Jump to content

User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 43

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45→Archive 47

Goodwill finding

Bucolic frolic

Given that it's over 40 years since I was called "Master", I am quite flattered, of course. But yes, it's probably just a crush. And thanks for you calming words. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I always wanted to be a "Baron"...Barons are always (it seems) known for plotting against the higher nobility...I was thinking Baron von MONGO has a nice appeal...MONGO 20:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I had a flashback to the Baron v. Harkonnen, but then I saw that v. stood for Vladimir. Whew! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Your flashback is correct...I don't have a zero-gravity suit but I am just as determined to rule over the known universe!...Baron von MONGO
Haha. I have nothing against barons and I have no beef with anyone who has due respect for nobility. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Martin!
It's natural to comment on the more interesting personalities here. Intelligent articulate personalities with quirks are part of the appeal of Wikipedia for me.... However, in the future, such discussions are best done by email.
Thanks for understanding my intentions. I'm glad that you are working on Dylan Thomas, etc. :)
@Baron von MONGO, I shall now think of you along with Baroness Thatcher! Have a good New Year! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I am very surprised to see you say that, as I was responding publicly to a public comment. A whole discussion in fact, involving "agricultural generalities". But you are quite right - we should have emailed each other. We wouldn't want to "lower the tone" of wikipedia to its "lowest common denominator", would we. Sincere apologies, if my retort has caused offence. My lawyers will only be too pleased to email you after the holiday, haha. Now, if only I can get Ian Rush into that Dylan Thomas article... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I was referring to an earlier conversation, in which you and a friend were going back and forth about Malleus, rather than later conversations. It seems to me the extended back and forth conversation would have been better by email or over a beer, even though most of it was written whimsically and with appropriate signs of respect, amid the better-private banter....
Malleus doesn't hold grudges, but he deserved a bit of a break from asides, even before today's latest snafu(s).
On MF's page, Giano badmouthed Methodists. There are several interesting books on the Welsh background in rebellions, from the 1300 hundreds onwards, including peasants' revolts, the English civil war, Methodism (originally Tory), Labour, etc.
Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
et prout vultis ut faciant vobis homines et vos facite illis similiter...from the now elevated from peasantry Sir Baron von --MONGO 23:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Goodness me, KW, as if we Welsh chapel lads ever drink beer! Yes, it can be unnerving to see oneself being discussed by a group of friends on another editor's Talk Page. I have found that one remedy is not to watch that Talk Page. We had been discussing the use of the terms "etymology" and "toponymy", I had to admit I rather agreed with Malleus. But you're right, he certainly doesn't bear a grudge - once he's insulted someone, he just moves on. I later discovered that, because I'm Welsh, I'm "a sheep-shagger". So it seems we are trading stereotypes here. Perhaps I'm the only editor who is reminded of a certain caricature in a popular British/Irish sitcom who has an urge to swear at everyone uncontrollably.
I have long been interested in the links between politics and non-conformism. Here's an old article by Eric Hobsbawm that recently re-surfaced and in which you might be interested [1], its called "Methodism and the Threat of Revolution in Britain". Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference. I shall have to read it with care. It certainly looked interesting. I remember liking Hobsbawm's NLR essay on Labour and its debt to smaller towns (an "Isaac Deutcher" (yuck!) lecture).
Hobsbawm and Thompson were the two most interesting former members of the Historians' Group of the British Communist Party. I liked particularly Hobsbawm's books on protorevolutionaries, Primitive Rebels and Bandits, which try to provide a background towards the study of rural insurgencies in China and Cuba/Colombia. A jazz enthusiast has often recommended Hobsbawm's jazz writings, but I've not even had time to read Stanley Crouch, whose Notes from a Hanging Judge is a great collection. (I can recommend Elmore Leonard's Bandits also.) His epochal histories seem popular in Sweden, but I've not read them.
Thompson was the only good kind of Communist, an ex-Communist. His Making of the English Working Class had some nasty things to say about Methodism, at least of its first 100 years. Thompson and H. L. Mencken were probably significant sources for the late great Christopher Hitchens; I prefer ex-Trots to ex-Stalinists, usually. ;) Thompson's Customs in Common is a great collection; one of its essays is a major source for Wife Selling, a significant pain in the ass to Malleus and company. ;) I think that its chapter on Rough Music probably has been read by Robert Fripp, who is writing a book with that title, if my memory is correct.
A few years ago it turned out that Christopher Hill was planning to sabotage British defenses to help Stalin's BF, Hitler, in early WWII.... There is a nice contrast between Hill's WWII activities and those of C. A. Patrides, who was often put down by Hill.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
As ever, KW, you are a true font of erudite knowledge and connection. Tell me - has subliminal Wikipedia re-mapped your neural pathways? (a constant source of concern and anxiety to my freethinking self). I am very surprised not to see E. P. Thompson linked in that article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Nadolig hapus

Martinevans123Santas Grotto wishes you and yours

"Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"

May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace ....

Gan ddumuno iechyd a hapusrwydd i chi yn 2013. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Diolch yn fawr, KW. Yr wyf yn dymuno yr un peth i chi! Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
יש לי פין גדול. (I try to use that sentence once a year. Use it or lose it.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Haha. So worth using Google translate for that one. Only once http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz&action=edit&section=19a year? you surprise me. But thanks for the tip, as it were. "Digrif gan bob aderyn ei lais ei hun."
Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
My room-mate told me that it meant, "Hello, I'm from the Midwest..., " or at least that was my cover story.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
rofl, haha, that's very good. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas amigo. Hey who'd have thought Joe Pascuale and Dennis Bergkamp were so scary at jazz? P.S. you'll have to start editing now Malleus has retired!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I cannot fill Malleus's editing shoes. Perhaps, in some small way, I help to fill the void in his much needed proctological predictor? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
A personal favourite: [2]. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The musicianship in this is incredible, world class, particularly the pianist at 3:00!!.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld
Quite agree. Seems he's Romanian, haha! Reminds me a lot of Stan Tracey. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dr. B.!
Andreas Oberg always throws me off, since he looks like a photo negative of Al Di Meola. ;) I wish he would butch it up more in style of dress or playing. (I suppose that I don't know enough music to appreciate what serious jazz-musicians do. I am glad that I now distinguish and identify the rhythm and lead guitars, much more than before (where I understood the difference between first and third clarinet.... I am trying to focus on getting better and uniform tone in my acoustic playing, qualities that are not associated with tattooed guitarists in guitar ads. Now I'm beginning to think that the ability to hear the common major keys)
Does Oberg ever play angry or unleash power? I want some Lou Reed, Neil Young, or 21st Century Schizoid Man power chords!
I have been trying to watch and think about that excellent video link you sent me before, about building chords in fourths. I am irritated by the error in Diophantine approximation with 12-tone equal temperaments with the major third. Ibanez has a partial 24-TET guitar for Arab music, but 24-TET doesn't improve the approximation.
I am wondering whether Robert Fripp builds chords in fifths in his new standard tuning, after reading an interview when he claimed that NST is better for chords: I should check his scores for Guitar Craft themes, or run through an audio file with the Tuner package for R (statistical computing), which can apparently classify keys. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Wishing you a very merry Christmas and a prosperous new year! FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


Happy holidays!

