This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current 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.
Keep There are notable images in the album's other associated category. Please reduce the AGF violations and hypocrisy, BrownHairedGirl and Oculi. I discussed these categories within the last fortnight with G.O. Factory, after he too quickly (as he admitted, but perhaps justly, as I'll admit for fairness) deleted another category, as patent nonsense. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Blocking Heads are again in usual form. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Quoted from discussion within a fortnight18 days
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.
Would you like me to restore the category? If I did, I would tag it with a speedy deletion template, then we could see if another admin agreed with deletion. I'd be happy to copy any comments to the talkpage that you might have in justifying the existence of the category. I think you probably know, though, that creating a category for album art of a single album is not a usual way of categorizing album art. I took your creation of the category as a facetious protest against the proposed renaming of Category:Yes album covers, not as a serious creation—hence the rationale of "patent nonsense". I thought you were just being silly to make a point. But maybe not. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:18, 5 April 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.
:18 days, not a fortnight. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The dishonesty or stupidity BHG can display beggars belief.
Another explanation by BHG has appeared at ANI.
Rangebusher explains that I was previously blocked for creating a category about the Yes album. The block log said "civility". It's so hard to keep stories straight that many people find it easier to tell the truth.
I've asked you already three times not to leave the template message inviting me to participate when I am blocked. Why didn't you edit it?
Foreseeing this reflex, I explained on the category's talk page that this category follows the example of the categorization of The Sound of Music''s songs.
Congratulations on your one millionth edit. May your non-categorical edits speed you on your way to your second million. :)
P.S. Your previous edit noted a lack of fair-use for the display of four-five Roger Dean images at Yessongs. I agree. The category of is associated images has the no-gallery command. The text of the Yessongs article does describe the sequence of pictures in detail, including their role in inspiring other art (film or science fiction?); they should be discussed probably at progressive rock, but perhaps in a a cover-art forum. (You are aware of the contempt for the categories for discussion---nothing personal.) 07:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks I appreciate your kind words, thanks. Twinkle leaves these notices. As for the songs category, many "Songs in [Film]" categories have been deleted when the songs weren't exclusive to the film. I'd imagine that a film which has no article would likely get deleted as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi!
When I leave a Twinkle message that is inappropriate, I edit it immediately afterwords (trusting in the good will of the recipient to forgive a few minutes of excess formality, etc.).
I don't mind a sane rule being applied consistently. (I regard the insertion of periods into P J Crook's name as showing the impropriety of whatever rule was being applied. Some Wikipedia rules need not be sane.) I am glad that you avoid AGF violations insofar as I remember in discussions of categories; I should hope that Bushranger, Oculi, and BrownHairedGirl would emulate your example rather than continue their AGF violations.
Sound of Music, which does have a category for its songs; however, on re-inspection I noticed a description limiting the category to the musical's music/songs (not the film). The songs from The Song Remains The Same are not categorized; Spinal Tap's songs needs articles! So it seems that categorizing film songs need not be common. Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Please don't lie here---or in the green grass behind the stadium.
You quoted my remark from a Suggestion about renaming a category "Yes (band) Yes Album" as "Yes (band) (band) Yes Album" (or something equally silly), a remark I struck, that was within a discussion of a category. You misquoted it out of context as though I had created a category as horseplay.
And you still haven't admitted your mistake or apologized.
Until you change, I see no point in reading another word by you. Go make your apology at ANI and at the Category-playground and don't come back until you do.
Nobody seems to have commented on the article editing history: Please review sun tanning, tanning bed, and the other top articles. My affection for Elen and Pedro led to blind support, at first (although I did note that I had not investigated). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
And then you whine that I questioned how you understood my intention rather than behavior, omitting the previous phrase "Vulcan mind meld". So you ignore the rule-book when it applies to you and your familiars, and run around imposing bullshit blocks without having the decency to explain your fuck ups? Or apologize? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Explanation from Sarek, per WP:Administrator
Sarek,
Please explain your block for incivility and canvassing. You need to explain your actions if you want to continue being an administrator.
