User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 46

Little Rascals

Administrator Giant Snowman repeatedly applies "Nationalist Socialist" but warns me about "personal attacks"

Personal attacks

Please do not use edit summaries attack other editors (better still, do not attack other editors anywhere) - calling somebody else a "piece of shit" is too far. GiantSnowman 20:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please answer the question I addressed.

Have you have blocked Demiurge1000 for stating that Lihaas had a Nazi userbox? You seemed to think being called a Nazi wasn't so hotsy totsy, if I remember. And here you are again going on about NPA....

Thus my question.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Truth hurts? GiantSnowman 21:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you illiterate? Please read about the Pledge of Allegiance before writing so stupidly again. "Nazi" and Nationalism/Socialism are different, and Lihaas clarified he was concerned with non-Nazi Nationalism and Socialism. Thus he changed his user box. He also had 200 other userboxes, such as supporting Justice Scalia, and the assertion that Nazi smear was done maliciously and gratuitiously. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

What does

National Socialism redirect to, with good reason? Stop defending the indefensible, and stop with the personal attacks. Final warning. GiantSnowman

21:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to know nothing about 19th Century Socialism, The Pledge of Allegiance, and Looking Backwards, and just parade your ignorance about Wikipedia, despite my having explained the distinctions. Warn away, GiantSnowman, but go get an administrator with a brain to back you up. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. What does

National Socialism redirect to? GiantSnowman

21:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

He did change his user box, as I've told you. You just continue smearing, maliciously. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Lihaas has clarified his interest in nationalism and socialism outside of Nazism, so please stop bullshitting and participating in an ignorant and malicious smearing. Lihaas also changed his user box, to avoid ignoramuses continuing to have agitated ganglia, we had hoped. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying Lihaas was/is a Nazi, I'm saying he displayed a Nazi userbox - something you foolishly deined despite there being very clear evidence to the contrary. GiantSnowman 21:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

He did change his user box, as I've told you. You just continue smearing, maliciously. It did not say "Nazi", as you know. Don't post here again. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Fatuously and maliciously, to what does

National Socialist

refer?

Honestly, to what did

National Socialist

refer?

Administrator Giant Snowman, in his repeated smearings of Lihaas as a "National Socialist", asked to "what does

The relevant question is to what did Lihaas refer with his user box, even before he outed himself as a liberal interested in reducing Eurocentrism on Wikipedia. A pity that Giant Snowman spent more time smearing Lihaas, repeatedly, than investigating Lihaas's contemporaneous edits to the Wikipedia article on National Socialism.

Of course, it is a violation of WP:NPA to make false allegations or to present edits out of context. Of course, administrators with backbone to discipline the Giant Snowmans and Frams are in short supply, if any exist.

I suppose that ArbCom hypocrites signed off on the "Civility Enforcement"'s plaintive complaint about "uneven enforcement of civility" without intending to do anything about malicious administrators misusing their batons.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

On administrator privileges

Jeez Kiefer, you know you can't win this argument, no matter what the rights and wrongs, so give it up as a bad job.

Fatuorum

21:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I've won the argument from the get go. This is just having a clear record of administrative intimidation and acquiescence to another round of gratuitous smearing from Demiurge1000. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget that there's a difference between winning a battle and winning the war. A battle with admins is like fighting a nuclear power when your only strategic weapon is a peashooter.

Fatuorum

22:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

A pea-shooter seems ideally calibrated for targetting some administrators' ganglia.... ;) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

To judge by the Arbcom elections in the last 2 years or by writers of quality articles, we have won. Anybody telling me that I've received a final warning while repeating a smear of the writer who helped to lead WP's chronicle of the Arab Spring will never get elected to ArbCom or get more permissions to play with. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

We could undoubtedly win many such Pyrrhic victories, but when the last one of us non-admins left standing has been blocked then what?

Fatuorum

22:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The administrators cannot do anything about Jack, who could teach his methods to other members of the Resistance. We could all continue the First and Second Foundations' work, even if The Mule and his Empire seem to be in charge. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Fatuorum

23:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Ouch! An article with no in-line citations and one reference. I haven't seen one of those since an administrator complained about my "'references'" (scare quotes in the original) at Discipline Global Mobile while threatening a site ban and I looked at his GA. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Administrator Fram on "National Socialist" from fellow administrator Giant Snowman

Fram's block

Please explain! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering your previous blocks for personal attacks and disruptive editing, and because you still can't drop a dead horse from two years ago (which lead to your first block then) but continue to bring it up at unrelated discussions, I have blocked you for one month. Personal attack, more personal attacks, and more.

Demiurge1000 repeated and intensified the National Socialist attacks, aided and abetted by Giant Snowman, and you block me?

It's pretty funny that you would complain that somebody else "can't drop a dead horse", given your recent stalking of Blofeld. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Who was the first to bring up Lihaas at that RfA? It seems that this was the first comment about it (there were earlier comments about Nazi userboxes, but these were started by you as well, so that doesn't change the situation).

Fram (talk

) 08:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Fram, but you don't have the backbone to enforce civility and NPA on Giant Snowman and Demiurge1000, do you. Do I need to link, non-retaliation? And you will notice that my description is of Demiurge1000's behavior. He was blocked recently for continued misrepresentation and smearing of Volunteer Marek, as you know. Others have already drawn their conclusion about his character and yours, from years of similar behavior. But I documented a record of behavior, which is not a personal attack. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

And you haven't addressed your stalking of Dr. Blofeld, which does make your block or you or both look pretty funny, you must admit. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not stalking Dr. Blofeld, as you well know. When I raise concerns at his talk page, they are about new issues, not things that were already discussed to death two years ago. I am also hardly a friend of Demiurge1000, his first block (for "personal attacks or harassment") was issued by me, so your comment above is particularly misdirected here. Anyway, feel free to start separate sections or discussions (after your unblock presumably) about the behaviour of other people; this block is for your behaviour only.

Fram (talk

) 08:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Demiurge1000's behavior has continued from 2 years ago. Do you think that his smearing of Volunteer Marek is a different tactic than his smearing of Lihaas?

I did not say that you are a friend of Demiurge1000 or of Giant Snowman, but that you are blocking me while acquiescing to their repeated smearing of Lihaas as a Nazi or "National Socialist" despite his having changed the user box (in his collection of hundreds of contradictory user boxes) and clarifying his liberal politics and his interest in discussing nationalism and socialism outside of Nazi Germany. Giant Snowman continued the National Socialist and Nazi smear even after I linked discussions of 19th century nationalism/socialism, and clarified Lihaas's explanation, so his personal attacks (misrepresentation out of context) are more severe than Demiurge1000.

In short, you are using your block button in a one-sided fashion, and accusing me of obsessive behavior, which as I said is pretty funny. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You started that old discussion again, they didn't. Using the RfA of a third person to continue such discussions from years ago (which got you already blocked back then) is disruptive editing, and you used a fair number of personal attacks in the discussions as well. What is happening or not happening between e.g. Demiurge and Marek is hardly a factor to take into account when noticing your actions at that RfA, which was not about Demiurge, Marek, or Lihaas; you are the only one who felt the need to drag him into it.