Happy Holidays!
From the frozen wasteland of Nebraska, USA! MONGO 12:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks MONGO! You, Elen, and David/WTT, and also Tim/Carrite are reminders of the power of reconciliation and charity. I should remember you all, as a constellation shining light in this dark season. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

AutomaticStrikeout

His number-one area of editing interest (from his first edits until this week) was always baseball; in particular, Detroit Tigers baseball. Anything is theoretically possible I suppose, but on its face that doesn't sound like a match with the people you've mentioned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I looked at his first archive, and was struck by his "I don't know who runs the main page" and the numerous statements that he is new, doesn't understand things, etc.
Discussing sock puppets "somewhat confused"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
RE
Re
Articles for deletion/Steve Nicholls discussion

Sockpuppet investigation/Morning277 is pertinent to understanding the discussion. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ) (cont) Join WER 15:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are saying, it looks to me like none of the alleged socks have participated in the Nicholls AfD. I don't entirely understand how sockpuppet investigations work and I'm somewhat confused by the one you linked, but why has Morning277 not been notified of this situation? AutomaticStrikeout 16:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Notification is not required for SPIs, for some very good reasons. It's polite to do so if you don't think they're going to then create more unknown socks before the SPI is done, but it's not required. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the explanation. Still, I'm a little bewildered as to what evidence there is to connect Morning277 to this. AutomaticStrikeout 16:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I moved the discussion here since I didn't think it appropriate to continue a discussion on Jimbo Wales talk page. How much detail do you want? Did you read the whole SPI? Do you want insight into technical evidence? I know general techniques and have used them on small networks; Wikimedia CheckUser automates a search for editors using multiple accounts for nefarious purposes.
A quick summary is that the Steve Nicholls article was turned down in AfC when submitted by User:Wenkai31. A few weeks later, User:Morning277 created a similar article using the image uploaded by User:Wenkai31. In both cases, the articles were promotional and lacked independent reliable sources. Although we can never know the details, CheckUser confirmed that the accounts originate from the same PC. Evidence linked 20 or more accounts with User:Morning277. If you want more detail, I'll try to answer any additional questions. This was my first SPI and I followed it pretty closely. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ) (cont) Join WER 19:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for explaining. I'm unfamiliar with a lot of the terminology used in SPI's, and Morning277 seemed like a very reputable editor. But, the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. It's of interest to me because I welcomed User:MalcomMarcomb11376 to the website, having no idea that he was a sock (and he, or Morning277, isn't admitting it). It's really almost stunning to see a user with a seemingly solid reputation go down as a sockmaster, but that's that. Thanks again for clarifying this. AutomaticStrikeout 19:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I was welcoming new editors, too. Looked at Bioengineer-Attorney contribs to perhaps personalize the invite with a comment. I was surprised to see two minor punctuation corrections and then a !vote in the CyberSafe deletion discussion. I read the article and agreed with the nominator; the article was purely promotional. Initially I figured the other Keep !votes were just good faith fly by editors who didn't read the article and check references but something didn't seem right so I checked contribs of Unhumba; the only edit was the Keep vote. Definitely NOT a newcomer's typical first edit. I suspected someone was trying to promote the article over valid deletes but didn't know what to do so I started reading. After an evening of learning about the darker side of Wikipedia, I put together my evidence as I saw it and initiated my first SockPuppet Investigation request.
I agonized for a bit over not assuming good faith. especially after the entry in the SPI by Bioengineer-Attorney.

Quite a warm welcome to a new Wikipedian! How about these facts. I am an atty. I am a BSE in engineering. How about you? In a court this is called a preponderance of the evidence in favor of defendant. All I've learned is that (1) new users are unwelcome, and (2) the protocol is to attack if someone disagrees. Noted. I don't want to wear out the welcome mat!Bioengineer+attorney (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Seeing the SPI Clerk concur and start the SPI was a relief. I was more relieved when I read:

Based on the large attempt to slant consensus and spread scrutiny, and the considerable amount of PR guff, I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate that we have have a paid COI editor here. WilliamH (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I initially didn't suspect User:MalcomMarcomb11376 but added that user account late. I learned the duck test and what people mean by 'ducky.'
Every time someone edits Wikipedia (or just about any other on-line site), their IP address and user agent are sent in the header of every packet. Most sites record both to help defend against hackers and vandals and to track down suspects, if necessary. CALEA requires many Internet companies to record the information. With a subpoena, law enforcement uses the stored info to track down terrorists and pedophiles, among others. From a practical standpoint, IP address+user agent are almost a fingerprint of a PC unless it is a pristine just-out-of-the-box machine. After downloading and installing updates, the user agent changes. To see yours, go to whatsmyuseragent.com.
Hope this isn't too much or annoying. I've needed to vent a bit since I started this. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ) (cont) Join WER 23:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Once again, thanks for explaining all this. My experience has been that most socks are not honest about their actions. AutomaticStrikeout 23:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Those statements (and his recent behavior!) remind me of MathewT, who apparently was created by Mattisse. (I censor my discussion of Saruman the White, etc.)
The issue of false positives and the justice of behavioral predictions (offender profiling) arise all the time. Sandy has a phenomenal memory and she can probably guess the proportion of false positives regarding Mattisse. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • LOL, hey Kiefer, all due respect, but you should probably keep your day job - sock hunting ain't your thing. One thing socks manage to do is poison the atmosphere by getting everyone to start suspecting everyone. That's a pretty unfair thing to accuse AS of doing; even though I'm sure it was meant to protect WP, an apology and/or retraction would be classy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    Do you have any information about false positives with the behavioral profile? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    No, I've only just read it, but if it's flagging AS then there's a big one right there. I knew MT was a sock back in October (diffs on request), but being unfamiliar with Matisse, I didn't know who's sock it was. But the fact that MT was setting off my sock radar, but I couldn't do anything about it, was very frustrating, so I've had an eye on its contribs for a while. AS isn't him. Not even close. Re-reading your comment on his page, I see you left yourself more wiggle room than I first thought, but (putting myself in his shoes) that would be a pretty maddening thing for someone to say to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    Reading the SPI reports besides the behavioral profile, I see that there have been many apparent false positives before, at least positives that were unsupported by check-user investigations.
    Thanks for your suggestion. Hahc21 removed my question, before I could strike it.
    I shall always try to have Wiggles room. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • As a friend of AutomaticStrikeout since the beginning, I'm sure this is nothing but just smoke. I shared a good amount of time with both AS and MT and they are not the same person. Not even close. I removed the comments as a courtesy to Strikeout. Please don't put them back. — ΛΧΣ21 00:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you asked

Yes, I have been accused of sockpuppetry before, but both accusations are without merit. Frankly, I wish somebody would run a checkuser, just to remove all doubt. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi AutomaticStrikeout! You can be sure that check-users were run; NW said that several check-users went over the evidence before the block was laid. Any sleepers would have been noted and blocked at that time. User talk:NuclearWarfare#MathewTownsend -- Dianna (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Changed my name to Sherlock Holmes

Well, I fin’ly started thinkin’ straight
When I run outa things to investigate
Couldn’t imagine doin’ anything else
So now I’m sittin’ home investigatin’ myself!
Hope I don’t find out anything . . . hmm, great God!]
— Bob Dylan, Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (January 2013)

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter
Volume IV, No. 1 – January 2013

For past newsletters click here

In This Issue


This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for the New Year!
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!

Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.

Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Jazzy blues

You play blues right? Whatever the 7th chord, say A7. Count up a 5th to E and play a backwards E dorian scale merged into an A blues scale phrasing. Sounds very cool, a lot like Wes Montgomery or Grant Green. If its A7 to D9 which is common you can then play A dorian mixed in with A blues over D9 and back to A 7 again. Reason E dorian works to well over A 7 is the minor third G is the 7th of the chord and also the raised 6th of the scale (C#) is the major third of the A. Check this out, trust me!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong Kiefer, did the Snowman steal your plectrums? I fear you and Dennis don't appreciate my often crude humour.... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies
I'm sorry for not replying. I did laugh when I read your Snowman blocking remark! :D
I also have neglected writing to Martin and on Ceoil's page.
New Year's is traditionally the biggest holiday celebration in Ukraine, and I'm spending time with the family. I'm very happy that I practice less and write less; I do wish that my daughter would schedule her needs in blocks, though! ;)
Music
Today, I took baby steps with GNU Lilypond. I'm unhappy with the png and roundabout svg files in the M3 tuning article. I want to export svg files from Lilypond. To create tabs and chord diagrams in M3 tuning, I need to program a bit: I next have to sudo (super user do)-up my tunings.ly file, because Lilypond produced nonsense with the civilian workaround for alternate tunings in its documentation :(
FYI, the command was sudo -e string-tunings-init.ly, which dropped me into the loathsome vi editor.
Plus, my knowledge of modes is slim---I know that one cycles through the standard scale, at a different start. I think that ear training and improvement will take another year before I can appreciate modes. I'll read what you wrote and write something sentient if not sensible in the next days. You might like to look at the
I am somewhat irritated by the ad-hockery of the harmonization in thirds of the major scales, the lack of symmetry of the whole and half-steps of major scales, etc. Maybe I should look at synthetic scales?
I am also bugged by the approximation error of major thirds in equal temperament (12tet and 24 tet). I suppose one could have a signal-processing unit that would recognize and repackage major thirds properly, with the quality of perfect fifths, or program a midi synthesizer. Perhaps pirates killing commercial music will lead to renewed folk instrumental-&-singing practice and to a new wave of computer composition---one doesn't need a symphony, anymore. It's not clear that it is rational for anybody to develop the level of guitar-playing of contemporary famous guitarists. Wouldn't more attention to composition and lyrics be healthy?
Wikipedia:
Today,I didn't check into Wikipedia, much, except to shake my head at the death eaters gallivanting across Wikipedia---starting perhaps on the 28th day? Most of the serious editors are taking a break, and too many dementers & wormtongues are accelerating cyclotronically; their cloud-of-verbiage chambers just waste electricity. Good that Texas cancelled its super collider. Well, I hear my patronus calling. :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I have a new thick tab book with tons of alt tunings in it including major third! Have a great new year anyway! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Have you considered using a chord generator? I mention three in my pdf file on M3 tunings.
It would be good to find another source for the comment that beginners focus on major--minor chords and dominant sevenths, or to find a discussion of alternative tunings and chords. Maybe your new book has some analysis? It has been difficult to write guitar chords while avoiding OR. Guitarists don't seem to be musical theorists---a rather strange bunch. Two friends told me that their dad was a music professor and semiotician, and he would groan when a new student would want to make an appointment, "Oh, not another personn wanting to talk about Schoenberg!" Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

New Standard Tuning and Major thirds: Equal Temperament versus just intonation

As I wrote before, your video on harmonization in fourths was very stimulating.

I happened to read an old interview with Fripp when Guitar Craft was new and new standard tuning (NST) was still private. He said that NST made intervals and chords more "rational", perhaps alluding to Diophantine approximation as a private joke? Then he said he built his chords on perfect octaves, perfect fifths, and fourths (bleh). He said he dislikes major and minor thirds, presumably because of the error in comparison to just intonaton. I have to read the scores of the Guitar Craft themes and consider the intervals.

I had not understood that he was breaking with tertian harmony. Worth another listen!

BTW, Fripp was on BBC talking about his uncle, Alfie Fripp, who was the last survivor of the Great-Escape POW camp. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

request

Kiefer, it's time to drop the Aruba thing. There are people who just don't know the history, and that's fine ... Wehwalt and I would both like to not revisit old grudges, and you bringing that up isn't helping. Mark Arsten will probably continue on the track he's on, but let that work itself out. Should the issues persist, that is when one examines the facts, but while we are both trying to move on, there is no point in showing Arsten's lack of knowledge or repeatedly bringing up these issues. I am grateful that you acknowledge the brutality and cruelty of the things said to me, and have defended me, but I'm a big girl, and I can move on. Let's do! It's a New Year, best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, just wondering, now that Ed has tweaked the article to somewhat correct the (mis)impression, do you suppose you might consider capping off the Aruba business on that page? Ed seems young and naive but eager and well intentioned, and I believe he is at least trying to try ... putting the Aruba stuff there is really giving Arsten's issues more prominence than they deserve, and it's not fair to either the FA processes or to Wehwalt or me, since it is old history. If it repeats and becomes a pattern with Arsten, then I'd agree with you ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I am too tired to reply properly now, but I did hat what could be hatted. Let us wish that better self-control and resolution to deal with sexism should allow the Aruba incident not to be mentioned again. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
thank you for doing that, Kiefer ... and I do understand and appreciate the principled stand you took on the substance of the matter, but letting it go is best for all of us now. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

Re: Alfie Fripp (RIP): DYK nomination

Thank you for your help and the DYK update/nom! — WylieCoyote 01:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. You did the heavy lifting! Have you had a DYK before? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Nope, I've only been a 'pedian for about 14 months, working on mainly TV/film articles and saw Alfie at Deaths in 2013. The rest is DYK history. — WylieCoyote 16:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
That's great! I trust that you shall keep calm about this. The Americans carry on so! ;) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Momentary uppityness. It will pass...until it wins the nom! — WylieCoyote 17:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sock question

Hi KW. Rather than clutter the AN/I thread, I thought I would ask here, if that's OK. Are you concerned that User:Hahc21 might be a sock? Or do I misunderstand your comment? 28bytes (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Innocent youth should choose their friends wisely, and avoid hanging out with one of Mattisse's socks---who liked to organize GA writers as a power base for administratorship and attacking FA-editors, make automated edits for an hour a day, and ask passive-aggressive questions (until the id broke through the super-ego), etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah. 28bytes (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
C.f.

Hey!

Hey! I just wanted you to know that I found your lost brother! Or is it your father? or son maybe? :P — ΛΧΣ21 02:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

One of us may be related to The Big Bang Wolfowitz, whose girlfriend is a blonde geneticist. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guitar tunings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Third (music) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Your comments on hyphens / Black Kite / Bwilkins

