User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 45
Latest comment: 11 years ago by EdwardsBot in topic The Signpost: 29 April 2013
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz. 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. |
| Archive 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 |
The Signpost: 18 March 2013
- News and notes: Resigning arbitrator slams Committee
- WikiProject report: Making music
- Featured content: Wikipedia stays warm
- Arbitration report: Richard case closes
- Technology report: Visual Editor "on schedule"
DYK for Overtones tuning
 | On 23 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Overtones tuning, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was
|
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 March 2013
- WikiProject report: The 'Burgh: WikiProject Pittsburgh
- Featured content: One and a half soursops
- Arbitration report: Two open cases
- News and notes: Sue Gardner to leave WMF; German Wikipedians spearhead another effort to close Wikinews
- Technology report: The Visual Editor: Where are we now, and where are we headed?
"Such an excellent sock-troll"
I am nonplussed and plussed by comments in this Wikipediocracy thread:
- "supertrolls."
- "I would take my hat off for crafting such an excellent sock-troll as Kiefer Wolfowitz."
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Can't see why your confused Keifer. It's pretty obvious, and well discussed. Common consensus is you're not really a sock - just a returning user who abandoned a "difficult" account. As for the troll bit - jee, that's not tricky although you don't troll all the time - just when you need to inflate your ego. Cheers for visiting wikipediocracy ;-). 86.145.247.134 (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Pedro long ago suggested a similar theory, and he even pointed toward some other website, without revealing my secret identity.... *LOL*
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- That website is a shithole, just like the one it succeeded...but I do wonder what on Earth the "transgender teenager from Sudan" comment was all about.--MONGO 19:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- That was being ridiculous. Most of us are sympathetic to disempowered persons, and so I tried to think of somebody even more oppressed than MT..., not listening to the angel on my shoulder, again. When I did listen, I struck the comment, which does not seem supersaturated with the milk of human kindness....
- Some of the comments are informative, thoughtful, and just.
- One sees many editors complaining when somebody is out of line. For example, Volunteer Marek usually tries to tell people to behave decently; he announced his being disgusted by recent threads and withdrawing his participation (at least for a while). Ceoil and others complained about somebody who mused about outing an administrator, etc., and I hope that that comment was stricken, and the offender given a yellow card.
- It is freer and has probably a bit more nuttiness than WP, but Wikipedia is the place where somebody was not banned after musing about murdering TParis, because they were hypothetical and had plenty of "if"s.... I wouldn't have been able to track down the Colbert episode making fun of the scientology decision by ArbCom without WR, so both WO and WR have their place in the universe. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't here to lecture about NPA...just being an old guy, I was curious what you meant. I think an entire section was devoted to MONGO at WR...mostly dominated by editors I had vanquished here...I read some of the threads there but found no real difference between what they had written and what one might find on a junior high commode door.--MONGO 20:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- My main feeling reading WO is fatigue, similar to that from reading (many but not all and perhaps not most) ANI discussions---or more precisely, like reading ANI complaints about me or my friends!
- WO and WR seem to be the main sites criticizing WP, and so they are essential (for a project of this size and scope and influence). I have made it the habit to read the best people with whom I disagree, to avoid cultism. This became conscious when I was 15 or so, and a friend came back and announced she was a born-again Christian, perhaps omitting the "born-again", after a week at a religious camp. The consequences of reading and speaking only to agreeable people has been disastrous in political circles, in the US and Sweden, in more recent years.
- Ditto with the Fisher cult in British and Swedish/Danish statistics.
- Carrite has more experience in political movements and such experiences (with cultish behavior) have made him even more committed to defending the existence and occassional reference here to WO or WR, as necessary if often unpleasant. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- In any case, if "pro-science" is the worst insult they can come up with to call you, you're doing well! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose that IRWolfie shared my delight in being so pigeonholed.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- In any case, if "pro-science" is the worst insult they can come up with to call you, you're doing well! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't here to lecture about NPA...just being an old guy, I was curious what you meant. I think an entire section was devoted to MONGO at WR...mostly dominated by editors I had vanquished here...I read some of the threads there but found no real difference between what they had written and what one might find on a junior high commode door.--MONGO 20:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- That website is a shithole, just like the one it succeeded...but I do wonder what on Earth the "transgender teenager from Sudan" comment was all about.--MONGO 19:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Can't see why your confused Keifer. It's pretty obvious, and well discussed. Common consensus is you're not really a sock - just a returning user who abandoned a "difficult" account. As for the troll bit - jee, that's not tricky although you don't troll all the time - just when you need to inflate your ego. Cheers for visiting wikipediocracy ;-). 86.145.247.134 (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Posse of "Malleus the magnificent"
Perhaps Randy from Boise was thinking of Constable Bob, whom "people underestimate at their peril", when he referred to me as an officer in a posse at Wikipediocracy?