WP:Canvassing allows for a few neutrally worded messages; I made exactly two. On your talk page, etc., you referred to my intention in posting on Malleus's page. Would you explain what you know of my intention? (Is this Vulcan mind-meld, psychosis, or what?)
Would you explain your inaction to the incivility directed at me? You may wish to review the double-standard condemned in the ArbCom case as well as its discussion of "baiting".
Finally, please change your name or explain how you are complying with the intellectual property rights of Star Trek.
Frankly if I was at RFA I'd unwatch ANI for the week and make no comment there at all. The fact Dennis didn't, and felt compelled to speak out, is more a testament to his integrity IMHO. Pedro : Chat 20:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Or his lack of nouse.
Fatuorum
20:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of phronetic limitations...:
Maybe Sarek blocked me to "derail Dennis Brown's RfA"?
Sarek hasn't helped Dennis, it's safe to say. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
A vision of the future
The block is reduced, no explanation of the canvassing charge (related to WP:Canvass's description of canvassing) is made, but the ANI thread is hidden-archived ASAP.
Same old, same old. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Blech! You moves stuff about right while I was editing, curse you! ;P Needing to walk away: Sometimes we all do. But we're all human (probably, most of the time!) I think the major reason we need more really good admins is that it would give each of them more time to do really thorough background research into situations which don't call for any genuinely emergency action. I wouldn't want to block anyone, myself, without having spent probably at least a couple of hours sorting out the interpersonal relationships of the various people involved, and taking a damned hard look at people who seem to want to jump onto the block bandwagon, to find out exactly why they do, and what their hidden agendas may be. That's why I don't want to be an admin; I'd rather do that kind of background reading for an article. (And I have recently discovered a really wow source for horsey stuff :D ) And it's why I !vote on so few RfAs – if I do !vote, it's when I've been seriously looking at personal interaction stuff, often going back months, to assess the individual in question. But I have been awake since 03:30, and it's now 23:06 ... gah! Pesky (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
So the time reduction (or rather correction of Sarek's abuse of tools) and archiving were correct, but the hidden archive prediction was wrong. Perhaps there has been progress? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
May I suggest that Sarek read the current policy WP:Canvassing and explain how my posting exactly 2 neutral messages constitutes canvassing? Also his WP:NPA accusing me of attempting to derail an RfA should be withdrawn to describe behavior rather than intention, if Sarek wishes to avoid continued hypocrisy.
Just an aside, and I've not read the whole thing yet, but Dennis was opposed by BHG and supported by KW at his RFA until the ANI thing kicked off. Considering, Kiefer, you claim to be "honor bred" I'd reflect as to whether you're being more honourable or Denis is. Pedro : Chat 19:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I did not write "honour bred". I praise honorable action, such as your encouraging a despondent editor or Good Ol'factory's spirit of fair play and intellectual integrity, for its own sake and pointedly, regardless of our usual disagreements.
I suppose that is also pointy and disruptive editing, too.
Dennis's actions are transparent, and merit no commentary from me. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Please - you did write "honor bred" - [1] so to deny it is a little odd; I wouldn't have claimed you did if it wasn't true. Pedro : Chat 19:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Pedro,
Sorry for the confusion! :)
I did not write "honour bred", as I clarified after you wrote "honourable" (with British spelling).
I wrote "honor bred" as you correctly clarified (and I never denied).
That was an important distinction, of course!!! ;) *LOL*
That's why it put it in quotes (not to labour labor the point. Ha.). Anyway I've put my 2p in at ANI. A month block seems punitive in my eyes. But you do need to learn to step away at times KW (as, I admit, do I). Pedro : Chat 20:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Canvassing: Freedom of assembly and speech?