LittleBen (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this a fortune cookie? :D
I made a comment about hyphens at the ArbCom case, trying to spread good humor.
I wrote of Black Kite and TParis as examples of honorable administrators, in response to excessive criticism of the class of administrators, but I restrained myself from posting the comment to a discussion that already had enough oligarchs. Have you been conducting surveillance? ;p
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your quote, "If you take hyphens seriously, you will surely go mad," and the link in the discussion. Alanscottwalker comments that "ramming consensus down throats (is not a good thing)", and "Guidelines have built-in flexibility, more so than policy" (so are preferable). Newyorkbrad's 2011 comments are also sensible. As others point out, it's not a "one size fits all" thing in the real world. Airports—for example—are free to choose names without hyphens or dashes, and it's surely not Wikipedia's job to "correct" names that are "wrong, because MOS says so"—or to rewrite history, for that matter.
  • I have had problems with Black Kite / Bwilkins. I started an RfC that was perfectly civil and rational until SMcCandlish came along and started hurling insults and repeatedly rewriting my comments—bully and bait tactics—then he apparently requested his crony Black Kite to shut down discussion and block my account (including my talk page). Black Kite refused to justify his reasons for shutting down the RfC, and then Bwilkins blocked me again (again without apparently giving any reasons). As mentioned in the third paragraph of my submission, several people protested the lack of due process.
  • I had started the RfC when I noticed HandsomeFella apparently canvassing a mob to threaten Fyunck and completely strip the majority English version of the name from the article (including the lede). (MakeSense64 had already "retired" due to similar repeated harassment). The RfC was to suggest that basic Internet research surely shows that both versions of names are justified (NPOV etc). A little NPOV research should reduce or eliminate edit warring. LittleBen (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I have seen BWilkins before, but he has not been so good or so bad that he I remembered anything specific. He does seem to block a lot, like Sarek, and such experiences probably coarsen/harden administrators, and allowances should be made. (Sarek does so much work, and his errors are at least predictable and bounded, so that many allowances should be made.) When BWilkins pontificates about civility, he has not appeared to remember his insults or domineering of other editors; perhaps such episodes are rare, and all of us have selective memories....
    In my case, I had wished that he would have stated something like "I misunderstood what you had written and regret some misrepresentations, the heat of which was generated by our obligation for fairness, and I trust we shall try to be more amiable in the future"---no drama, just responsibility.
    In my experience, Black Kite is unusually resilient and mature. He wrote a facepalm, which I thought was the "talk to the hand" contemptuous insult of punks and I verbally slapped him. He was utterly calm and understood why I was upset and accepted my apologies.
    You can see his replies above, where he seems pained by split between the political realities of WP and what is right. Is there any chance that even if Black Kite made a mistake, you nonetheless could learn something from his criticism? (As Django Rheinhardt and Jerry Garcia would say, when I point a finger at you I have 2-3 pointing at me?)
    I'll have to look at the RfC you mentioned. It does sound strange. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The RfC is in Archive 35 of WT:BLP. You'll see the comments there from other users as to why the RfC was non-useful. There's also a link to the previous RfC which it duplicated which is in Archive 34. I blocked LittleBenW for edit-warring, nothing else. I have no idea why he thinks SMcCandlish is my "crony" because I can't remember ever having interacted with him before in any meaningful way. though having said that it does appear that LittleBen's modus operandi appears to be incivility anyone who disagrees with him, so I should hardly be surprised I suppose. Black Kite (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, BK!
I looked at the RfC, but I have a headache and I cannot give it a proper reading. I write articles based on the highest quality reliable sources I can find. In my experience and Ibsen's, the majority is always wrong! ;) We have a disagreement, which I worry may be that you misunderstand policy. We don't go by majority of a Google search, or even trying to fairly sample a few good reliable sources: We go by the highest quality reliable sources.
It seems that the specific problem was that you were using a specific POV-sounding phrase in many articles, something like "majority of sources refer to as (without diacritics)", and such a claim could only be established by an intellectually deadening sampling of a non-existent sample frame. It would have been much better to simply ensure that standard spellings are located, somewhere in the article.
There was a case of a person trying to remove diacritics as non-English. Of course diacritics are declining, but I will fight to my last breath to keep Blake's "and the hills echoe'd" in English---which really is the Esperanto of reality, a complete mix of Germanic, Scandinavian, French, Celtic, etc. languages. I am glad that your position was more nuanced than the "death to diacritics" campaign!
Again, I've a headache, and I have probably done you an injustice. I shall try to read again and do you justice. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, yeah, I think you've misread me - I don't have a position on diacritics at all, and have never been involved in any of the RfCs or other discussions. All I did was (a) block LittleBen for returning to the same edit-warring as he'd just been blocked for, and (b) close his RfC which had been generally agreed was duplicative of the previous one (he'd also been forum-shopping the whole thing across other noticeboards). Ironically, if you did press me for a position on it, I actually agree with many of the points he made, but consensus appears not to :) Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I aimed my message for LittleBen, not you. I just wanted to thank you for the diff. Sorry for the confusion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Duh. I should've realised that. Long day at work! Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

When the voices of children are heard on the green,
And laughing is heard on the hill,
My heart is at rest within my breast,
And everything else is still.

‘Then come home, my children, the sun is gone down,
And the dews of night arise;
Come, come leave off play, and let us away
Till the morning appears in the skies.’

‘No, no, let us play, for it is yet day,
And we cannot go to sleep;
Besides, in the sky the little birds fly,
And the hills are all cover'd with sheep.’

‘Well, well, go and play till the light fades away,
And then go home to bed.’
The little ones leapèd, and shoutèd, and laugh'd
And all the hills echoèd.

A holiday story

Ötzi the Iceman half uncovered, face down in a pool of water with iced banks
Ötzi the Iceman ran afoul of the community.

diffs to be added

The Sven thing?

Ötzi did use arrows from dogwood, which was the source for The Cross, according to a Christian legend.

(Corrected misspelling of "liar"---"lier"; moved obviously misplaced reply; clarified misunderstanding. 23:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC))

Administrator 1: AN present or RfA past?

Can't you just let it drop now, dude? It must be pretty obvious that absolutely nothing constructive is going to come out of it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I should think that a number of administrators should want to say that a more mellow approach would have been appropriate. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, if they do, they're perfectly capable of reopening it and saying so themselves. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
A close template is not to be used to silence discussion. Why are you so afraid to do something else, and why do you feel a need to flex an archive template, especially a combined archive and collapse cover-up template (But that cover-up was by Bbb23 20:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC))? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
You really are just being provocative and disruptive now, so I'll just leave you with this small gift and will bid you goodnight. (And I really would urge you to do yourself a favor and not get yourself blocked over this) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, my advice came too late. But goodnight all the same. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I would appreciate your striking your asinine "fighting head on" from AN. The problem is an abuse of the close template when there are outstanding issues and editors only checking in irregularly. Why not leave the discussion open? Who is adding heresies that must be stopped beforehand? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Administrator 2: AN present and ANI future

It's no easier for Kiefer.Wolfowitz to recognize whether he's little piggie 1, 2 or 3 than it is for contestants to solve the Monty Hall problem.
I've re-closed. GiantSnowman 17:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I am able to read page histories. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Bully for you. I've reclosed for the last time - if I have to do it again I will block you, understand? You are becoming disruptive. GiantSnowman 18:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary. You are threatening to block me rather than engage in discussion. Huff and puff all you want.
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing at AN. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

GiantSnowman 18:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are using your block button rather than discussion. I asked the question, why you need to close immediately? If you close a discussion, you put the template that the discussion should not be reopened. Therefore Boing's earlier explanation was bullshit, and you haven't given one. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean "again", I've never blocked you before. You continued to edit disruptively while a discussion was ongoing. GiantSnowman 18:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Read what I wrote, please, before and after your block. Think about "before and after" if you want to understand "again". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Class distinctions in Wikipedia discourse: Gimmetoo and Administrator Giant Snowman

Dialectics of master and servant

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.

Explain your actions

You reverted KW now 3 times, and you blocked him. Why should you not be blocked immediately for edit warring and administrative misconduct? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Multiple admins closed a discussion, Kiefer re-opened it for drama multiple times. He was warned, took no heed, and got blocked. I stand by my actions. GiantSnowman 18:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Not an answer. Why should you not be blocked? You don't make a controversial block and then say you're leaving in a few minutes. [3] Gimmetoo (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes an answer. Why should I be blocked? Would you prefer I left without anybody knowing? GiantSnowman 18:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
You appear to have engaged in edit warring and disruption, followed by administrative misconduct. "Multiple" admins closed it? Yeah, it looks like 2, including you. Perhaps if you had not been edit warring, another admin would have supported KW? Now, why should you not be blocked? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
You seem to forget that blocking is preventative, not punitive. Please stop throwing around terms like "misconduct" when three other admins have supported the block, and zero have raised an issue. You would be better off questioning why Kiefer has had talk page access removed, as opposed to why he has been blocked - surely more severe? Have a merry Christmas. GiantSnowman 10:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, blocks are preventative. You were revert warring, and on-wiki comments indicate that you intended to continue revert warring. Indeed, it would appear the only reason you stopped is because you blocked the user you were edit warring with. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Nope, I was reverting a disruptive editor - an important difference. GiantSnowman 15:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Or, one could say KW was reverting your disruption. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
One could say that - but one would be wrong ;) GiantSnowman 15:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
You were the one edit-warring to close a discussion. If you really thought it was "necessary" to block KW, there was no need for you to do it, as there are numerous admins around ANI. You were not blocked this time. Let this be your warning. If you ever act in such a disreputable way again, you may be blocked without further warning or notice; You should know better. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Warn me all you want, my actions were supported by numerous other admins. If there had been anything wrong with the block it would have been undone (it wasn't) or I would have been warned by somebody other than yourself (I haven't) - in fact you're the only one to see any issue with it enough to rant on my talk page. Maybe that's a sign? GiantSnowman 21:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
It may be a sign that others have a less charitable but more precise estimation of the worth of engaging you in discussion at least on this matter. Perhaps it's a blessing that you used your block button rather than tried to discuss your whims?
No doubt other administrators regard you as a paragon of virtue, and look down on Black Kite, etc.? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid not Kiefer - admins have to be held to account, and I am no exception. If I had acted in an inappropriate manner then I would expect - and want - to be told so, so I didn't repeat my actions in future. Rather than assuming I'm in the wrong, why not consider the possibility that you were in fact wrong? Oh and for what it's worth I disagreed with the talk page access removal, but I'm sure you'll find that neither here nor there. I don't think any good is going to come over re-hashing this incident again and again, so I suggest all 3 of us drop this, enjoy the rest of the holidays, and continue with our respective good work here. Regards, GiantSnowman 10:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Note
From an AN/I discussion. KW