You've been conscripted!
Hey K-Wolf--
Toby Higbie of the UCLA History Dept. is going to have a course in the coming term (begins Tuesday) in which he's going to assign each person in his 100 student class to write or improve a Wikipedia article on the biography of a labor or political leader, union, or other political institution. I've told him I'd try to round up four or five sympathetic Wikipedians to be available to answer any questions the students have over the course of the term. The assignment is due May 30 and college students being college students, it can reasonably be expected that the bulk of the queries will happen in the week or two prior to that date. May I list your WP talk page as a contact address for them? Please do let me know. Best, —Tim /// MutantPop@aol.com /// Carrite (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Tim!
- Sure, that would be great.
- Higbie's page suggests that he or his students could write the article on George Anastaplo, a worthy exemplar of Chicago's free-speech heritage.
- Somebody could write on US public sector labor law, which has been central to political debates in the last few years, using the book of Joseph Slater, a historian and law professor in Klinger's hometown. I assume that Slater would be a notable prof.
- I don't have time to update Tom Kahn, but I saw that JSTOR has some resources on him, including the a nice article from the thesis at GWU. Bayard Rustin's article deserves a lot more work. Their From Protest to Politics should be developed. The film "Brother Outsider" has an excerpt from a letter by Kahn summoning Rustin back to the USA from Africa, which deserves attention.
- Rachel Horowitz deserves an article. Of course, the AFL-CIO's support of Solidarnosc deserves an article.
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
AN
Yes, very good. I have removed the accusation of socking - your title was just atrocious, and I have no idea (well, actually I have a very good idea) why you continue to comment on a stale thread, when it has long ceased to serve any purpose. GiantSnowman 19:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
And yes, I should have made the title neutral from the start rather than simply reverting you. Apologies. GiantSnowman 19:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- You were better off remaining aware of your stated ignorance of my intentions, rather than resolving the dissonance by imputing malice to me. Let me help you.
- ANI titles should not make false accusations against an editor unable to defend himself, as a matter of basic decency.
- If an editor makes a false accusation, then if he wishes to behave like a 10 year old rather than a 4 year old brat, he should take responsibility and withdraw it with an apology. Especially somebody pretending to be an administrator.
- Thank you for the acknowledgment. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, Dupont/d edit warred again. We'll see what happens.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
D sharp phyrigian
Check out this. It is D sharp phyrigian/E lydian (in the key of B major). The E chord is lydian with the A sharpened and he plays a D sharp flat 9 chord using the open E on the first fret. There's some E minor 6 (at 1 min 10) and major minor 7 voicing in there too, he's one of the biggest influences on me, I've paused most of his videos and stole a lot of his chords and progressions.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks!
- It sounds great, but the harmonic discourse is over my head, at least until I have some time to listen attentively. The household has been fighting a nasty cold the last week.
- Sorry for my delay in responding. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Chart of open tunings
| Major triad | Repetitive | Overtones | Other (often most popular) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open A | (A,C♯,E) | A-C♯-E-A-C♯-E | A-A-E-A-C♯-E | E-A-C♯-E-A-E |
| Open B | (B,D♯,F♯) | B-D♯-F♯-B-D♯-F♯ | B-B-F♯-B-D♯-F♯ | B-F♯-B-F♯-B-D♯♯ |
| Open C | (C,E,G) | C-E-G-C-E-G | C-C-G-C-E-G | C-G-C-G-C-E |
| Open D | (D,F♯,A) | D-F♯-A-D-F♯-A | D-D-A-D-F♯-A | D-A-D-F♯-A-D |
| Open E | (E,G♯,B) | E-G♯-B-E-G♯-B | E-E-B-E-G♯-B | E-B-E-G♯-B-E |
| Open F | (F,A,C) | F-A-C-F-A-C | F-F-C-F-A-C | C-F-C-F-A-F |
| Open G | (G,B,D) | G-B-D-G-B-D | G-G-D-G-B-D | D-G-D-G-B-D |
The Signpost: 01 April 2013
- Special report: Who reads which Wikipedia?