Your attention is called to "Timbo's Rule 2. So-called "anti-canvassing" rules are a mechanism by means of which a narrow clique can avoid broad discussion and decision by a larger and more inclusive group. (Feb. 2012)
Accusations of so-called "canvassing" — what you or I would refer to as democratic organizing — also make a handy-dandy cudgel at WP for wiping out perceived opponents. It's a pretty sickening aspect of WP culture but there's not a lot we can do about it, since WP has an extremely conservative decision-making process in which inertia reigns supreme. Carrite (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
IMHO, a neutrally-worded post on a talk page with several hundred watchers cannot be considered to be canvassing. It has such a broad audience. It's not quite the same as putting it on Jimbo's talk page, but meh. Pesky (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Conflicts and debate are parts of democratic societies. Would that Wikipedia were founded by a pragmatiticist fellow-traveler like Soros rather than cofounded by a fan of Ayn Rand. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Sarek's Allegation of "canvassing" at Malleus
Discussion has long been closed at the ArbCom's "Civility Enforcement" case, which would be the only other place where one could reach large numbers of editors interested in civility enforcement and RfAs. Malleus's talk page was the best option, as it is watched by c. 300 editors, including one presumes all members of ArbCom.
As Elen noted, the idea that I canvassed or intended to sway Malleus is implausible.
In fact, the first person to vote at the RfA (after my posting) voted for Dennis Brown; that editor had the propriety to use "quasi-canvassing" rather than "canvassing", a word whose WP-meaning is defined at WP:Canvassing, honest persons should note.
The Blocking-Head Sarek of Vulcan had no such sense. but apparently had
powers of mind-reading into my intentions (which relieves him of the usual WP policy of describing behavior rather than intentions), and apparently
knowledge of the demographics of Malleus's talk-page readership
which he has still not explained, despite my request (and Sarek's obligation as an administrator) and Malleus's.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
RfA stuff
Finally, regarding the RfA, I would urge that people be unders-stated in their criticisms of Dennis, as a personal kindness to me. If this another example of patronizing young persons, so be it.
Well, I gave him a support vote with a couple of minor concerns voiced in it! I think that DB being an admin would quite possibly somewhat raise the average-of-admins-quality, rather than lower it ... ;P Pesky (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
You may be right, or I may be right. Time will tell. But if I'm right, then it'll be too late to do anything about it once DB is anointed.
Fatuorum
15:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Pesky, Malleus is too kind. Let him write substantively about sun tanning or even start another article about sun-tanning first. At best, an administrator position is a distraction for him. We need administrators who write without stringing together cliches---of course, my sample is convenient and perhaps not representative! Maybe he is another Diderot? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea! But it appears to me that the guy is capable of listening, which is always a good start. Pesky (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
This candidate wants to work at ANI. It's like a med student wanting to work as a coroner after seeing Dexter or Hannibal the Cannibal movies. It should give you the creeps! ;p Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Drmies,
U r like 2 kind. Their problems unthunk of in your filosophy. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
So many things give me the creeps that it's hard to work out
what weight to give to each of them ... Omelette, Omelette, I am thy father's gimlet ... Pesky (talk
) 15:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Humans are terrible at weighing multivariable data. You define variables, collect data, and let the spread-sheet fit a model that you use to make predictions: Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., and Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 1668-1674. Reprinted in T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, and D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 716-729). New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
I feel better now. I had not written a sentence like that in a week. ;)
Whatever floats your boat! And, continuing the Shakespearean theme, "Alas, poor Yorick! He died of fellatio ..." ;P Pesky (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
When I woke up this morning I did not expect I would be led to wonder whether anyone had ever used MorphThing on David Foster Wallace and Worf. (Or perhaps Kahn.) 28bytes (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I had never heard of Wallace. It is a tragedy that he stopped his medication and then when his black dog returned it no longer worked. I hadn't read about such a case before.
It is often the case that depressives kill themselves during recovery, because they have the energy finally. I have quoted Paul Meehl's comment about intellectual standards, many times here, where he describes a straight-A student who helped a patient "seemingly well into recovery" from catatonic depression kill himself, because she knew as much as her teachers, which wasn't shit.
It's hard to imagine Paul Meehl or Robyn Dawes at a contemporary university, or returning to edit at WP after a day at ANI. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Never heard of Wallace? He's probably my favorite contemporary writer--I think you might appreciate some of his work. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I should look him up. I am reading through A Game of Thrones (volumes 4, with the dull/evil characters, and 5, with the most interesting ones) which is still very good. Ah, for the days when I could wake up with the Sunday New York Times and a real bagel with cream cheese.... However, spring-time in Sweden has its advantages....