Fram (talk

) 08:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do you and Demiurge1000 feel the need to use "feel the need to" or "need to"?

I did not state that the RfA was about Demiurge1000, Marek, or Lihaas. Why are you creating and addressing strawmen?

It's not disruptive editing to respond to Demiurge1000's suggestion that somebody was needed to tell me how to behave, merely the latest of his years of passive aggressive personal attacks, which you are supporting by blocking me and not him. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A third person urges you both to stop replying, and you reply anyway, calling Demiurge a "piece of shit" in the edit summary[4]. You already had called his contributions "simpering drivel" and had discussed his "record of dishonesty", so it's not as if you hadn't had your say yet. You were the one that started it, you were the one that dragged unrelated stuff into it, you were the one to continue it, and your comments were by far the most problematic. Nothing you have said so far gives me any inclination to reconsider the block or to block other people in the discussion. If you continue with this discussion in the same vein, I'll probably not reply anymore, as I don't see any benefot in continuing this in that case.

Fram (talk

) 09:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Fram, I never respond to you, with any belief that you will behave justly. You are welcome to go away. I don't care anything about you, or anybody who approves of Giant Snowman's Nazi and National-Socialist smearing, or of Demiurge1000's 2 years ago or yesterday.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that 30 days should be a badge of honor in standing up to "National Socialist" abuse, which is so much easier for non-cowards than to stand up to the real thing. After all 5 > 3. Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Yes you should. Fram wouldn't know a just block if hit bit him in the butt and I don't personally think he should be an admin, I have no problem with stating that openly. This was only one of an extremely long list of bad decisions by Fram and it shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that we need someone to watch over the admins. The problem with that statement is that group would most likely end up as corrupt as AE and as much a drag on the pedia as Arbcom. I have no respect for either institution after both have shown repeatedly they can't be trusted and do what they want to follow their own agenda with very little good coming from or to the community based on their decisions. It appalls me how Fram has been allowed to do what he does as long as he has with no one taking action.

talk

) 10:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

(

WP:TPS): So would this improve matters? Martinevans123 (talk

) 10:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably not, they research Checkusers and do not currently have the authority to take action against admins. As far as I know and unless something has changed very recently Arbcom is the sole group who has authority to de-admin someone. That's why its so rare to see someone desysopped regardless of how often or badly they screw up. Unless they resign, an Arbcom case could take months and still have no result. The Beauracrats do have limited authority to revoke the tools if the account looks like its been compromised or something but its rare too.

talk

) 10:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm surprised that ArbCom doesn't step in more often when editors feel very aggrieved. (Am still waiting for that easy-to-find single link (maybe on the front page?) that shows me a table of all Admins, with date or appointment, date of departure and reason for departure. But I feel I may have a long wait!) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Well in all honesty I'm not sure it would do much good. There are about 650 editors currently who have the tool kit. Each month we desysop more because they didn't edit at all in the last year than we give the tools too. Of the 650 editors with the tools more than half do fewer then 25 edits a month (or none at all) and of the 650 its pretty much the same 20-30 that do 90% of the admin actions. So providing a list wouldn't be terribly helpful IMO but it would at least make it easier to find one if needed.

talk

) 10:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree. But I'm sure one of the sortable columns could be "edits in last month"! I think half of the problem is that (some) admins are just not visible enough... and when they suddenly zapp, out of thin air, the hapless editor is doubly peeved. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Take home message

The main issue is Fram's partisanship in not responding to Giant Snowman's repeated, conscious personal attacks against Lihaas, smearing him with "Nazi" and "National Socialist".

— Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Outside views on Fram's behavior

Double standards and WP:Involved

• Although I strongly disagree with
  WP:INVOLVED to be blocking this user. Oh, and need I mention the evident double standard at play here? Thought not. ~ DanielTom (talk
  ) 10:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

  DanielTom, you are wasting your time here. You should forget about Wikipedia and study mathematics (and then perhaps statistics or computer science or genetics). If you stay, ignoring idiots is joseki. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

  I don't follow joseki. :) DanielTom (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes, please do present evidence of both my being
    Fram (talk
    ) 10:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Kumioko —, makes me think that you should not be blocking anyone. I have no idea how you were even trusted with your admin tools in the first place, but since then you have gotten into so many conflicts, and with so many users and valuable Wikipedia contributors, that I seriously question your ability to manage to solve disputes peacefully. I suggest that next time you want to block a user, you ask some other administrator to do it for you, because for my part, and from what I've seen, I have no trust in your judgement whatsoever. This is of course just my reading of the situation; I will not comment on the evident double standard at play on this very Talk page because — as Voltaire did not say — this is no time to make new enemies. I have and make no list, but you can add me to yours. Truly, DanielTom (talk
      ) 12:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)Please see
        Fram (talk
        ) 12:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
        • It is your reading of my comment that is flawed. I never said that if an admin blocks someone more than once that makes him "involved", nor that it is prohibited. What I said was that your history with this user makes you involved. And you quite clearly have a "list of enemies", just ask
          Kumioko. ~ DanielTom (talk
          ) 12:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
          • The unfortunate reality is that admins have been deemed to be exempt from
            talk
            ) 19:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• • • I told Fram to stop acting like a jerk recently on Dr. Blofeld and Carrite's pages. He likes to stick templates on good writers' pages, like his ridiculous sticking of a "plagiarism" template on Carrite's page after Carrite noted that the page was based on a published source (in fact, it was copied verbatim, apparently). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Below you mention two such templates, and here again you make that claim. You are accusing me of "fabricating fantasy on his talk page". Perhaps you can start supporting your own version of the facts with some diffs before you start accusing others.
        Fram (talk
        ) 12:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

        Fram, Such comments belong at RfAs. Please read what I wrote again and remember that 1 and 2 are different numbers. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Also, please address your fatuous mistakes or lies, given in your account of a 1 month block. Since you were wrong, please reduce the block to a reasonable amount. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