- WikiProject report: Special: FAQs
- Featured content: What the ?
- Arbitration report: Three open cases
- Technology report: Wikidata phase 2 deployment timetable in doubt
Looking for help reviewing new article
Hi Kiefer Wolfowitz, I've been looking to find editors who can review a new draft I've proposed for Rally.org, an online fundraising platform. Because I wrote the article on the company's behalf, I'd like to have impartial editors review it to make sure it is neutral, non-promotional and otherwise meets Wikipedia's guidelines. I've placed an AfC template on the draft, but I know there's a big backlog there and editors don't always have as much experience looking at drafts where there's a COI. As you're a member of WikiProject Cooperation, I was wondering if you'd mind taking a look?
The draft is in my user space here: User:16912_Rhiannon/Rally.org If you're able to review, please leave any comments on the Talk page and feel free to make any edits in the draft as necessary. If you think it's ready to go live, I've very much appreciate it you would move it into live article space. I won't move it myself as I follow the "bright line" rule of COI editing. Please let me know if you have any questions at all. If you're currently busy but know someone else who might be able to assist, let me know. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi 16912 Rhiannon!
- I read your article and it seemed to be written in a NPOV fashion with more than sufficient documentation for a start-class article. (It seemed to be clear, also.)
- I looked at the (first) WSJ article, and (1) somebody else should spot-check other references. It seemed to have been fairly cited. I did not (2) check for close paraphrasing with the WSJ, so somebody else should check that source and a few other a few sources.
- It seemed that the WSJ and other high-quality reliable-sources were fairly represented. A conscientious reviewer should also (3) look at Google scholar or News, etc., to see that negative or controversial aspects of the topic are mentioned, if reported in high quality reliable sources, per due weight.
- The main issue is that some sentences seem to run-on. Your lede has a long sentence which mentions specific film-makers (if my memory is correct), which is probably too much detail; the sentence is too convoluted now. Better prose is not a requirement for WP, but I'm sure that as the article nears completion you should want to polish the prose further.
- I am especially busy now, and I am sorry that I cannot carry out the suggested steps (1--3) myself. Of course, you are welcome to link my comments here to the article proposal, in case they help another reviewer.
- Good luck with the article and your endeavours.
- Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! That was very speedy. And while you were reviewing someone at AfC took the draft live, although the "user page" template is still at the top (I've asked them to remove it). I'll link to your comments from the Talk page there and look for another editor to do the spot check of references and look at the prose. Now its live I'd rather not make the edits to prose myself, so hopefully another editor can help. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please improve the prose yourself, since such improvements don't change content and don't represent conflicts of interest. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! That was very speedy. And while you were reviewing someone at AfC took the draft live, although the "user page" template is still at the top (I've asked them to remove it). I'll link to your comments from the Talk page there and look for another editor to do the spot check of references and look at the prose. Now its live I'd rather not make the edits to prose myself, so hopefully another editor can help. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Metaheuristics
Hey Kiefer, didn't we run into each other on a metaheuristic-related article some months/years ago? I've spent a good part of my Sunday-morning cleaning up after an academic that has been doing a bit of self-promotion over the past few years using quite an army of sockpuppets. In the process I came across two interesting articles I'd thought you might enjoy as well:
- Weyland, Dennis (2010). "A Rigorous Analysis of the [[Harmony Search]] Algorithm: How the Research Community can be Misled by a "Novel" Methodology" (PDF). International Journal of Applied Metaheuristic Computing. 1 (2): 50–60. doi:10.4018/jamc.2010040104.
{{cite journal}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help) - Sörensen, Kenneth. "Metaheuristics—the metaphor exposed" (PDF). International Transactions in Operational Research. doi:10.1111/itor.12001.
The last one doesn't only point out the sorrow state of the field as a whole, but also makes a few well-deserved jabs at Wikipedia as well. Cheers, —Ruud 22:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Ruud!