Wanted to drop a note. Sorry I forgot to tell you you got mentioned. I think you were wronged by Snowman and the consequent snowball effect, and I'm sympathetic to how it makes you feel. Is there anything I can do to help? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I am glad that you asked some questions of Snowman. For my part, I am sorry that he began or ended (or both) his curt responses with a little put-down instead of treating you with the respect due all editors. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Involvement of administrator Giant Snowman

More diffs to come. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Administrator 3: ANI present

A couple of things. First, I endorse the block. Your behavior has been stubborn and disruptive. You even tried to spill it over onto my talk page, and I reverted your attempt. Second, if you want to discuss the broader issue of the interrelationship between IRC and RfAs, why not raise it after the current RfA is over, and as an overall policy issue rather than referencing a particular editor?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23,
You don't understand the policy WP:Disruptive editing.
You had already had a discussion on your talk page, which I joined. If you enjoy drama you can imagine you were doing something interesting in reverting my note.
I am not discussing IRC and RfAs, so you have other misunderstandings.
The point of contention is whether an editor can use the close template to stop further discussion. You should review the directions for use of that template. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Golly, the block was supported by Wehwalt, who just suggested "grabbing a beer and a woman" from a country where a woman was disappeared (and presumed murdered)
Wehwalt's joke about a murdered woman (Natalee Holloway) to put a female editor (User:SandyGeorgia) in her place is okay at Wikipedia.

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.

Come on Ed, let's grab a Heineken and an Aruban girl each and get out of here. Oh, Sandy? I unwatchlisted TFA/R, not Nixon ... I rewatchlisted it, before you start calculating .... WOOHOO ARUBA!--Wehwalt (talk) 9:33 pm, 13 December 2012, Thursday (11 days ago) (UTC+1)
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.
and who thinks that "cocksucker" is an everyday pleasantry. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Administrator 4: A wiseman

  • Without comment on this current disagreement, I will say that it doesn't matter what a template's directions say is or isn't appropriate use, since they aren't policy. Sometimes I will close a discussion to prevent further drama when the issue is essentially settled and any new discussion will just be a rehashing of old comments. Policy supports doing so by non-admin or admin for these purposes as there is no bar to doing so that I'm aware of. Sometimes, it is better to just let things go once the outcome is certain. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
    Perhaps you can remove the misleading directions to avoid reopening a closed discussion, or better, since AN/I is not yet ready for Vatican II, add some scary language warning commoners not to question the authority of administrators?
    You are insinuating that I was continuing to discuss a topic on which consensus had been reached. In fact, I had not continued that discussion. The point of contention was the misuse of the template. (In fact, I had tried to moderate some comments, with success, and focus attention on outstanding issues, with less success, but pearls before swine....)
    Editor SM had suggested that persons may come forward with accounts of their experiences, and had noted 5 emails being sent. Wouldn't the open discussion at AN be the best place on Wikipedia for them? Perhaps you can add a suggestion that anybody concerned about sexual harassment on Wikipedia (or in regards to Wikipedia sponsored fora) may contact _____? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
    I wasn't trying to insinuate, which is why I was limiting to the one point about hatting/arch'ing in general. I haven't dug into every detail deep enough to take a stand here. As far as who should be contacted in the event of sexual harassment, User:SarahStierch would be the best admin to ask for what resources we have to deal with that, as she works with women's issues more than anyone else I know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
    I would not suggest discussing concerns about such matters with a haphazardly chosen member of ArbCom or the whole committee. I would suggest User:Elen of the Roads as an administrator with gravitas and with real-life management responsibilities. Presumably at least one of the lawyers on ArbCom is a partner and has real-life management experience, I would guess. I think User:Kaldari is serious and knowledgeable about such issues, also. I would spare Sarah the ordeal of dealing with a concern in this matter.
    Sorry for my delay in replying. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    Hi Dennis! Thanks for replying. Your statement "Sometimes, it is better to just let things go once the outcome is certain" suggests that I was not letting things go. I was blocked for reverting a premature close of a discussion, which used a template with misleading language, apparently. Please strike that statement or revise it if your intention is different. Or provide diffs. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
    It was still a general comment, why we sometimes archive, to just get people to just let it go once the outcome is certain, but I've struck it as a courtesy as I don't want to antagonize the situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Administrator 1: RfA and AN past, and ANI present

Administrator 4: Another wiseman

Hi Kiefer, I think we've generally been on good terms, and I hope we will be able to remain that way. I'm sorry to see that your Christmas eve has turned out this way. I only have a few minutes before I leave for a celebration myself, but I want to quickly comment on something: I'm very unhappy to see your attack on Wehwalt. I think you're completely misinterpreting his comment. "[grabbing] an Aruban girl" doesn't seem to me to imply "[murdering] an Aruban girl" at all. Since Wehwalt has vacationed in Aruba in the past and has seen the women there I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that he found them attractive enough to grab a beer with. That seems to me to be the most likely intent of his statement, particularly since the girl who was murdered was not Aruban. To assume the most nefarious possible meaning seems very wrong to me. In the interest of holiday cheer, would you please assume good faith on Wehwalt's part? Thanks and merry Christmas, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
It does not imply that he wanted to murder an Aruban girl. He was rubbing Sandy's face in shit, to show that he can treat her like shit. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
C.f., SG's comment. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
This is not the first time I've dealt with well-meaning men (i.e. you and perhaps Snowman or Boing, at least on another night) who are clueless about sexism seem to be inexperienced with how such allegations are treated in organizations (updated Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)). You might look at the previous discussions on "crying into her table cloth", "have balls", etc. One of the reasons I trust Sven is that (after the "have balls" discussion) he saw the light after a few hours; another honorable man saw the light that "crying into her table cloth" and "courting the Wikipedia fraternity" were problematic somewhat later, but did the right thing, by his own volition. (21:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC))
Perhaps I have more experience in these matters, and it should be obvious why one does not leave even the appearance of a rush to hush up an allegation, even if it is a misunderstanding.(mis- added, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)) ("even the" added for emphasis, like italics 21:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC))
It's also the case that Pesky is right that I have trouble dealing with you all. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Adminstrator 5: A third wiseman

I haven't read the entire context of it, but one random comment I have is this: Sandy and Wehwalt have been going at it for the last several months now. That's why ArbCom really should have taken that case I filed, but alas... --Rschen7754 00:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
You are right about a lot of things, Rschen. Wehwalt is the primary author of the article about the murdered young woman, murdered in Aruba. There was no accident about the Aruba allusion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Aruba discussion more Aruba

Enter the comedian, (not The Comedian)

Does anybody see the irony in being blocked by a giant snowman at Christmas time. Hahaaaa!!! Enjoy Christmas Kiefer!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Administrator 1: ANI present