        • • I haven't seen anything so far that would give me any reason to reduce the block length. A reasonable block length, considering the problems and the recurring character, was either a month or longer. Considering the abundance of claims about me and the lack of supporting evidence in this whole section (even after direct requests for some), coupled with the total lack of any discussion of the actual block reason, I'll leave this discussion now (further relevant and factual questions, like the one by Launchballer below, are obviously always welcome).
            Fram (talk
            ) 13:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
            • Fram, you still have not retracted your false accusations on your talk page, despite my having alerted you of your fatuous error. Or were you deliberately lying? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
            • Run along Fram. As I wrote above, I have no expectation of reasonable action from you, now or since I've made your acquaintance. I wrote for the other writers who read this page, not for you, for reasons that are obvious. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
          • The problem with Fram's statement above is endemic these days from Admins. "I didn't do anything wrong, you didn't "convince me" and you can't make me, Nah!" The bigger problem is that there is no committee or admin cops that police the admins abuses, which are rampant. No matter how much fault you find and no matter how convincing the argument the admin always says its not enough and the system doesn't have the checks and balances in place to counter the obvious stupidity frequently employed with Admins with big ego's. I find it almost funny that so much effort is being put into crafting garbage like the new discussion notice and the new login page (all of which look a lot like Facebook to me) and not enough time and effort is spent on real meaningful changes like policing stupid admin decisions. Until this is a priority edits and editors (and admins too) will continue to decline. No one wants to put up with a shit head but right now the numbers of jerks are outpacing the ones who are trying to add value ot the project and the wrong ones have the tools to to police the problems.
            talk
            ) 20:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think that we should keep a bit more perspective. I've had run ins with BWilkins before. However, can you imagine BWilkins behaving sticking a "Plagiarism at [article name]" header on a productive editor's page after the editor had provided a legible acknowledgment of the source of BW's article? Etc. It would have taken successful RfAs for Gwickwire, etc., for Fram to have a peer....

Second, you are also missing the point that I was responding to baiting/personal attack from Demiurge1000, when I referenced his record of dishonesty. Did that discussion advance anything? Wouldn't it have been better to have been avoided altogether? Had somebody blocked me and Giant Snowman and either blocked or given a stern warning to Demurge1000, one could have hoped that the atmosphere would be better in the future. Instead, we have dishonest one-sided blocks. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I have fallen into that trap myself. I was blocked because they thought I might violate 3RR but didn't block the one who did violate it when I brought it to their attention. So now, I do not bring it to their attention anymore. I see violations at least 2 or 3 times a week. I saw one editor revert 8 times and still no one did anything.

talk

) 16:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Fram's personal attacks: A selection

Fram's revisionist history

Fram is just fabricating fantasy on his talk page.

• I have been unblocked because oversight and others realized that I had not outed GtetragrammatonSquared by writing G TetragrammatonSquared.
• TParis unblocked me because he realized I had not accused anybody of sexual harassment, but rather merely tried to preserve a forum by which five-six persons with knowledge of related events could reply to a notice of that discussion---a forum which had been closed out of process with the very civil "shut up, etc." from another administratorcorpsman, just how one is taught not to respond to concerns about sexual harassment in adult life.
• etc.

It is a pity that administrators making false allegations and bad blocks face no consequences for their NPAs and harassment. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Fram does that. Frequently. I have brought that up before....but few if anyone really cares what I have to say because I'm not an admin so I can't be trusted to think independantly and how dare I criticize an admin for their actions. I'm glad some folks are finally catching on that I'm not just some loon that has it out for a poor innocent admin.

talk

) 15:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If anybody is looking for loons or incivility or PA-style misrepresentations, he could start by looking at two "plagiarism" templates warnings (including an obnoxious templateheader) on Carrite's talk page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's one thing to make bogus accusations of outing, but the thing that I find disgusting is that Fram actually blocked Kiefer with no reason given in the log despite having blocked him previously. How is an uninvolved admin supposed to review it?--Launchballer 12:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I should have provided a reason in the block log, I thought I had chosen one from the drop-down box but obviously didn't. I explained the block here instead, 5 minutes later[5]. Shouldn't be too problematic for anyone who wants to review the block to actually find this.

Fram (talk

) 12:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I take your point but you shouldn't've had to explain on the talk page.

Whatever.--Launchballer

13:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

C.f. South Park's Eric Cartman's "You will respect my autoritah!"

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The "respect my autoritah" schtick has a long history..., some of which is in my talk page archive (20?)

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.

---

Calling another editor's actions 'bitching' and 'crying' is past the final straw. I've blocked Lihaas for one week. m.o.p 00:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

But Lihaas can get smeared as a "national socialist" for a week and you administrators just sit on your hands and do nothing .... What a political crib you crawl in if "bitching and moaning" is worse than Nazism.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The user has a userbox proclaiming himself to be a national socialist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Lihaas has hundreds of contradictory user boxes, as you know, BB, yet you shamelessly repeat the ns smear and neglect his boxes identifying himself as a classical liberal, as a supporter of Pahlin, as an opponent of Pahlin, etc. Your user name Baseball Buggs contains "ass" but it would be unfair to say that you identify yourself as an ass.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, so you're saying he's not necessarily any of those things, he's just being funny. 10-4. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

And in

drop that stick. Worm^TT · (talk

) 09:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Lihaas has been blocked for the straw "bitching and moaning", yet the smear "national socialist" went without chastisement of the administrator and familiar.

This is a double standard.

Who cares what 10 lightweights think when Geometry guy has explained the impropriety of smearing Lihaas?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I have warned Kiefer.Wolfowitz on his talk page that any further discussion by him of the whole "Lihaas was smeared" topic will get him blocked for disruption. This has gone on for far too long.

Fram (talk

) 09:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I certainly can discuss the smearing at appropriate venues, such as ArbComm Elections, RfAs, RfCs, etc. Please redact your "any" and replace with "inappropriate".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, wikilawyering, that will improve things. Just drop it.

Fram (talk

) 09:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not a smear. It is a self-proclaimed fact. His edits confirm it. BTW, I pointed out his user box on talk page long before Elen ever did. Paul B (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I please ask everybody else to not respond to these comments either. Any response will only invite further comments, and if he then gets blocked, he may claim that it was one-sided, and that he isn't even allowed to respond to comments and so on.

Fram (talk

) 09:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz now blocked for 24 hours for continued discussion of the "national-socialist" issue after ample warning.

Fram (talk

) 10:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not a smear. It is a self-proclaimed fact. His edits confirm it. BTW, I pointed out his user box on talk page long ago"

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, drop the whole "Lihaas was smeared" thing[7], or you'll get blocked for disruption. This has been discussed to death, no action is going to be taken, no one is going to do anything about it. Rehashing this over and over again is disruptive.

Fram (talk

) 09:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Lihaas was just blocked for using the phrase "bitching and moaning". Blocking Lihaas was disruptive of writing an encyclopedia.

Your double standard is disruptive to writing an encyclopedia.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not stating that you can't oppose the block of Lihaas, but it is a completely separate issue of your anti-smear campaign, which has to stop. It doesn't matter whether you were right or wrong about that, but when discussion is over (and that discussion is clearly over and done), you should drop it instead of restarting it any tangentially related discussion.

Fram (talk

) 09:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Lihaas was just blocked. This is hardly "any tangentially related".

Please see my reply at ANI, where I object to to the overly broad scope of your gag order.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The comments about his userbox had nothing to do with the current block.

Fram (talk

) 09:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please acknowledge that many editors are concerned about double standards.

That Wikipedia blocks for "bitching and moaning" (etc.) and not for "national socialist"

WP:NPA

violations (etc.) is evidence of a double standard. (10:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC) striking through "national socialist")

That said, a discussion of double standards may be made constructively in another place than ANI.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hours. What was so hard to understand about "drop it"?