- I found the 2nd on-line and added the url above. It looks like an interesting article, which cites John Hooker, another smart fellow from Carnegie Mellon: He published a thoughtful piece on the competitive testing of algorithms in Operations Research a decade or so ago.
- I'll try to look at the metaheuristic article. Usually the mathematics project provides back-up when I've tried to remove junk from articles, so I suppose that your efforts shall be sustained. There is no such back-up in politics, etc., and as a result, I've left almost all such articles to the nuts, some of them academic nuts.
- Best regards,
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- I should have fixed the discussion of continuous optimization before. The stupidity or incompetence of comparing a quasi-Newton method to a heuristic on a noisy global problem and failing to discuss the literature on global and stochastic optimization---especially when Robbins-Munro/Kiefer-Wolfowitz, Rastygin (sic.), etc. have already been cited---is shocking. I think I would rather attend a conference on the intellectual contributions of Cornel West than I would suffer through a conference on metaheuristics. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 08 April 2013
- Wikizine: WMF scales back feature after outcry
- WikiProject report: Earthshattering WikiProject Earthquakes
- News and notes: French intelligence agents threaten Wikimedia volunteer
- Arbitration report: Subject experts needed for Argentine History
- Featured content: Wikipedia loves poetry
- Technology report: Testing week
Finding secondary sources
Hello, I was wondering if you could consider helping me find secondary sources (when possible) for most of the metaheuristics? I noticed that even the older works such as the metaheuristics from the 50's only cites a primary source. For example "1952: Robbins and Monro work on stochastic optimization methods.[12]", where [12] = Robbins, H.; Monro, S. (1951). "A Stochastic Approximation Method". Annals of Mathematical Statistics 22 (3): 400–407.doi:10.1214/aoms/1177729586.
By the same definition you used to reject the huge list of metaheuristics (only reliable secondary sources), even the earlier methods are not satisfactory. So by the same reasoning you rejected the whole list of metaheuristics, we also ought to reject most of the metaheuristics you decided to keep. So to avoid being hypocrites, we need to find more secondary sources or delete even more of the metaheuristic list you left.
Considering that the historical work is important, I would appreciate you first finding secondary sources for those that are still listed on the metaheuristic page. I can look for secondary sources for some of the newer stuff as I already know several of secondary sources for CMA-ES, MOGA, and Ant-colony. I feel as if we ought to preserve as many as possible because it provides a quick lazy overview of what the research community has been up to. I admit some of the metaheuristics feel like garbage (especially in light of the NFL theorems for search and optimization), but there are some gems you excluded.Mouse7mouse9 00:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Every editor is welcome to delete anything that lacks a reliable source if he has any doubts as to the veracity of a claim. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry about the cite overkill. I hoped you would show me how many would be appropriate and you have. Should we aim for one primary and two secondary sources when possible?Mouse7mouse9 22:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Those references were useful for an article about "No Free Lunch", about which Stolfi has raised concerns. They may not be appropriate for an article about metaheuristics, which should follow WP:DUE_WEIGHT guidelines. Do surveys or review articles on metaheuristics discuss these specific methods? An editor is welcome to delete what you added and I spared as violating WP:Due Weight and as raising OR/COI concerns.
- The article doesn't make sense and it is entirely based on original research, except for the critical overview that you don't like.
- For example, there is no definition of heuristic (unless my senility fogs my memory). Robbins-Monro and the Metropolis-Hastings methods are iterative methods, with convergence theories. The simplex heuristic of Nelder Meade also converges, under rather restrictive conditions, so it can be considered to be an iterative method (of limited applicability).
- It seems to me that this article has been written as an excuse for people to promote themselves and their friends, which is why there was no attention to secondary reliable sources until Ruud added the criticism. I suspect that, if people continue to be greedy (violating the go maxim quoted on my user page), then the computer science project will come in and wipe the article clean of anything looking like self-promotion, primary, or unreliable sources, and it will only be a stub of one paragraph in length.
- What was written before on continuous optimization methods was rubbish, as I noted before (replying to Ruud). I'm afraid that similar concerns may exist for the rest of the article.