As Milton wrote about similar students
Blind mouthes! that scarce themselves know how to hold
A Sheep-hook, or have learn'd ought els the least
That to the faithfull Herdmans art belongs!
What recks it them? What need they? They are sped;
And when they list, their lean and flashy songs
Grate on their scrannel Pipes of wretched straw,
The hungry Sheep look up, and are not fed,
But swoln with wind, and the rank mist they draw,
Rot inwardly and foul contagian spread.
On another topic entirely,
an "Austrian school" zealot has re-re-re-re-reinserted his 690 byte fantasy in econometrics, with some "sources" he found after the fact. The "particularities of time and place" indeed. About time for an RfC, imho. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Re Wallace, depression can be an impossible thing to know what to do best with. I have both personal experience of it (severe), and experience of close friends and family members with it. Some anti-depressant medications can kick-back and actually make people feel more suicidal than they were without them. Some can cause a whole range of on-going little side-effects which, after a while, can tot up to being (or feeling) worse than the original depression. It's a bastard of a thing to try and treat, because it seems that no two people have exactly the same kinds of depression, or the same reactions to medications; and depression itself, of course, can vary wildly from day to day. I do find myself wondering whether Es might, in many cases, be a better treatment, taken on an as-required basis ... Having been there (at the suicidal threshold) in the past, fing is that once death has occurred to you as a viable alternative, you can never delete that from your memory of possible alternatives. You just can't zap that one out of the system once it's ever been there. And the longer it's been there, the more objectively you can view it as a perfectly valid option. And sometimes all that it needs is for a few small things to go wrong at once, and not a lot inspiring you, and you just think: "Fuck it! Why bother? What's the point? Why am I just sitting here letting myself be put through this when walking out of the world is so easy, and solves it all?" And you can change from the "hang in there" mode to the "fuck it" mode in the space of minutes. And no doctor on earth can predict what exactly is going to trigger that step over the threshold. If you've ever felt genuinely suicidal, you;re in that "totally unpredictable group" which doctors hate to have to deal with. Pesky (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
"When you greet a stranger, look at his hands. Keep your money in your shoes."
Extended content
Sigh.
No, I'm not going to say all of it, dear thing, coz you already know all of it, and if you needed a reminder you could always read this again. Just ... it may be worth remembering tying a piece of string around your wrist (or any other protruding part of your anatomy, depending on your personal tastes) when you're in a bad mood, just to remind you that you being in a foul mood adversely affects your editing ;P
You become a bit too trigger-happy and mega-reactive when others don't understand where you're coming from, when others don't see "the Whole Kiefer", and that makes them trigger-happy, too, and because of this kind of mutual ongoing shoot-from-the-hip thing, more and more people get the trigger-happy "let's shoot KW" thing, because they remember the last time, and the time before, and the time before that ...
I understand that "blam" self-defense trigger-happy thing very well. But ... when you're not at your best, mood-wise, things which would whistle right on by you and not upset you in your better moods are suddenly all wearing huge baiting overcoats, as opposed to a little possibly-baiting handkerchief sticking out of their pockets. Not sure if you know what I mean, here, I'm waffly. I'm not saying you're always in the wrong, or mostly in the wrong, or often in the wrong ... I'm not going the "blame" route. But you are a bit too intense with it from time to time, when it would be better to walk away and have several nice cool beers and let it blow over and everybody settle back down to washing their paws.
Honest mistakes or mild AGF violations can be ignored. You can see that I ignored most of the ANInities.
The misquotation and misrepresentation by BHG deserved direct comment. The community must decide whether to continue the administrative double-standards or not. This episode has provided good examples that will stop BHG, Sarek, Bushranger, etc. from ever being elected to ArbCom or re-elected as administrators.
Yes ... fing is, though, fing is, that I think she called it as she saw it. I think that was her actual perception of it, and her perception was skewed by the "zap Kiefer!" thing. I just get the feeling that she was honest-to-her-own-perceptions, but hadn't seen all the colours in the picture.
Like other human mistakes, the first mistake was forgivable.