Fram (talk

) 10:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org.

Discussion of block

I don't understand your block.

I just acknowledged that a general discussion of double standards is better made elsewhere, and I did not respond to Paul's statement at ANI.

This seems to be punitive.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid rhetorical questions, particularly when acting as an administrator and especially when using the block button.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)No, you just continued comparing the Lihaas block with the national-socialist thing, and how that is a double standard. "That Wikipedia blocks for "bitching and moaning" (etc.) and not for "national socialist" (etc.) is evidence of a double standard." How is that compatible with multiple warnings to "drop it"?

Fram (talk

) 10:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The next sentence stated that it was unproductive to discuss "double standards" at ANI:

"That said, a discussion of double standards may be made constructively in another place than ANI."

Obviously, your block was punitive.

Admit it!

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

And what's your problem with rhetorical questions? Isn't "Who cares what 10 lightweights think when Geometry guy has explained the impropriety of smearing Lihaas?"[8] a rhetorical question as well? And a loaded one to boot, of course.

Fram (talk

) 10:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Did it hurt your feelings?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't edit my comment again.[9] You did not "restore diff improperly censored from incomplete quotation", you inserted a later version of your post. Please don't accuse people of "improper censoring" when nothing of the sort has happened. As for your reply: you asked for the avoidance of rhetorical questions, even though you used them in this duscussion. And why would my feelings be hurt when I have never offered an opinion on the whole thing, and when I couldn't give a rat's ass about your opinion of whether some people are lightweights or not?

Fram (talk

) 10:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You quote deliberately from the version without the diff, then---all of 7 minutes later. ^{(Sadly, I am no longer surprised by such behavior by administrators.)}

Why did you bring it up the "lightweight" rhetorical question? Why did you use "rat's ass"?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec, again)I went through your edits to that ANI discussion, thinking that I had seen a rhetorical question from you, and used the first diff of it, as it was an example of a rhetorical question. Whether you changed it afterwards was not (and still isn't) relevant for this discussion and the example at all. Why did I bring it up? Beacuse I didn't understand your reaction against my rhetorical question, something which you still haven't tried to explain, and I needed an example of you using one as well. When using it, I noticed that it was quite a loaded question as well (with or without the diff), so I noted that in my reply. I don't believe anything in my behaviour here was problematic, unlike e.g. your edit summary when changing my post.

Fram (talk

) 11:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for hurting your feelings.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

So you apologize for something you didn't do, and remain mute on the things you did do? You did not hurt my feelings by adressing a loaded rhetorical question towards other people, how could it?

Fram (talk

) 11:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Review of block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This seems like a punitive block, given my acknowledgments: * I had just acknowledged that it was unproductive to discuss the "double standard" issue at ANI. * I had not responded to the latest mention of "national socialist" at ANI. * I had just written at ANI that discussion of the "national socialist" issue should be limited Wikipedia venues, e.g. RfCs, RfAs, ArbComm elections. This seems like a punitive block, given my acknowledgements that future discussions of "national socialist" were improper except perhaps at these venues (and only in rare circumstances, which I would imagine would only involve 2 editors).

Decline reason:

Right up to your last edits before being blocked you were persisting with your disruptive editing. Saying "I acknowledge that it might be a good idea to beat something other than this dead horse" while beating the dead horse is not putting the stick down and walking away from the dead horse.

talk

) 13:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I shall format the diffs outside the appeal box, because the diffs choke the compiler.

• I had just acknowledged that it was unproductive to discuss the "double standard" issue at ANI.
• I had not responded to the latest mention of "national socialist" at ANI. This latest mention again violated
  WP:NPA by making unsubstantiated political allegations against an editor, and Fran's response was only to ask that no further comments be made, to avoid giving me a reason to complain of a double standard! (Nobody has left any message at the gloating administrator/provocateur's talk-page.) (Fran's response voiced no concern about the WP:NPA violation by a gloating administrator, but worried that a continuation of such comments would make his forthcoming block appear to be one-sided.
  )
• I had just written at ANI that discussion of the "national socialist" issue should be limited Wikipedia venues, e.g. RfCs, RfAs, ArbComm elections.

Changing this section's header from "Lihaas" to "Double standards: "Bitching and moaning" gets a block"[10], and starting the following section on "free speech", doesn't give me confidence that unblocking would be wise, but I'll let another admin decline or accept the unblock request as they see fit.

Fram (talk

) 13:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Fram,

You violated talk page guidelines by putting Lihaas's name in the header. If you can propose a better NPOV header do so. Please acknowledge your mistaken misuse of Lihaas's name.

Fram, would you explain yourself.

My comment about "free speech" (below) comments on another editor's inappropriate request to Lihaas, which is the only way I can comment, given your punitive block (of 24 hours).

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment from an uninvolved admin: I must say I disagree with this block, but I would like to see Kiefer acknowledge he was in the wrong here before an early unblock request is accepted. — Joseph Fox 13:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I struck the "national socialist" word from above, which Fram cites as triggering the block (which he foresaw at ANI, when he cautioned others to stop commenting).

I commented above with diffs showing my public pledges to stop discussing "national socialist" at ANI.

What more do you want?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Replacing "national-socialist" with NPA is the kind of wikilawyering that could be predicted, sadly. I warned you mutliple times to drop the Lihaas "smear" issue: i did not warn you to stop referring to "national-socialism" specifically, but to drop the whole issue, not only at ANI, but at user talk pages, unrelated discussions, or nearly everywhere else imaginable. Yes, if there would be an Arbcom case about anyone directly involved, you would be allowed to discuss it (or it would at least fall outsie the scope of my warning here). If you would start an RfC about the issue (one of the venues you mentioned as appropriate), you may well get blocked for it though: if there were recurring, similar problems with an editor, and this was one of them, then using it as an example would be logical (no matter if you were right or wrong): but starting another discussion about this (e.g. starting an RfC about it, or a talk page discussion), or hijacking unrelated discussions (and discussions involving you or Lihaas or anyone else involved are in most cases unrelated to this issue) would be considered disruptive and would lead to further blocks.

Fram (talk

) 15:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You "told me multiple times", "sadly", etc. Who do you think you are?

I'm telling you to enforce WP:NPA now, and I've told you multiple times. Should you be blocked?

You all failed to enforce NPA, and acquiesced when WTT disguised your double standard with a "There's nothing to see here" cover up.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

(reply to an earlier version of this page after multiple edit conflicts, again)If by "there's nothing to see here" cover up, you mean the collapsing of the discussion: that was done by another user[11]. Apart from that: you started by introducing the Lihaas - userbox issue into the discussion, and continued after you were warned to stop (not only by me, admin

Fram (talk

) 15:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The quotation shows your and ANI's double standard. You don't take WP:NPA seriously.

This is what you allowed to stand unchallenged at ANI: "It is not a smear. It is a self-proclaimed fact. His edits confirm it. BTW, I pointed out his user box on talk page long before Elen ever did. Paul B (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)" (end quote)

Lihaas was blocked for his sentence showing contempt for the atmosphere at ANI, a contempt which is shared by many writers.