- If we make a distress call to the math or CS projects, it's possible that any professor working in algorithmics will reduce the article to a 2-sentence stub, leaving the survey articles and books mentioned but never used. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Greetings Kiefer
I wanted to say hello and wish you well. My76Strat (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I trust that all is well with you! :)
- Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metaheuristic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Procedure (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 April 2013
- WikiProject report: Unity in Diversity: South Africa
- News and notes: Another admin reform attempt flops
- Featured content: The featured process swings into high gear
AutomaticStrikeout's talk page
| Hello 911? There's an old man being beaten.... | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
Disruptive EditingIf you do not cease editing User talk:AutomaticStrikeout I will block you for disruptive editing. Administrators and most other editors have better things to do than fight over a pointless comment on the talk page of a retired user. Drop the stick, back off from the dead horse and go find something productive to do instead. Nick (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
IndefblockI've been trying to leave this for about 30 minutes now, apologies for the delay. Hi Kiefer, you have been blocked for disruptive editing, this chiefly covers two areas of concern. There has been an allegation that you have breached the WP:OUTING policy, which is the reason for the indefinite block and why I removed access to your talk page initially. The disruption on your and other talk pages would normally have resulted in the talk page being protected and/or a short block of 12-24 hours. In order that you may be unblocked, I need to know that you understand the outing policy and that you agree not to refer to editors in anything other than the way they ask to be referred to, i.e via their Wikipedia username, unless they grant you permission to use other names or forms of greeting. I'd also like to see that you've dropped your interest in the AutomaticStrikeout talk page and that productive editing will resume but that's really less of an issue in the grand scheme of things. Nick (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Community discussion of Nick's blockThose edits Nick rev-deleted were in no way outing any editor here. It is ridiculous to even think so. If this is the basis for the block then it should be undone, and those edits put back into the history. Kevin (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I have unblocked you. As you are aware now, AutomaticStrikeout does not want you to comment on his talk page and you must respect that. Continuing to make WP:POINTy remarks directed at another user will result in another block. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. Is "G. Wickwire" the new site that shall not be named ("oversighted" by Drmies)? Good grief. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
|
Cite book template: Weirdness
Did anybody announce changing the cite book and related templates?
It's irritating that many of my articles have ugly red blotches. Maybe I missed something in The Signpost? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- I suspect what you're seeing is a side effect of the Lua rollout. See also Wikipedia_talk:FAC#Red_error_messages. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Nikkimaria,
- Your link was informative. Thanks again! :)
- I confirm that you have my power of attorney on Wikipedia. :D
- My errors seem to have been isbn errors (one where I gave the printed isbn, which was a typo in the book, rather than official non-printed isbn) and no-tolerance for unsupported fields, which could be supported in the future (e.g., a field inspired by the BibTeX entry from Mathematical Reviews's MathSciNet). The WP error messages are likely reasonable, insofar as we wish to have a style guide (like any semi-pro publication).
- Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- That'll teach you to use those horrible citation templates, K-Wolf!!! Carrite (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
That article has been in the queue for for GAN for over 2 and a half months, now thanks to you it has to join the bottom again. The article has not been reviewed and it has not been failed, so why you listed it as such is completely and utterly beyond me. How dare you. — AARON • TALK 19:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- I failed its GAN because it was unfit for DYK, months ago. Had you forgotten that the DYK project uphold my veto?
- One of your buddies removed the failure, out of process.