After I and others explained the mistake, the failure to learn from the mistake has been inexcusable. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It takes time. And when people are all snitty and upset it takes more time. Give her a little time; be patient, and understand that there are many, many people for whom climbing down is much more humiliating than it is for others. And if you ask for it, or want it, or suggest it too soon for what they personally are able to handle, it just prolongs the situation and makes it even harder for them. Pesky (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
A paradigm for you
I think you may need to internalise the idea that most people here just cannot understand you. (Hell, even I find it tricky at times, lol!) And the people who've never interacted with you previously have a pre-conceived picture of you, and can "only see Kiefer through shite-coloured spectacles." People's perceptions of you are already coloured that way even if you've never "met" them. And most people can possibly no more understand you than the red-green colour-blind person can understand what other people are going on about when they look at the aforementioned sunset. That's something you're going to need to find a workaround for if you want them to be able to travel with you, instead of exiling you; it's as if you're one of the few people who is not wheelchair-bound, in a population of predominantly wheelchair-bound individuals. They can't help it. So you'll have to think about pacing yourself, as it were, so that you're not completely out of sight to them. Pesky (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Expanding: no matter how lightning-fast you can be, if you don't want to end up all on your own, you have to be able to limit your speed to that of the slowest person in your group who you want to travel with you. It doesn't have to be the slowest person ever, just enough people of a speed that they can then explain to the really slow, etc., and so on down the line. But if you consistently outpace everyone else, or out-perceive everyone else, and can make no allowances for their limitations, you will lose them all. Pacing yourself so that they can keep up with you doesn't reduce your own capabilities. Pesky (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Some thoughts
Morning KW. As per usual, please feel free to remove this note from your page and ignore fully, I won't take offence. I'm just reviewing what's been happening in my absence and it looks like it was a very eventful evening. Can I just say, I believe Sarek's block was excessive, 1 month for a couple of relatively minor remarks and an attempted derailment of an RfA. In fact, I would say that any block at all could be considered excessive.
Obviously, I can't unblock myself, we have far too much history and I've promised myself to never take any administrator action with respect to you, but I would be willing (if you are interested) to explain my point of view to an uninvolved admin, or indeed at a noticeboard. Before I do however, I would like to hear your current thoughts on your actions.
Your comments about BHG appear to have assumed the worst of her, directly contradicting AGF. In my opinion, her intentions were sound and she acted in the manner that you would expect a reasonable person to. Having seen your recent comments though, I assume you still disagree?
Your posting on Malleus' page regarding Dennis Brown appears to be inappropriate to an outsider, you are contacting a high profile friend to remind him (and the many likeminded editors at his talk page) that a candidate at RfA has commented negatively about you on AN/I. That is clearly an attempt to derail an RfA and is against the spirit of
WP:CANVASS
.
Otherwise, I'd say you've been a little over the top with your comments since blocked, but I didn't see anyone trying to de-escalate the situation, instead everyone was winding everyone else up. I've got a few people to have a word with, behaviour I've seen as inappropriate, which I'll be doing throughout the day, but I thought I'd have a chat with you first. WormTT· (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey Worm, I'm hoping I'm not on your list of "people who need a good talking-to", lol! I noticed that, as well – a marked absence of people trying to de-escalate. It saddens me; stuff gets blatted over to the dramahz-boards whn a brief cooling-down on everyone's part, and an attempt to talk things through without everyone heading straight for Global Thermonuclear War would be so much better. To me, the block looked almost-purely punitive, and went into the "justify, minimize and blame-someone" get-out :o( Pesky (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Lol, no Pesky, reading through you slipped into the "people I disagree with" pile from your comments, but not the "people who behaved in an inappropriate manner" pile. The problem with the phrase "blocks should not be punitive" is that the blocking policy doesn't actually say that. It says - blocks should not be punitive... except when we want them to be. Go ahead, read it. Punitive is fine, when it's used as a deterrent. WormTT· (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't at my best last night! I have been over-doing it a bit since my neck op ... the surgeon specifically said I wasn't to hold a horse on a lead rein (for at least three months), but he said nothing whatsoever about spending several hours clearing brambles in the field, or digging the garden ... hehehe! I know I over-do it after surgery, but I just can't stand being idle. Pesky (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi WormTT/David!