WTT has been involved from day one, and just days ago was approving of Elen's description of me as an "idiot", quoting the villain of Macbeth---rather appropriate, that! :)

He hushed up the discussion at ANI with a misleading edit summary and a cover-up description of the events.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• This is clearly yet another poor block, but obviously you need to drop the national socialism thing Kiefer. I've rarely seen a request for unblocking granted anyway –
  Fatuorum
  15:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  Malleus, thanks for your advice. I shall be secret and take defeat.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  Think of it as more of a tactical withdrawal than a defeat. And remember that the only real purpose of blocks is to infantilise both the blocker and the blockee. Don't play into their hands by apologising for anything you don't agree that you did.

  Fatuorum

  18:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• I shall e-mail you.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Disruption

A refresher of policy

I quote the disruption-section of the blocking policy:

A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to:

• vandalism;
• gross incivility;
• harassment;
• spamming;
• three-revert rule
  ;
• breaching the
  sock puppetry policy
  ;
• attempts to coerce actions of editors through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite.

How was I disrupting anything? I agree that I was drawing attention to the double standard at ANI, but this was not in any way disruptive.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Fram (talk

) 15:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

For reference, I quote the policy, so you can see from what Fram is cherry-picking:  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Disruption policy
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Signs of disruptive editing This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. A disruptive editor is an editor who: Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors. Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable. Does not engage in consensus building: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors. In addition, such editors may: Shortcuts WP:CTDAPE WP:DEPE Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Ownership of articles , engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles. WP's description of "disruptive editing" does not apply to me, and so this block was improper, or at least its rationale was mis-stated. I was not asking for sanctions against those violating NPA, so your description of "forum shopping" is grossly misleading. I was protesting against the blocking of Lihaas for his complaint about an editor's "bitching and moaning" at ANI; there is no policy warrant or "consensus" that expressions of contempt for "running to ANI" over minor or even moderate irritations should be blocked---otherwise, you would have to block half of the regular contributors at FA. Lihaas is a victim of a double standard.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:46, 10 November 2011 (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.

Lord Sjones23

Sjones23(No, I'm not making this up.)

Lord Sjones23 would do better to develop his reading before again violating talk-page guidelines or wasting Dennis's time further. Don't edit this page again. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"You will respect my autoritah" II

His "I have an exceptionally low tolerance with regards to uncalled for disrespect or incivility obviously" is funnier than Fram's statements above. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried to comment there, but hit five edit conflicts, at least three of which came from SJones23 modifying his original statement. IMO he made an error in inserting himself into this situation. There was no need for it. But I'm also under no illusions about the value of my opinion. Intothatdarkness 22:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The community of Wikiputzia

It's easier to just focus on the truth, and don't worry about the Wikipedia "community", most of whom have never contributed anything worthy of an encyclopedia. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"Most people are mostly wrong most of the time".

Fatuorum

22:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

[ec]Oh, I already know that the "community" is really little more than a shifting minority mustered when it's time to block anything that might disturb the OWN of policy or one of the shadow bureaucracies. No worries on that score. Intothatdarkness 22:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite. There is no such think as this mythical community.

Fatuorum

22:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Quotation from DB's talk page

On the contrary, Bbb23, "editors" should know what they are talking about and avoid making assumptions of themselves, particularly on another's talk page---particularly in acting on hybris and reverting a good edit by a better editor the talk-page's user. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Unblock?

Kiefer, I'd rather see you unblocked so that you can make edits yourself. Look, I know you have disagreements with the block, and I sure as hell am not going to insert myself into that discussion. I recognize you might be in a tough spot: a good unblock request requires that you admit to bad behaviour and promise not to do it again. Both of these are difficult out of principle when one disagrees with the block to begin with. I also recognize that submitting an unblock request requires one to "eat some crow", which - as a dish I've eaten before - is not overly tasty, even with chutney. Yeah, you could spend a month pointing out errors and making suggestions on your talkpage until the block expires, trying to show us how the project is falling apart without your direct editing (and yes, the project is affected without it). How can we all move forward with a) the least amount of dramah, and b) the least amount of crow????? (

BWilkins←✎

) 10:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bwilkins!

Thanks for your thoughtful and generous comments.

I would prefer that Giant Snowman, Fram, and Demiurge1000 be blocked for suitable periods, which should send a message that civility is expected from all editors. Demiurge1000's passive-aggressive behavior should not be supported by Giant Snowman, and Giant Snowman's obnoxious baiting and calumny against Lihaas should not be supported by Fram. Fram's obnoxious behavior should have ended with his desysoping long ago. I don't mind being blocked if others are held accountable for their abusive behavior.

Fram gave reasons for the 30 day block, which were false (but which could have supposed to have been based on his misunderstanding, if we'd forgotten about Fram's previous abuses and dishonesty). But we've seen enough dishonesty from Fram in this episode to remember not to care about his "reasoning". But formally, his excuses for his block's length were false, so it should be reduced. I suggested 18 days, to remember the British and French who opposed Nazism in Belgium....

It's probably best that you other editors editors continue to use this episode to mock and otherwise express contempt for the behavior of Fram, Giant Snowman, and Demiurge1000, which you all are doing well enough without my participation.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This unblock request is in danger of being lost given the chaos of the formatting on this page. To increase visibility, I've commented on the bottom of the page. Could everyone please try to keep that discussion focused. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Teething baby

All else aside:

I had one of those around the house about 9 years ago, and it wasn't much fun, except that she was mine, so it's all fun, and special.

I want to tell you not to worry, because it's all downhill from there, but you're a very bright guy, and you have a fully functional bullshit detector (and maybe previous babies), so I won't. Now I'm less concerned about her crying and keeping me awake (that still happens, but it's bimonthly rather than daily now), and more concerned about other things like education, and impending teendom and such. I'm lucky - she's an exceptional kid, and bright, so problems are minimal. It's all priceless though, so enjoy every frustrating, sleepless minute while you can.

I'm at a loss as to how you're still blocked - seems bizarre to me, but then I remember where I am. Good to see you're still active, even while blocked, and hope to see your signature around more widely again soon. ttfn. Begoon ^talk 14:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for Fram to get around to deleting all the productive edits that others have implemented, as he does with other users who have been blocked, etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah, there's that kind of thing to consider, I guess. I've never been blocked, but it's all a game to some - I've seen enough to know that. When I look at the never-blocked destructive, trolling clowns who cross my watchlist daily, some with little tin badges, some without, and compare them to blocked guys like you, I wonder why I ever come back here. Guess it's the same reason I used to go to football games in the bad old hooligan days of the 80s. I liked the product and some of the company enough to learn how to stay away from the wankers. Begoon ^talk 14:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been blocked loads of times, and several of those times it ought to have been the blocking admin that was blocked rather than me. The lesson Kiefer has failed to assimilate is that for his block to be reduced he has to say three Hail Marys and two Our Fathers on his bended knee in front of ArbCom, after having admitted to all his his sins. Nothing else will do. In his position I'd just sit it out rather than debase myself.