- Perhaps it has been improved since then? If so, great. Renominate it, then! Good luck! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- I did never needed to renominate because it was never failed! So why you have removed it twice is beyond me. — AARON • TALK 20:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Kiefer, you didn't review the article for GAN, you reviewed it for DYK. If you'd like to take the time to review the article at GAN, please, feel free, but if not, you cannot fail it. That's hilarious. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- I reviewed it at GAN, and I failed it. An article that gets failed at DYK because of English failings cannot satisfy the GA criterion of being written goodest. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Kiefer, you didn't review the article for GAN, you reviewed it for DYK. If you'd like to take the time to review the article at GAN, please, feel free, but if not, you cannot fail it. That's hilarious. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- I did never needed to renominate because it was never failed! So why you have removed it twice is beyond me. — AARON • TALK 20:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 April 2013
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Editor Retention
- News and notes: Milan conference a mixed bag
- Featured content: Batfish in the Red Sea
- Arbitration report: Sexology case nears closure after stalling over topic ban
- Technology report: A flurry of deployments
More bullying by the ultra-nationalists
| Began badly, ended worse, but some thoughtful conversations happened | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
|
here. LittleBen (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
HiHi there Kiefer. I think this has been placed on a couple of Talk pages, but not quite in the same form as here. Above User LittleBenW says to you "It's pretty obvious that the attacks ... were the result of off-wiki canvassing and mob organizing that is acknowledged here. " That here links to a reply on my Talk page to an enquiry to Alan Liefting on his Talk page about LittleBenW linking his diacritics templates into WP:RS (which is my view is a fairly important page). I have left a message twice on User LittleBenW's Talk page that I have never sent a single off-wiki message (which a sysop can confirm), much less to canvass, and I don't think asking an editor on a Talk page about a controversial link insertion into WP:RS counts as " That's not the reason for saying hi. The reason is the next line: "I have lots of other facts organized into a case, and would be glad to get your off-wiki input on how to proceed" - I see you haven't accepted this invitation, but I wonder if he contacts you again then perhaps you might counsel him against it, not least since off-wiki is still covered by his TBAN. To round it off User:NE Ent has started what is effectively a deletion discussion on LittleBenW's diacritics templates at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_21#Template:Google_RS. All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I hope that this episode is behind us. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
|
An award for you
|
The Jekyll and Hyde Award | |
| You are presented with this prestigious award in recognition of your unusual ability to run contrasting Jekyll and Hyde identities within the confines of a single account. Bishonen | talk 18:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC). |
- Aw shucks, Bishonen. :D
- *Blushes*
- Do I contradict myself?
- Very well, then I contradict myself,
- I am large, I contain multitudes.
— Walt Whitman, Song of Myself
- Ett ord som en människa fäster sig vid
- kan verka i oberäknelig tid.
- Det kan framkalla glädje till livets slut,
- det kan uppväcka obehag livet ut.
- Ja, det påverkar livet på jorden.
- Så slarva inte med orden!
- —Alf Henriksson
- (I am large, too, but my multitudes have accounts of their own.) Bishonen | talk 11:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC).
Respect my autoriteh
Earlier history
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)
- 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)
- And in this ANI, you were told by around 10 users (admins and editors alike) that pointing out that a user has a userbox (self-created I might add) is not a smear. It's time to drop that stick. WormTT · (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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[2], 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)
lists.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)
- The next sentence stated that it was unproductive to discuss "double standards" at ANI:
- 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?"[3] 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.[4] 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)
- Please don't edit my comment again.[4] 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)
- 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)
- Did it hurt your feelings? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:32, 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?"[3] a rhetorical question as well? And a loaded one to boot, of course. Fram (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Review of block
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. JamesBWatson (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.
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"[5], 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[6]. 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 User:Worm That Turned also told you to drop it). Other users didn't start this, and didn't continue after a warning. I'm not going to warn someone more severely for one remark uttered by the provocation of your continued disruption. By the way, if you consider it to be a personal attack, why did you add it as the header text of your ANI recap[7]? 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 – Joseph Fox's observation above, that you have to express some remorse for something you don't agree you did – is typical of the convoluted logic that's so prevalent here. Best just to maintain your dignity and let the clock run down IMO. I've never requested an unblock and I never will. Malleus 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. Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Malleus, thanks for your advice. I shall be secret and take defeat. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:43, 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;
- edit warring, especially breaches of the three-revert rule;
- breaching the policies or guidelines, especially 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)
- Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Refusal to "get the point", and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Signs of disruptive editing: "continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors". When something is (repeatedly) discussed, no action is taken, and when you restart the discussion, you get asked by different editors (uninvolved admins) to stop it (with a clear indication that you will get blocked otherwise), and you continue anyway, then you ar acting disruptively and can be blocked. See also WP:FORUMSHOP, part of the consensus policy. 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. |
|
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 Signpost: 29 April 2013
- News and notes: Chapter furore over FDC knockbacks; First DC GLAM boot-camp
- In the media: Wikipedia's sexism; Yuri Gadyukin hoax
- Featured content: Wiki loves video games
- WikiProject report: Japanese WikiProject Baseball
- Traffic report: Most popular Wikipedia articles
- Arbitration report: Sexology closed; two open cases
- Recent research: Sentiment monitoring; UNESCO and systemic bias; and more
- Technology report: New notifications system deployed across Wikipedia