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (I know I'm "banished", but I have no choice - I'm obliged to inform you. If you comment here with a Helpme template, I'm sure someone will copy it across to ANI for you) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you heard of "I didn't hear that"? Do you need it linked?
I have contested your and other administrators leaving the appearance of rushing to close and cover up an allegation concern about possible sexual-harassment, with some others already having commented that the treatment of Sven looked over the top. (21:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)) This is an extremely unhealthy appearance, in any organization, and especially one with 100 thousand or more editors, particularly where there has been lip service about the treatment of women and new editors.
I have repeatedly clarified that I know nothing about the case. I have linked free logic and used the word alleged, and yet you and others keep repeating the big lie that I am pushing an allegation of sexual harassment.
You The repetition of the charge that I am alleging sexual harassment (21:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)) makes me so tired. Maybe somebody else can explain this distinction to you and your ilk. I give up. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Administrator 6: The fourth wiseman---"It's Chinatown"

Hi Kiefer, this is probably a good time to drop this one. Seriously, I know how it appears from your end, but it's probably best if you let it go. Otherwise - meh - usual drama. Merry Xmas. Black Kite (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how they can fail to see such caveats as in this edit at AN. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Not the point, as ever it shall be in this cesspit. The point is not giving others an excuse to silence you, which it could be argued you were doing. Black Kite (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Example of Kiefer.Wolfowitz engaging in disruptive editing and pushing an allegation of sexual harassment---sarcasm

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.

Can we try to tone down the rhetoric, please? I'd like to assume that it could be a misunderstanding or a one-time incident, whether at a meeting or at IRC. The concern would be repeated behavior. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 4:46 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)

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.
Administrator 7

Kiefer, I've just removed your ability to edit this talk page for the duration of your current block (eg, until 18:26, 26 December 2012) for the above series of personal attacks. Nick-D (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Nick-D,
You failed to document your allegation with diffs, and your sloppy administration was already criticized at ANI. You have failed to respond to that criticism or provide diffs.
Your removal of talk page access was also criticized, and you have failed to respond to any criticisms.
You also messed up the block-log also, extending it 48 hours.
As an administrator you are required to give a timely response to questions about your actions. Please respond ASAP.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
From Nick-D's talk page

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.

Nick-D
There were criticisms of your use of administrative tools at ANI, to which you have failed to respond. Please do so at my talk page, since ANI has been redacted. Also, please provide diffs to support your allegations, fulfilling your obligation and responding to one criticism of your failure to document your tool use.
Have you done anything about the sexist baiting by Wehwalt? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I took part in the discussion at ANI at the time and there was also endorsement of my decision there by several editors, so I don't think that I need to explain myself on your talk page as you're demanding here (and there). I provided a explanation of why I turned off your talk page access at the time on your talk page and at ANI (where the editor who lodged the report provided diffs as part of their initial posts), so I'm not sure why you're now demanding that I produce diffs (if it helps, these are the main edits in question: [6] (including edit summary), [7], [8] (edit summary) and [9], but the broader issue as noted in my message on your talk page and at ANI was that you were using your talk page to continue to carry on the dispute for which you had been blocked, including by making serious personal attacks on various people). I endorse TP's suggestion on your talk page that you give these issues a rest, as your approach to them is counter-productive at present. Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You again show misunderstanding of the block, which was for reverting an edit-warring administrator's misuse of a close template to stop discussion, when the administrator failed to discuss the contested closure.

Violating WP:Involved, Giant Snowman blocked me for reverting his edit-warring and misuse of the close-template, to stop discussion, without even responding once to my concerns. Did he tell you that he had filed a false declaration as a blocking administrator? Why did you accuse Giant Snowman of having a hidden agenda (involving an allegation of disruption) when he blocked me?

Regarding the diffs you cite, they are responding to falsehoods. An accusation that is not supported by diffs violates WP:NPA and the 9th Commandment, which prohibits giving false witness. I had explained repeatedly why the accusations were false, and Boing has apologized for not understanding what I had written earlier and for continuing mis-statements. I can understand Boing making a mistake, and I also admire him owning up to it and making amends. What I cannot understand is your failure to acknowledge your mistakes and failure to own up to your abuse of administrative tools. Why did you not block Boing for violating WP:NPA, before he corrected himself? Why did you just remove TPA for me and not even warn Boing and the others from violating WP:NPA?

You also failed to respond to Black Kite's question. Why did you disrupt him and other administrators from discussing the problems? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Administrator 6: Not back to our regularly scheduled programming

Censorship still sucks

I protest the termination of Kiefer.Wolfowitz's ability to edit this page over the above. I see nothing there that merits such draconian action. If you don't like what he has to say, don't read it. This is his talk page and he should have the right to speak. Shutting down talk page access is a thuggish bully-boy tactic. Carrite (talk)

I respect Kiefer's ability to back up what he writes. I also respect that he is a careful reader and writer. But per Carrite, brutish bullying trumps all at WP. (To claim that the difference between calling attention to inappropriate/undesirable comments, and a sexual harrassment charge, are the same, with one being just a "weasel word" variation of the other, is absurd and throws the idea that language means anything out the window [and if we are going to do that, then why not revert to prehistoric time?: stop all written communication, replace with grunts, go around knocking each other silly with clubs]. Lack of care in reading and writing is no different from dispensing with language altogether, the result is the same, power and abuse of power takes over.) I saw somewhere an editor (Admin?) also play with language suggesting Kiefer had "gone over the edge" or some-such euphemism for psychologic instability, and am wondering how that kind of unqualified insult passes the NPA test? Overall it's become clear there's a grand dumbing-down at WP (didn't you know thinking is old-fashioned now? you do'nah have to do that when you can simply template something nifty like WP:BOOMERANG, which is a lot less trouble and painful than thinking too!) in pursuit of ill-defined "civility". This mixed with Admin push-button power is simply pushing intelligent folk out the door. The place needs to "grow the fuck up" and learn to recognize who are the sincere encyclopedia builders versus who are here for their own egos including position and/or exercising power over others. (I'm not the first to observe that many power-flexing Admins carry a unconcealed contempt for creative content contributors. I'm sure jealousy wouldn't enter into it at all, no. Nor would exercising superiority via an arresting block or Talk page gag provide any self-satisfaction either, of course not. Because all our admins are perfect professionals and don't possess any such personal shortcomings. Which is why when an editor is blocked, he or she will remain blocked unless he or she fesses up that he or she understands how he or she screwed up, since our Admins never do.) Seriously, is this gradeschool, or what?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Damage report

"You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Well, who the hell else are you talkin' to? You talkin' to me? Well, I'm the only one here. Who the fuck do you think you're talkin' to?"

I can edit. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

But you got blocked by a snowman at Christmas!!! [10]♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Beware of snowmen. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

December 2012

Bwilkins unsubstantiated allegations and misuse of administrative tools

A dish of cranberries would have been better at Xmas.
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer, a lot of people went to bat for you to ensure this block ended peacefully. Coming out swinging once it was over is an insult to those who support you. You KNOW there are correct ways to complain about blocks, but attacks are not the way - ever (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's have some diffs, so we know what you are alleging. The ANI policy is to alert persons of discussions, so that we have the right to respond. What was I disrupting, other than your campaign of intimidation? Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Reserved: Space for Bwilkins to reply.
Bwilkins dismissed another request for Bwilkins to account for his use of administrative tools. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Reserved: Space for Bwilkins to reply.
Important note

