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well noticed! I corrected my error. Thanks again! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero is a ranger. Maybe a ranger with a few levels of druid so he can shapeshift into a bear. I say the former because he's a hardcore scout. I say the latter because of his impressive beard. Note that I choose to live in an alternate world where D&D 4.0 never got published, so I'm speaking in D&D 3.5 with a bit of what I remember of AD&D from Baldur's Gate. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With you as a character reference, Guerillero has become a Beorn-spawned ranger. :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow ArbCom clerk

User:Reaper Eternal an ArbCom clerk? News to me. Seriously though, I suspect you have Reaper Eternal confused with someone else, or roles mixed up. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Messing around with gender roles is more my thing. I could have sworn that Reaper Eternal refactored an ArbCom discussion, and I wondered what kind of being could survive such an action. I think Elen explained that he was a clerk. Perhaps I am confused...? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've struck through your statement of User:NuclearWarfare being an ArbCom clerk, which he has indeed been for a while. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was Nuclear Warfare, whom I mentioned later with regard to a mentoring relationship (that wasn't a mentoring relationship in any formal sense, just some occasional advice).With your funny names, ;) all of you ArbCom clerks look the same to me. I confused RE and NW. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lawyer acquaintance who will study these out

For future reference, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks lists all of the Clerks and Clerk alumni/ae. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jc37 link

Hi are you sure that you have the link you intended for Jc37? I'm not seeing a connection there. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were linking problems with both diffs, which are now corrected. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix, and for writing your guide. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I've always depended on the kindness of strangers. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take exception to this reference to my comments

[1] I do not think the "civility" questionnaire was well formulated, or that it will produce any useful results, and I think that it was inherently a bad idea to pressure Arbcom candidates to answer it; however, I do not believe that it is "dishonest", nor do I believe it's "stupid" to make the effort to seek a broad range of opinions on this topic. I can see several ways that it could have been done better, but that someone has tried to tackle a very thorny problem using several means of communication is a good thing, and well within the Wikipedia problem resolution process. Risker (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that it was dishonest and stupid, but dishonest or stupid---a convex combination of both, and the analysis of whether one or both (and then which proportion is not worth analyzing). I'll update the guide. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary says "Update': Beeblebrox seems to have been a primary author of the current RfC/Civility questionnaire, whose stupidity and dishonesty have been explained by enough independent editors (e.g. Risker) already. If I had bothered to pay at..." That very much gives the impression that I said it was stupid and dishonest, and I did no such thing, nor would I say such a thing. You've given your opinion of the questionnaire whilst invoking my name and reputation. That is at best misleading, and is not acceptable. Risker (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Risker,

I struck your name from the comment.

Your comment about the questionnaire was damning enough. Didn't you write something like "this will show us how badly written biased surveys are used and viewed by the community"?

Anybody who knows me knows that I am a statistician, and nobody has yet questioned my edits on surveys and sampling on Wikipedia (as far as I know).

Plenty of people have questioned your judgement on Wikipedia, and after the election results are posted you may better appreciate your standing in the community .

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not write what you said there, and I ask that you strike it, since you're writing as though you are directly quoting me. And I am not a candidate in the current election; I'm not sure why you would think that its results will reveal anything about my reputation. Risker (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote, I struck your name. I'll link this discussion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the quotation you have put on *this* page, and attributed to me, although I did not write it. Risker (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A question containing the words "didn't you write something like..." can hardly be misinterpreted as direct quotation.

I updated the page:

(e.g. for "bias" and lack of "competence" Risker— but see Risker's dissent from being cited updated21:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC))

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use the term "competence" either, nor imply lack of competence of any individual. Anything in quotation marks is assumed to be a direct quote. My issue is with the questionnaire, not with Beeblebrox, and I take offense at my comments about the questionnaire being used to attack another person. Neither you nor I like the questionnaire; however, I am not proposing that the existence of the questionnaire (which as far as I can see was heavily modified from Beeblebrox's original) be a reason for opposing Beeblebrox. Indeed, I do not understand why you would be modifying your voting guide long after the voting has ended. It's not being used to guide anyone's vote now. Would it not make sense for you to preserve your voting guide as it was at the time you voted (or at least at the time voting ended) and putting any additional reasoning on the talk page? Risker (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should re-read your statement, which did suggest that people consult with researchers competent in survey research.

I have stated a policy, several times, that I try to follow, of rectifying mistakes once I know about them.

In this case, I and other writers failed to discuss Beelbrox's "questionnaire", and I warned readers of that flaw, just as I had earlier warned readers of a failure to discuss the Featured-Article weirdness of the last year.

The history is available in the page history, and I've time-stamped changes, which is more than I am obligated to do. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The appropriate answers to almost all of the questions are "there is insufficient information to make a definitive response", or alternately "it depends on the context". The survey is almost entirely situationally based, it uses biased wording in multiple places, and it is excessively long. It is something made up that illustrates nothing more than that Wikipedians can make up an unscientific survey, and the intended use of the data ("a team of volunteers will review all submissions and attempt to create a concrete proposal for the community to review based on those results") biases the results in favour of the opinions of people who like to take long rambling unscientific surveys. It is not reflective in any way of the community, given that a very sizeable number of community members have posted to this page that they are not participating. Please don't make any proposals to the community based on the information given in response to this questionnaire. Even though WP:NOR is primarily intended to apply to article space, I'm pretty sure it would apply in this situation as well.

There are social scientists clamouring to study Wikipedia and its community; if we're going to do a study of their opinions on certain behaviours, it would be much more worthwhile to have a professional doing this. At least their process will have been reviewed by an independent advisory board in advance, and then their results subject to peer review before publishing. Risker (talk)

Key phrases, emboldened by Kiefer.Wolfowitz: The survey is almost entirely situationally based, it uses biased wording in multiple places, and it is excessively long. It is something made up that illustrates nothing more than that Wikipedians can make up an unscientific survey, and the intended use of the data ("a team of volunteers will review all submissions and attempt to create a concrete proposal for the community to review based on those results") biases the results in favour of the opinions of people who like to take long rambling unscientific surveys. It is not reflective in any way of the community, given that a very sizeable number of community members have posted to this page that they are not participating. Please don't make any proposals to the community based on the information given in response to this questionnaire. Even though WP:NOR is primarily intended to apply to article space, I'm pretty sure it would apply in this situation as well.

There are social scientists clamouring to study Wikipedia and its community; if we're going to do a study of their opinions on certain behaviours, it would be much more worthwhile to have a professional doing this. At least their process will have been reviewed by an independent advisory board in advance, and then their results subject to peer review before publishing.

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