Fatuorum

21:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a waste of others' time to have them implement my edits.

It only takes one administrator who has seen quite enough of Fram's behavior in this episode to end the incompetent and partisan block (with its dishonest explanation) which follows Fram's original dishonest-and-partisan block. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That just ain't gonna happen. You and I know that you only have two choices: admit your guilt, kneel and kiss your blocking administrator's arse, or sit it out and preserve your dignity. Your choice.

Fatuorum

22:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Pointing out his dishonesty and partisanship is mildly amusing. Maybe I should start assembling diffs for an RfC, leading to an ArbCom Desysopping?

On the other hand, if a little shit in the neighborhood were going to throw a snowball at me, I would probably just ignore it. Ben Grimm doesn't waste his punches on the Yancy Street Gang. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

How long have you got to go on your block anyway? Can't be more than a couple of weeks. Bottom line is that we're powerless, we just have to suck it up.

Fatuorum

22:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Literally if you want to be unblocked, figuratively if you don't mind staying blocked. Intothatdarkness 22:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That is one of several problems I have with that Admins conduct on the pedia. One of the worst admins that we have running around IMO. Unfortunately I am a big meany for saying that but it is what it is. I'm not making him be a dick, I'm just calling him (and others) out for it.

talk

) 14:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised that you appear to be unaware that being critical of administrators, or the process by which they're chosen, has become a blockable offence according to ArbCom. Or maybe it's just when I'm critical, not you; it's hard to tell with ArbCom.

Fatuorum

22:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There are administrators like Bwilkins and Sarek of Vulcan who block a lot of vandals and probably get a bit toughened from all the BS they deal with, and so so I feel that they make mistakes in predictable ways but which are a small part of their administrative work. There are administrators like Bishonen who are very clever, and so I don't care what they do, because it is surprising and interesting.

Then there's Fram, copying articles (without quotation) from 100-year-old books with a little ("this article incorporates ...") template as the only knowledgment (and slapping a "plagiarism" header on Carrite's talk page after he gave a regular footnote to the source) and doing semi-automated edits all day, before he gets a chance to tell an editor "You will respect my autoritah".... I have trouble thinking of a similar administrator, apart from the "puling masses" fellow who named himself after an Angel. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

But they're administrators, and you're not. Nuff said.

Fatuorum

23:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Please notice that NYB and BWilkins gave non-condescending advice that helped with the unblocking. I have mentioned earlier that I would be gladdened by a mutual improvement in your mutual estimation, which did seem to me biased worse than any (if any exist) maximum-likelihood estimator for the parameter of a uniform distribution on (0,θ). ;) 'Nuff said, there. I appreciate your notes, which bolstered my spirits. :) Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Block review

I see that there is a pending unblock request on this page, which is in danger of being completely lost given the formatting of the page. The gist of the blocking rationale is personal attacks on other editors and one can understand why some of your edits might be understood in that fashion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz, I don't ask you to make any insincere confessions of wrongdoing or promises you can't or won't keep, but I do ask if you might be able to sand down some of your sharper edges if this block were to be lifted or reduced. Thank you for your response. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

"a lofty spirit is not fierce by nature, but only when excited against evil-doers" — Aristotle, Politics 7.7 Hi NYB, Thanks for writing. As it stands, my block evokes feelings of pity/solidarity and terror in other editors, and it evokes anger in me. In the past, liftings of unjust or disproportionate blocks were quickly followed by Eisenhowerian normalcy. As in the past, I have not complained about a block for violating WP's prohibition on retaliation in responding to NPA. Indeed, I have stated that my block should have been matched with blocks (or at least serious warnings, in this imperfect world) to others. "God bless Captain Vere!" Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC) "Be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all." — Major League Baseball, General instructions to umpires, Official Baseball Rules (9.05) P.S. I have not been blocked for personal attacks, although that claim may have been made as a rationalization by Fram in this block and in my first block. Fram blocked neither Demiurge1000 for his National Socialist smearing (recent or previous) nor Paul B. (previous) nor Giant Snowman (recent). Apart from the descriptive "piece of shit" summarizing the previous discussion, I referred to Demiurge1000's record of dishonest behavior without imputing dishonesty to his character. Everybody familiar with myself or Demiurge1000 could produce dozens of diffs of Demiurge1000 making passive-aggressive and cowardly personal attacks, e.g., insinuating that I need to be controlled by Carrite (to which I responded by noting his record of dishonest behavior). (Do you dispute my claim about the record of dishonesty? Will you apologize on behalf of other administrators for having done nothing despite 10/20/30/40/50/etc. such diffs? How many are needed?) He has repeatedly refused requests to stop or to accept an interaction ban. It has long been past time for administrators who have talked the talk about "uneven enforcement of civility" to walk the walk. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

That being said, I have no intention of breaking policy, and I shall strive to respond to personal attacks, falsehoods, and or incivility while complying with non-retaliation.

This block has long become punitive in its duration, which again was explained to be based on two falsehoods; it would be late in the game (but unsurprising, alas) for Fram to state new reasons for the 30-day length of the block. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Unblock

• I've unblocked Kiefer as it seems clear he wants to move forward based on this statement. As an admin, I sometimes make blocks that the blocked editor disagrees with, but in the end all that matters is the path forward. I accept that editors will often vent at the blocker (see my archives...) and I would caution Keifer that he should find a less aggressive way to disagree (or as Newyorkbrad puts it, sand down the edges). I have no opinion on the original block, I didn't go back to visit every detail, so I assume it was in the best of faith and for good cause, but it seems to have already exhausted its usefulness. Extending it further isn't in the interest of preventing disruption as I have faith that Kiefer has dropped the stick and will simply return to productive editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Like --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

    Thank you. As I said, I was particularly irritable that day because of the teething baby's night-time needs, and I regret having "gone nuclear" so quickly. Being unblocked, I feel better able to express regret (without giving the appearance of acquiescing to issues that I have addressed here, at least sufficiently). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

    • Now that you are unblocked, would you please remove the unflattering things said in the heat of the moment here on your talk page, as a show of good faith to those editors, and as part of sanding down those rough edges? Thanks in advance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Since you and NewYorkBrad and Demiurge1000 have referred to my comments, I do not believe that I am allowed to remove such comments, per talk page guidelines.

I am willing to strike through comments, if I believe they violate WP policies or do not advance the goals of writing and maintaining an encyclopedia. I can look again at my comments in the morning, preferring the resonance of Agnetha to the dissonance of WP as my own bedtime ritual.

Demiurge1000, who complained about my comments on NYB's talk page, has never struck through his comments about Lihaas or Volunteer Marek, despite having been blocked for the latter; has he struck his comments that are inconsistent with the Westminster Catechism's teachings on the 9th Commandment (which have been long quoted on my user page)?