Kiefer, I have been advised that you're currently looking for me to respond to something - I will not be doing so. I have no desire to further engage with you. Every aspect from the ANI report to the RFA discussion has been replied to appropriately, linked as needed, and I have ensured I addressed everything. I will not be repeating any of it, and as you're very wrong in your analysis, I find your snapehunt against me to be extremely uncivil. I am not watching this talkpage, nor will I make further replies. I find it odd that our previous good working relationship has been undone by your unbelievable misreading of my comments, but as I do not come to Wikipedia for "friendship", I honestly could care less - you clearly have no understanding about me, my family history, or anything surrounding the topic of which I know quite well. All the best as you move forward (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously we disagree. You are now claiming that I'm engaged in an "uncivil" "snapehunt"? Is that conscious or unconscious irony?
Show me one diff where you protested against abuse directed at me at ANI or AN, or apologized for your allegations or your indefinite blocking.
As I stated above, the diffs and quotations to rebut your mis-statements shall follow according to my time constraints. Get busy with revert deleting or asking oversight to hide something properly. A continuation of removing diffs from this record shall look like an improper cover-up of administrator abuse, even more plainly.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Why would I apologize? The block was an unfortunate neccessity and was upheld in ANI. Even TParis said it was an appropriate overall. Indefinite means "until the community is convinced the behaviour won't recur" - and when you convinced TParis it would not recur, the block was lifted. It was not lifted because there was any type of consensus about anyone abusing their tools, because such a consensus never existed. This mistaken belief seems to be the root of your misplaced anger towards me.
Now, you seem to be making even more serious accusations that I'm somehow RevDel'ing or asking for Oversight of links/diffs in order to cover something up. I have nothing to cover up. I will ask you to back up this serious accusation, or retract it ASAP. (✉→BWilkins←✎)
Bwilkins, the next time you begin a sentence with "you seem to be", you might remember this moment where you wrote before thinking or reading. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer, you stated "Get busy with revert deleting or asking oversight to hide something properly. A continuation of removing diffs from this record shall look like an improper cover-up of administrator abuse, even more plainly" in a section that's labelled to be exclusively about me, so it's clearly an accusation towards me. So, provide an ounce of proof, or remove it. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
BWilkins,
You gave the section's title, and put it in a bad section. I put the section next to where I had requested your response. Good that you found the appropriate section finally.
TParis has removed diffs here and at ANI. Perhaps others have also.
Think and read before responding, please. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Refreshing memories of BWilkins's Involvement

For example, (among others) this quotation of BWilkins's incivility and falsehood was removed from this page by TParis:

More Bon mots to come. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion with a mature administrator

Kiefer, I am on IRC right now.--v/r - TP 22:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I really do not want to spend much time on this. This is absurd, and it is really not worth your time. Also, it is late, and my baby girl needs me.
I think Kaldari should come here and say, "Kiefer.Wolfowitz should not have written 'young men clueless about sexism', but you all have behaved contrary to the policies of every organization I know. You have really fucked up, and you all need to back away, and think about what kind of message you are sending." Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not trying to take time away from your little girl, and I don't know Kaldari or what Xe'll say, but Kiefer, if you didn't want to spend much time on this then why engage on the retaliation and ask for 36 hours to do it? I feel you honestly feel your concern is valid and you should be afforded appropriate oppertunities for recourse, but the posts on ANI just now were not going to accomplish that goal. You're a smart guy and I think that strategic silence would've been a useful tool in your arsenal. If you are getting off for the night, then this is what I'll do for you: If you give me your word that you will not engage in the retaliation anymore and you'll focus on resolving the sexism issue specifically (using something like the diffs below) then I'll unblock you now.--v/r - TP 22:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I feel it is important to answer concerns, and to ask persons to remove personal attacks or at least to provide diffs. I asked for 36 hours because I edit intermittently, typically for a few minutes (thus my spelling).
I will not write at ANI tonight. I shall look at what I have just written, admittedly hurriedly and in irritation at ANI, and strike anything contrary to policy. "Adults" wasn't the best wordchoice, but what to do, after I was described as a naughty child "will do what is expected of him"....
(Will BWilkins apologize for his "the only thing you have to do is shut up", "on a rampage", etc.) I have a right to respond to abuse at ANI and elsewhere. I am going to provide the diffs of what I said versus what Boing misrepresented. I shall also provide the diffs of him repeating "lie" thrice against Sven, quoting him below his complaints about my use of "lie", and I shall quote his falsehoods.)
My question is what has been done about the misogynistic "grab a beer and Arbuan girl" on Sandy's talk page? Has anybody asked Wehwalt to promise anything.
You don't need to unblock me. In some ways, it is better for BWilkins of (Redacted), to pay the price for indefinitely blocking me. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and unblock. I've not said you didn't have a right to respond, I did say strategic silence (biding your time), but you do not have a right to retaliate. Go over the recent discussions at ANI, see if I've presented your argument correctly, and consider letting the issues not related to your concern roll off the sleeve in the interest of achieving the most important of your goals: ensuring that sexual harassment is not overlooked and shoved under the rug. As far as Wehwelt, I've made it a policy not to take actions when I am given an ultimatum of sorts. It's a personal policy not to allow my hand to be forced. Perhaps engaging with someone on that topic or AN. Sandy is a smart girl though, and she's tough, she can handle her business.--v/r - TP 23:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Regarding W's misogynistic attack against SG
Sandy had this to say today, when she broke her silence.

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.

"I can't take you seriously when you reprimand me for a "tsk, tsk" after the kinds of posts that are dished in my direction. Honestly, I sometimes do wonder if this place isn't just horribly misogynistic, especially after some of the discussion I observed last week ... that for some reason you folks think it's OK for men to say the most horrid things to women, but when women give it back and don't take it sitting down anymore, we get reprimanded and told "we've changed". You betcha ... this place hardens even a good ole AGFer like me. The assault on FAC has lasted at least since 2009 now, always socks, always users returning with a grudge ... what has been your part, as an admin, in stopping that? How many times did you go to an offender's talk page with the same concerns you come to my talk with? I did not take it "suspiciously"; I am asking you when you level these unfounded claims at me in the future, to include a diff and to apply the same standard to the offenders. Sure, I never woulda told someone to "kiss my ass" six months ago or a year ago or two years ago ... but then I never thought I'd put up a retirement tag over admin abuse or see the day where socks and sock enablers were valued over content contributors, where the arbs won't help us, where admins block good contributors while rushing to defend socks and their enablers, and admins would be rushing to my talk to reprimand me for a "tak, tsk", while all the FA pages are systematically assaulted by a cadre of socks and enablers." (emboldening added)

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.
Diff to be added

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.

"you will have to take a look at how I've been treated by admins like you, what has been done to FAC, and how admin behavior has led to the toxicity everywhere on Wikipedia. Yes, it is a misogynistic culture, if you (the general you, not the specific you) can sit by and let the attacks hurl my direction and then come after me for responding to same with a mild "tsk, tsk". It's time we started calling it what it is, and I'm not going to roll over and play dead anymore when my name is smeared all over Wikipedia, important processes are disrupted, and false things are said about me on talk pages, at ANI, and I'm not even noticed." (emboldening added)

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.
She had not repeatedly mentioned the "Bitch" comment to an FA editor in the last weeks, haphazardly, I had suspected. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Back to discussion
Perhaps your compartmentalization imagery will succeed.
I have never alleged harassment. I have tried to be careful, and use appropriate "concern" terminology (and if I faltered on sentence I am sure that the next has caveats...). You are right that I have no basis and no will to comment on the RfA; my concern is the way we have treated a highly respected and valued member of our community, and the message that his mis-streatment sends to editors who are thinking of raising a concern about sexual harassment.
I would like persons to acknowledge that they could have done better. Sven has stated his wish to redo things, as usual, he is an example for us, now as before.
Thanks, TParis.
I will edit again tomorrow.
You and Black Kite have suggested that I behave strategically, but consider whether I may have highlighted an important issue, and provided useful examples of behavior, my own and of administrators; this is not the first time this has happened. I believe that the last two elections are a useful gauge of my understanding of fellow editors, who do have a healthy sense of right and wrong. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

And again? Too much Christmas juice Kiefer?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Giant Snowman declared that he was drinking.
Regarding BWilkins's block, which was quickly reverted: You would have to ask BWilkins about why he abused his administrative authority by blocking me, violated civility with telling Sven "to shut it", threatened him with blocking rather than using discussion, why he failed to document his allegation even after requested, etc. He should be desysoped for abusing his authority, etc. I suggest blocking himself indefinitely to spare editors further abuse.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sketch of a report

I release this early to the community, since I cannot edit any other page, and it has diffs.