Regarding Sarek's block, I appreciate your statements. I would appreciate Sarek explaining his actions and his particular claim to have insight into my intentions: His allegations of canvassing and his allegation of an attempt to derail an RfA.
You need to review WP:Canvass and "derail". That said, I understand the concern. I volunteer that I should have used another header than "Same old, same old", about which nobody seems to have yet complained---but the muse was silent.
Your opinions about BHG are not supported by argument or evidence. When they are, I should be happy to discuss them. Her comments at the category discussion, at ANI, and here speak for themselves.
She still has not written, for example
"I was tired and I read hurriedly: It was a mistake to quote your admission about horseplay, which was written about an obvious joke inside a category discussion ( and which you struck immediately upon being informed of the rule against multiple suggested re-namings), which you volunteered during a peace-making dialog with another Blocking Head ;p. You certainly did not use that phrase to discuss your category creation.
Now that I have read your example of Category:Category-theoretic categories, I understand that you are amused by categories with self-referential or meta-linguistic aspects. I see no evidence of your having created disruptive categories, but I trust that you can understand my (unjustified) assumption of bad faith, because we see so few meta-linguistic categories, and never a sequence of such categories from one editor before.
Now that I have admitted my having made a human mistake, let me suggest that you listen to your friends when they make suggestions...."
When have I ever failed to accept (and respond with kinder words to) an admission of mistake? It may be that I spurned an olive branch or two from you, but I cannot remember others; I have accepted a number of olive branches from you, and also volunteered a few of my own.
I have to do some work. Thanks for writing! Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Dammit, K-Wolf
You took the bait... Don't let them wipe you out, there are clearly people trying to do that to you at this point. Keep your elbows down next time... Carrite (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Confucius he say: "When the hunter's horn blow and the hound bay, sensible wolf hide in den quietly ...." Pesky (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I took no bait. BHG lied about my behavior repeatedly in public. Honest persons can compare what I wrote with her distortion (quotation out of context, WP:NPA), and judge her better in the future. Let us hope that her AGF-violations and dishonesty were limited to this, still not so long, failure to own up to her mistaken reading and AGF-violation. (There was one principled soul at ANI who complained about her AGF and WP:NPA violations....)
Sarek has behaved like an abusive administrator, not for the first time---and not for the last, unless he grows up. He blocked me for a month because he didn't like my short notice on Malleus's page, which he stupidly (incompetently and---one would like to be able to wish---perhaps not dishonestly) called a violation of canvassing. I was surprised to recall that with such indiscipline he was able to edit on Levenshtein; usually a mathematically competent engineer has acquired the habit of precision in writing, particularly in formal proceedings.... The biggest disappointment has been his failure to explain his actions, another violation of WP:Administrator. I suppose that he thinks that blocking 2 weeks excessively (according to the most draconian Blocking Heads at ANI) is civil behavior? Or that he gets a free pass from explaining his actions because he has a block button?
I learned as a young boy how to respond to bullies.
Before advising me to hide in a den, you may wish to consider the effects of previous conflicts:
Consider candidates' behavior towards BadgerDrink and their loss in the last ArbCom elections, for example, despite having a network of like-minded editors---and here I think more of the extremists than of an intelligent editor whom I plan to support next ArbCom elections.
After Sarek abused his administrators powers, Dennis Brown's RfA support dropped from c. 89% to c. 50%; he only seems to be winning because editors like SandyGeorge apparently have given up on RfAs. A few formidable content-editors opposing would deliver a coup de grace.
Hello, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{
When you're wronged, don't get personal. If User:PoncyYoungBureaucrat, making up a name and situation from thin air here, stalks one of your pieces and uses your words in some other situation dishonestly against you in an altogether different context, don't say "PoncyYoungBureaucrat is once again being a dishonest dumbass and a bully-blah-blah-blah," phrase it impersonally and don't insult. "What I said was... and what I meant was... and those who think otherwise are absolutely incorrect." Don't use names — at all. There is plenty of room for necessary aggression within the rules to make your point and defend your principles, but once you start personalizing things, people run to mommy and the drama zombies end up eating your brains.