Similarly Fram has never struck objectionable comments, to my knowledge. In contrast, I immediately checked my discussion of his putting a "plagiarism" header on Carrite's talk page, and corrected my error. I believe that others will vouch for my attempts to correct errors of fact or judgment, when they are errors. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

As I offered to NYB, I can provide diffs to document truth claims. What is being disputed? I am happy to rectify any mistake.

I am not going to remove a discussion of behavior in a behavioral dispute among editors, particularly when others do not have the consistency of striking their errors. You unblocked Demiurge1000, and you should be also asking him to remove his boxcutter remarks, which still litter Wikipedia. Then he can start on his comments on Lihaas. If he does that, he can remove his comments on me, if he wishes to be good. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

McCain's acceptance of the NRC push for Palin indicated his readiness to serve as President, according to Colin Powell, whose monological interview should be reviewed.

You should review rhetoric: The beginning of a sentence is not the climax of a sentence (c.f., Wayne Booth, or Kenneth Pike and Alton L. "Pete" Becker, for example). I began with humor and ended soberly.

Either Kurtis or My76Strat is welcome to link to my response, or copy it---whatever is simpler. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Fram, please revert this edit. The "trivial" theorem uses the axiom of choice. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the bad edit, Launchballer. It's nice that you have an interest in the encyclopedia. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Doin' the Charleston

Malleus,

Morgan Freeman paid for a desegregated prom. I recommend the documentary Prom Night in Mississippi [13].

Mike Wallace had an interesting profile and interview with Freeman on 60 Minutes.

Swedish television loves to show documentaries about the Klu Klux Klan in the USA, where they profile e.g. an old man whose daughter had been raped by a Black man and who is filled with hate, and who is pitied by the other residents, including the Sheriff.

A subvariety of "Orientalism", perhaps. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Would somebody please upgrade the diagrams in Guitar chord from pdf to cropped svg?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kiefer. I replaced the image on the left, but I'm not sure where the one on the right goes. INeverCry 20:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

A crucial turning point in that earlier history occurred when men and women of good will turned aside from the task of shoring up the Roman imperium and ceased to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of that imperium. When they set themselves to achieve instead—often not recognizing fully what they were doing—was the construction of new forms of community within which the moral life could be sustained so that both morality and civility might survive the coming ages of barbarism and darkness. If my account of our moral condition is correct, we ought also to conclude that for some time now we too have reached that turning point. What matters at this stage is the construction of local forms of community within which civility and the intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new dark ages which are already upon us. And if the tradition of the virtues was able to survive the horrors of the last dark ages, we are not entirely without grounds for hope. This time however the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time.

— 

Alasdair C. MacIntyre, After Virtue

Hi INeverCry!

Thank you very much!

The smaller diagram should go at the top (right) of the

guitar chords

....

When I was blocked before (no doubt with a block applying even standards of civility and NPA to all...), George Ponderov, ThatPeskyCommoner, Malleus Fatuorum, and Piotrus boosted my spirits by copy editing a GA nominated article or doing a GA vetting (

Shapley-Folkman lemma

). Such acts sustain my waning belief in the utility of contributing here (on topics besides mathematics and Charles Sanders Peirce).

Your help—and a thoughtful query by BWilkins (following a previous heated discussion), like friendly relations with Elen of the Roads and WTT/David and (I'd like to wish) with Bishonen—all these are signs of natural WP hope, surely a better state than WP despair.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I've placed the image in the spot you indicated. It fits perfectly in that section. If you need anything else, I'll be around. You can always contact me at Commons too. Any message there, or here for that matter, that isn't a complaint about a deletion is always welcome. As for WP hope, it's definitely more than justified. There are some really kind, intelligent, interesting people here. INeverCry 22:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please delete the trivial proposition that Elizabeth Kucinich has a tongue stud, which does not belong in an encyclopedia. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 17:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

...I tried, but I've already been reverted. INeverCry 20:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Such human-interest trivia, which may belong in the gossip sections of major newspapers and comic interviews trying to boost their ratings, does not belong in an Encyclopedia. Otherwise BLPs would be over-run with trivia. (Does the article on Lars Leijonborg include his response to a journalist's question on whether he had measured his penis?)

Consensus need not exist for keeping the silver-stud tabloid-factoid. Arzel, you, and I argue against it. The claim to consensus was made when only Arzel spoke up.

(The superfluous and sexist "easy on the eyes" comments and dismissive comments about her professional contributions should never have been made even once on the talk page.)

One sentence may be reasonable. It would be better to source the one-sentence to a serious piece of journalism, which focuses on her work on health-care policy and development rather than on titillating idiots. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed TRJC was the source for the talk-page sexism, so take anything he writes with due skepticism. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria! There's a remaining citation of Fox News, whose headline leads not only with the tongue piercing but also notes that she is one of dem foreignhers, and worst of all, British! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The Drmies chronicles

...but I was on the other line, a couple of 'em. You're unblocked now, I saw a few days ago; good. I'm sorry you were blocked in the first place. Much discussion has passed me by in the last few weeks since it's been a busy time. In other news, baby Liam can stand for ten Mississippis, and he enjoyed being in the sea this past weekend. All the best Kiefer. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Drmies!

Ours has been sliding sideways along sofas, beds, and tables---perhaps under the influence of too many action movies like The Matrix. We are watching to prevent her trying the ledge outside. :)

There's also been babbling, biting, the usual yellow little shits, crying when up past the bedtime. I forget whether I'm writing of my baby or of contemporary WP. ;)

April is the cruellest month, but May is the fool'est month. This exchange at DB's may interest you, particularly the risk of dislocating a shoulder by patting oneself on the back. (N.B. the quote from Dwight MacDonald, whose book is highly amusing. He has Sir Thopas and Skeat's parody of Chaucer.)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

My shoulder is completely fucked and will require surgery. It's not from patting on the back: I blame the dog, years ago, who used to pull on the leash, and a summer's worth of vacuuming the green pool every day (pictures somewhere in my talk page archive). Thanks Kiefer, Drmies (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I have ... a friend ... with a similar problem, called by the Greeks malakos, I think.

The patting on the back was weird because you were involved with the resolution of the userbox problem, by discussion rather than ... baiting. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I love your pictures, especially your "man boobs" (as my niece calls them) or "chiselled pects worthy of Adonis"---much more natural than those of that Simon fellow destroying music.

I loved your work as

the Doctor on Star Trek:Voyager, really a multicultural model community; you are likely to be pegged for "diversity committee" purgatory the rest of your days, even without your gender-bending interests. Then also your work on the Stargate franchise. And your appearance on season one of Justified (as the Hitler-painting hunter)

.