I would appreciate somebody alerting Jimbo Wales and Kaldari about these events. I assume both have experience with organizational policies on how to treat somebody raising a concern about possible sexual harassment. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kiefer, I just wanted to leave a brief post regarding the above situation. I agree this was definitely not handled well, and that's unfortunate. Often people see something 'wrong' and just try to kill it without adequately explaining why (disclaimer - I have not read every conversation, so I don't want to accuse anyone in this particular instance). However, let's talk about this case in particular. A concern was raised on RfA about off-wiki behavior, which comes up from time to time. However, because of the (fairly significant) nature of that allegation, decisions about whether on-wiki action is needed has to go through arbcom, to avoid concerns about defamation. If there are issues you are aware of, please send them to arbcom. They will look over it, and even if they do not directly take on wiki action may give warnings via email, or take similar 'soft' action. What we need to do now though, is remove the section of your talk page below. If the allegations are not true, Wikipedia does not want to be accused of hosting defamatory remarks about it's editors. Plus it's not very nice to editors to allow such accusations of off-wiki misbehavior. Please do remove this section, since I think we'd all rather avoid the drama if someone else comes to remove it. Hopefully the users involved will learn how to better deal with these concerns from this whole debacle.
Prodego talk 00:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Prodego! Now I'm pro Prodego!
We must think about our treatment in the future of such concerns. People who have experience of working or volunteering should be able to understand that when such concerns are raised, it is best to calmly and quietly refer the concerned party to an expert. No drama is needed.
I believe that I tried to use words like any and "concern" and tried to address the collaborative environment, and to emphasize my ignorance of the particulars. I even said something about misunderstanding or one-time happening.... As stated earlier on this page, I shall revisit my AN/I remarks and revise per WP:NPA and civility, if there have been problems. I am gladdened but not surprised to see Cullen328 take responsibility for a trifling matter, immediately, and I wish that I and others shall take responsibility for more serious matters tomorrow. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Kiefer, I believe that Prodego is concerned with another matter. You are addressing your concern that sexual harrassment is taken seriously, but Prodego is concerned that a claim that has been retracted by Sven is still being used on-Wiki about a living person. The matter should be handled privately with Arbcom or at the least the diff and quote should be removed so we are not creating a new issue.--v/r - TP 00:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Let me try to read again. (I'm quite tired.) My apologies, and thanks for nudging me! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Kiefer! Its definitely not good this sort of mountain appearing out of what should have been a molehill. A simple message "hey, RfA isn't the right place for this, please email arbcom" would have sufficed. But now we have a bit of a problem, because from the point of view of the accusee there isn't much difference between a claim of sexual harassment and discussion of the response to a claim of sexual harassment. I'm sure someone (hopefully not me!) will have a fun time deciding what should be deleted, oversighted, blanked, reverted, or placed in a collapsible box. Would you be willing to help out by blanking the section below? I know that would help resolve the concerns of at least a few users. Thanks again! Prodego talk 00:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If there's an area on this page that doesn't have a caveat nearby (e.g. by Boing), then please add one yourself with my blessing. I'm too tired to do so now.

Removed Section

Kiefer, I've gone ahead and removed this section. To be clear, I am not at all trying to protect any administrators and if you feel there has been abuse then you may want to pursue that. I am concerned about the real life implications about discussing the particular matter that sparked this debate have. If you want to continue to pursue the issue of how administrator's have handled this situation, you should use the private methods such as contacting Arbcom or general counsel. I do think you might've misinterpreted protecting someone's real life reputation with attempts to hide these allegations, though. In any case, I've also removed the thread on WP:AN for the same reason. Anymore on-wiki discussion about the separate issue of how these matters are handled should be done without reference to the original issue that sparked this. For example "allegations of improper conduct of X nature in Y venue" would be a better approach. Even if you do not understand my decision and actions, I hope that you'll trust I did them in good faith and respect them. Bottom line: Now that we know the original issue was false, the priority right now is someone's real life reputation. Our actions going forward need to keep that in mind.--v/r - TP 02:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I replied on TP's talk page, also regarding AN and ANI. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you need to revert delete or get oversight to remove allegations. I am going to respond to BWilkins's personal attacks and misuse of his administrative tools, and this will require citations. I've given him long enough to do the honest or honorable action. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Apology

I regret that you are bothered by words I dashed off quickly and in the midst of trying to assist you. I hold myself to the same standard that I expect of you and I apologize for not expressing myself more clearly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It's okay, Cullen328. I knew your intent, but they didn't! ;) Thanks again for your help! :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

My Comment Above

Hey, I just wanted to leave a note here in case you missed my comment above! Sorry if the placement was confusing.

Prodego talk 00:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Not trying to silence you

Kiefer - I am not trying to silence you, but I think right now everyone needs to seperate to their own corners until emotions come down. If you will put this issue, and your issues with the other admins and editors involved, on hold for a little while, I will help you address them given two to four weeks.--v/r - TP 18:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I know.
However, several administrators have registered complaints about the use of administrative tools, which have not been addressed. In particular, there have been no diffs given.
Administrators are required to respond to concerns in a short time.
If BWilkins and Giant Snowman cannot fulfill their responsibilities, they should resign or be de-sysopped. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I will help you discuss it with them in a couple weeks. Right now, everyone's emotions are high.--v/r - TP 19:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Emotions are healthy when dealt with. We don't need more passive-aggressive administrators and familiars.
Indefinitely block BWilkins for personal attacks and repeated incivility, and let him stay blocked until he explains his blocking me. Is indefinitely blocking me civil?, particularly when he has been too lazy to document his allegations. I did link his abuse of Sven, with the "shut it" and blocking threats before discussion, and his "rampage" personal attack against me, but you removed them from ANI. I trust I do not have to link again his abuses. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
BTW, thanks for revising the closing summary, which I trust shall be viewed as fair by others. Thanks for being open to suggestions. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I've seen the diffs that you feel are abuse. But I have seen a lot of diffs from everyone in this entire debacle that are taken different ways by different eyes. While I agree that emotions are healthy when dealt with, I also think that it is healthier to disengage and reengage when our eyes are not clouded with anger. What you are doing right now is asking for the axe and block based on your perception of the events. I would like us all, in a couple weeks, to discuss the timeline of events and try to get understanding on both sides. I have invested a lot of time talking with those you are in a dispute with on WP:ANI to try to explain your perception and it was effective at gaining the support to unblock you and to let me engage. Now I need your cooperation, and time, so I can try to explain their perception and understanding. At that point, I think I can get everyone back to the table to talk about sexual harassment. Everyone seems to agree it's a serious matter, but it cannot be discussed until these other issues are resolved. And I do not feel these other issues can be resolved immediately. When you felt threatened, you lashed out against others. But now you are making others feel threatened and demanding they explain themselves. How did it feel when you felt threatened? Let me be the eyes for everyone right now, I think a break is needed. Let the emotions die down and then we can talk about them.--v/r - TP 19:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I think I've written enough today. I did strike through or rephrase comments, as I volunteered before. Thank you for your efforts. Please remember that the universe is 15 billion years old and our sun will expand and irradiate the earth in 1 billion years (perhaps making a moon or two of an outer planet comfy). You don't need to feel responsible for everything, even on Wikipedia. Take it easy! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive_43&oldid=1136171831"