You're smarter than me and you know this already. Carrite (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
This is some of the best advice on discussion techniques I've seen on wiki, and with your permission Carrite, I'd very much like to incorporate it into my adoption course. WormTT· (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Yup. You could, of course, also add that User:PoncyYoungBureaucrat's post was "lacking in insight" ;P Pesky (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Accipite et comedite, hoc est crustum humilis
crustum humilis… dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris doesn't translate as "Forgive us our debts / sins as we really ought to forgive our debtors / those who sin against us but, on the whole, neither do, nor feel remotely inclined to do"!
There's also all of that stuff about "let him who is without sin throw the first stone" (and yes, that's supposed to work both ways!), "two wrongs don't make a right"; "remove the beam from your own eye before trying to remove the mote from your neighbour's". And all those many clichés which one can string together … ahem.
I think my main point here may well be that it's unrealistic (and wossname, insert suitable word to replace metasyntactic variable) to expect anyone else to eat humble pie whilst not being prepared to do so yourself. There has to be a lot of charity in both directions, for it to work. You have to improve even more – and yes, I did notice the number of digs and jibes to which you chose not to respond by biting back. I did notice; but remember that, on the whole, it's human nature not to notice the good stuff, the improvements, and to focus only on the bad stuff, the "There, he did it again!" as opposed to the "Wow! He didn't bite back!"
I think the only way forward is possibly for you to spend the next six months or so being much more tolerant of other people's glitches than your worst opponents are of yours. That's going to be damned hard to do. (And you can practice your Latin whilst reading this, just for amusement's sake ;P) Pesky (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Lecture Friendly advice Part the Second
Fing to remember:
Many editors just can't help doing the stuff that annoys and irritates you. This could be for many reasons. You can't expect them to be perfect.
1 + 2 also = situation going downhill like something on the Cresta Run.
You cannot change them. For things to change, you have to change (although, technically, just "appearing to change" would do it). Think whatever you like, rant however much you like, but not in here ... install a PEBCAK-fuse so that it doesn't escape out through your fingers and into the ether and then come back and bite you in the arse.
Big hugz, take a nice Baklava and coffee with a beer chaser, more big hugz, and chill, boy! Pesky (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I'll let you into a big secret: I have one of the vilest, most potentially-violent tempers ever. But I ride my temper, rather than letting it ride me. Almost all of the time. Except in my dreams. Nothing in my dreams is as scary as I am! You have a pet dragon in there; all you need to do is acknowledge that it's there; when realistic, acknowledge that it's justified sometimes, and keep it on a lead. OK? Pesky (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
28Bytes's utilitarian archival-summary was worth the price of admission (being blocked).
:D
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
IRC and canvasssing
The Blocking Heads were even more obnoxious a few days, like the repeated assertions of Administrator Absolutism. Nice that somebody noted the IRC canvassing for administrators.
Has anybody looked at IRC or Facebook for evidence of canvassing for the ongoing RfA?
Thanks! (I wrote a longer note by email, when my talk-page access was revoked.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Olive branch
I hope I'm not made to look like a fool for doing this, but I'm going to restore your talk page access. I'm doing this because there have been several good faith requests to restore it by several editors. Primarly, I'm doing it because of this statement, where WTT indicates that he's had positive email contact with you, and your quoted statement seems to indicate that you understand why talk page access was revoked. Contrary to what you might believe, I would not like to see you blocked for all eternity, because you are a valuable contributor most of the time. Please feel free to use your talk page for the remainder of your block, but, as I'm sure you're aware, any complaints of personal attacks or incivility will almost certainly result in talk page access being revoked again. Welcome back. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 15:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Scottywong!
Thank you for the courteous note.
In the last 24 hours, your talk-page discussions contained put-downs of mathematicians etc. My expectation of proper restoration coming from you was thus rather low, and I am delighted to be pleasantly surprised. :)
I trust that you remember my welcome note, mentioning fruit, upon your return from a WikiBreak.
I wrote to WTT/David because of a private concern, for which I should have agreed to any condition, even an unjust one.
As before, I accept the usual obligations of editing on Wikipedia.
↑ Now that's the kind of tactful response I like to see. Ok, I'm going to take this page off my watchlist now. Have fun. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 16:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