It took a while before I really recognized you, because you often use a toupee in other roles. I loved your "I will not enable you!" line in Sopranos, and of course I understand now why you were able also to pursue graduate work in literature. Being squeamish and delicate, I avoided watch your recent film, where you gnawed your arm off---to get out of that landslide. But, such devotion to your part! No wonder that your shoulder aches! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC) 11:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. What I enjoy most is when my wife and I watch me on the Colbert Report. As for your "friend", it's my left arm. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

In place of a taser or chains

• Perhaps you need to construct one of these devices. [14] (if that doesn't trigger a paternal response, nothing will) Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Ha! I think that every parent has considered that option. :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Art for Art's sake

The Physical Impossibility of Phil Manzanera Playing in the Mind of Someone Listening? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That was an interesting article. The more I read about the commercialism and gutter Maoism of contemporary art, the more I am repelled. Today, one hopes that an artist would photoshop a shark rather than kill one for a monstrous artwork. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in the "olden days" sculptors would be expected to actually sculpt the animal they wished to depict. I guess a modern equivalent might be to produce a hologram, although I suspect a dead specimen might still be required for that. I find Hirst's work superficially interesting, but ultimately derivative and unsatisfying. That particular work, like his monstrous cow and calf, were inspired by the large work of real sculptor Henry Moore parts of which one can walk between. I even prefer Banksy to Hirst... and I don't even work for a local authority cleaning contractor... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

((Talk page stalker stalker)) If artists are supposed to reflect the age they live in, then we fully deserve the ironic superficiality provided by that money-grubbing billionaire Hirst. I do have some respect for the guy though, as he prevented a drunken Keith Allen from decking me once. -- Anthony Blunt

I neglected to applaud your TPS S link. Oh, the pain of George Smiley and his artist wife. I shall have to re-read The Spy Who Came In From The Cold, with Messrs. Bowie, Eno, and Fripp providing prefigurative pathos. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction: The excellent BBC documentary "Five Years" states that the 2nd verse was inspired by the producer's snogging outside the window from which Bowie peaked. Fripp appears as Deux axe machina. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Heh heh. It's all Evanses fault. I recommend

talk

20:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Your Grace. I have to read more Gaiman, Stephenson, Elmore Leonard, Zelazny, and Martin before returning to le Carre's cheerful tales of buggers, testicle crunching and being machine gunned. I did learn the name of frisea from The Night Manager, which may be the anti-particle to the hateful petulie. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Have to admit the last sentence left me floundering. Perhaps a bogon meats cluon annihilation situation? Zelazny I find impenetrable hippy nonsense, much better are the early Red Dwarf books, the more sci-fi I read, the more I think "you cheeky buggers you've ripped that off from x" --

talk

20:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Remember this? --

talk

21:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Frisea (perhaps misspelled) is a flower used in fragrances. Petulie is the noxious hippie scent, even worse than the Axe body spray that has been documented in at least one case of a teacher being hospitalized from anaphylactic shock.

You should read the Amber series, which has a riff on the Three Stooges's "slowly he turned, step by step", etc. "This Immortal" is good, but his best is likely "Lord of Light", from which the first paragraph

His followers called him Mahasamatman and said he was a god. He preferred to drop the Maha- and the -atman, however, and called himself Sam. He never claimed to be a god, but then he never claimed not to be a god.

rivals the first paragraph of David Lodge's Small World according to horselaughometry. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't get on with Lord of Light, just dug my spider-covered copy off the shelf, that opening sentence reads like something out of Spinal Tap! I did chuckle, not sure if it was a horse laugh though. --

talk

21:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, right, my mistake. Was looking above that para, at this bit from the Dhammapada:

It is said that fifty-three years after his liberation he returned from the Golden Cloud, to take up once again the gauntlet of Heaven, to oppose the Order of Life and the gods who ordained it so.

Gorseinon's finest!!? .. watch out for that Rinka tatoo ....liberal dog-lover

"Rinka tatoo".... Isn't that from the goodnight song by The Schnoz? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it Inka Dinka Don't! lol Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"If you are wise you'll listen to me" Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Gotta ask, how does Asimov feature on Wikipediocracy? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, the edit-description "The Foundation was not mentioned" was too dull for me. :)

Wikipedia's mission (Pillars I-IV) is similar to the First Foundation. The Blocking Heads are similar to the Mule, although without his Adonis-like physique and sparkling personality. Perhaps Wikipediocracy can reflect hopes for a Second Foundation?  :)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I thank you, first time today I have laughed, and you did that in it a very good way, I must agree of course on those blocking being like the mule, I believe Maunus mentioned it recently on ANI. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Maunus is honest, and hence doomed. I forget whether I have been blocked for using "unctuous", or whether I edited it away before pressing "save". I did use "those of who were not raised from birth to be catamites" when I was young and full of fire. "Catamite" is a better phrase than "eunuch", by half imho. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the blocking. Maunus was behaving correctly. He removed his personal attack, showing understanding, before he was blocked. It would have been superfluous to warn him, even, given his having fixed the PA. People at ANI must decide whether WP is in the business of writing an encyclopedia or whether we are hosting Barnie's Friends. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that decision was made some time ago. Intothatdarkness 20:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jazz guitar may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

You seem to be an especially incompetent bot.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No spanking the bots!!! (En-WP is not Commons.™) —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

SignBot is a fascist. Let the Butlerian Jihad begin! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Student newspaper

What's the reliable source that says the U-Penn student newspaper is an unreliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsoMorpheus (talk • contribs) 23:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's an idea: take it to the

BWilkins←✎

) 00:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Would somebody please revert the redlinking of dab pages with explanations, which at least informs the reader? (This is a unconscious EW-violation of the BRD cycle, by somebody using semi-automatic tools).

It might be better to link it to George McGovern's politics. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Now that I see the history, I'll gladly change the link to wherever you want it. How about if I link it to George McGovern for now? -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 10:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the existing DAB is still the best, unless some policy is violated, in which case you should do what you think is best.

There is no discussion of "New Politics" in the McGovern 1972 Campaign article.

In the SDUSA context, the "New Politics" was disliked for its association with an emphasis on professionals, public employees, students, and other "constituencies of conscience" (POV) who supported an immediate withdrawal of US forces from Vietnam (and after the draft ended promptly demobilized, but that is a later story), versus the traditional socialist emphasis on labor unions and a labor-associated political party (with in the US an additional focus on civil rights). Michael Harrington proposed a Marxian "theory" of the new class, as a good thing, in the USA, and he was losing a factional debate inside the US Socialist Party c. 1970-1972. There used to be a link to a 20 page criticism of Harrington from SDUSA people, that explains this in depth, if anybody is interested. (I'm not saying I agree with everything they write, but looking at it will demonstrate that my account here is balanced.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I've changed the link back to the disambiguation page (piped through the (disambiguation) redirect so that it won't show up as a link that needs to be fixed anymore). -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 17:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I thought I'd drop by and say I'm sorry I was a jerk to you before, you are an asset to wikipedia, good luck,

Thank you, very much.

I appreciate your comment, particularly since we seem to disagree on small matters.

You are doing The Lord's Work against the walking intellectually dead. I gave up on trying to defend statistics, etc., from the students of "research methods in psychology 201", and I marvel at your fortitude in discussing science with Feyerabend quoters. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)