User:WormTT/Workshop

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~ ), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



''Anyone is welcome to endorse any view, but do not change other people's views. Under normal circumstances, a user should not write more than one view.''

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct and have previously attempted and failed to resolve the dispute. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. Other users may present their views in the other sections below.''

Cause of concern
''{Add summary here, provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.}''
 * A pattern of mildly disruptive behaviour from User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz.
 * Enforcing his interpretation of an essay on younger editors
 * Includes edit warring over a disability tag, going over 3RR, templating the other involved editors (Kiefer vs 3-4 other editors)
 * Over-zealous contributions to RfAs concerning younger editors
 * Promoting a hierarchical atmosphere where some editors are "better" than others
 * Disdain for editors who do not share is personal opinion on sources.
 * Disdain for editors who do not get involved in his personal area of interest.
 * Changing the tone of edits long after the edit first posted, without using and tags
 * General incivility
 * Comments from other users (I need to investigate these futher, they may not be true.)
 * Using WP:COPYVIO to push his opinion.
 * 
 * Over-zealous attack on editor (demanding indef block for trolling)

Applicable policies and guidelines
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.



Desired outcome
''This summary of the dispute is written by the users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus. Other users may present their views of the dispute in the other sections below.''

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714
 * User talk:Worm That Turned - discussed possibility of informal on-wiki discussion of issues, rather than full blown RfC.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.



Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.



Questions
''Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.''

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Response
''{This section is reserved for the opinions and views of the user whose conduct is disputed. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but only the person named in the dispute should change or edit the view in this section.}''

Response to concerns
I regard this as another waste of time. I have already responded to most of these complaints weeks ago at ANI, where I defended myself against a serious of similar charges by Demiurge1000 and his summoned administrator, TWW. In retrospect, I viewed the attacks as unwarranted, so that the charges should just have been ignored. My conclusion that I should have ignored the drama was seconded by User:Reaper Eternal.

WP:3RR
In years of editing, I have made exactly one 3RR violation, which I have stated was due to miscounting. A minor who had previously removed a statement that he had Aspberger's syndrome returned to Wikipedia editing after relatively little editing after a failed RfA, and added this information. I removed the Aspberger's information, as per the policy that minors especially should not disclose personal information.

In private e-mail, the user stated no objections to my action but stated that he wished to identify himself, having considered my concerns. The drama was due to other users, not to the minor being upset. I don't understand the fixation on this incident.

"General incivility", versus "Voltaire & self-deprecation"

 * "General incivility " (sic.). I stopped responding to a conversation going nowhere, because I did not want "to explain everything", which is "the secret of being a bore" according to Voltaire. WTT seems to have failed to recall or to have Googled this famous phrase.

Striking-through text: Another RfA
There are two complaints about my revising exactly one text (each time) without using strike-throughs.


 * 1) In the case where I responded to WTT, there had been no reply to my initial response and so no strike-through was obligatory.
 * 2) In the second case, I judged that my edits might reduce the stress on an editor who had identified himself as suffering from depression and schizophrenia, and that the benefit from changing the text to reduce his stress sufficed. Nobody reverted that edit, or complained on that page that this edit had been improper: Perhaps others shared my judgment that a reduction in drama might have been beneficial? (I had asked in a private email to WTT that he avoid mentioning the case of this user, and regret that defending myself necessitates mentioning this on Wiki.)

Requests for Administratorship (RfAs): "Overzealousness"?
I have been accused of being "over-zealous" at RfAs. I have raised concerns about candidates' lack of substantive quality editing (and sometimes about paraphrasing of copyrighted material in apparent violation of WP policy), and the record shows that my concerns were shared by other editors, some of whom acknowledged my contributions.

RfAs of minors (non-adults)
A related complaint alleges that I have been over-zealous about "younger [sic.] editors" at RfAs. I have repeatedly stated that minors should not become administrators because of (1) possible harm to minors, (2) legal liability of Wikipedia, and last & least (3) concerns about damage to Wikipedia. Many other editors have stated similar concerns. WP's discussion of the "perennial proposal" that administrators be adults states that WP editors are free to mention youth as a motivation for opposing minor candidates:
 * Requiring that administrators be adults (a perennial proposal): "Editors are free to use age as a personal rationale for opposing adminship on RfA".

Concerns about possible copyright violation or close paraphrasing: Duplicitous POV pushing?

 * At least 2 editors accused me of using copyright violation tags duplicitously to advance some political agenda. WTT irresponsibly repeats this baseless charge, knowing that I have complained about his failure to stop such violations of AGF, NPA, when they had occurred before. I complained that WTT and the other editors failed even to learn enough to evaluate the editing dispute, but rather simply repeated this personal attack in ignorance. I have also noted that in every case where I diagnosed a possible copyright-violation problem, either I or other editors had to rewrite the paragraphs extensively: In many cases, the history of the article had to be deleted because of a copyright violation concern. In no case, has any such tagging resulted in an approval of the status quo. In this context, he can exhibit high disdain for sense of injured merit as much as he wants....
 * WTT cites my flagging concerns about a possible copyright violation for the Socialist Party of America, without quoting my listing of close paraphrasing of paragraphs from the "history" published by the Socialist Party USA''':

*SPUSA: The ISL was a Trotskyist splinter group founded and led by Max Shachtman .... In 1958 the ISL dissolved, and its members joined the SP-SDF. ... the concept of “Realignment.” Shachtman and his lieutenant, Michael Harrington , argued that what America needed wasn’t a third party, but a meaningful second party. The Realignment supporters said that in sixty years the Socialist Party had failed to bring labor into the Party, and in fact kept losing their labor sympathizers (such as the Reuther brothers) because they saw they could do more within the Democratic Party.
 * WP: In 1958 the party admitted to its ranks the members of the recently-dissolved Independent Socialist League led by Max Shachtman, a ... Trotskyist .... Shachtman and his lieutenant [[Michael Harrington]]  advocated a political strategy called "realignment," arguing that rather than pursuit of ineffectual independent politics, the American socialist movement should instead seek to move the Democratic Party to the social democratic left by direct participation within the organization.


 * SPUSA: At the ... Democratic National Convention ... in 1968, Realignment Socialists were present as delegates.... At the same time, many Debs Caucus members were in the streets with the demonstrators.
 * WP: This division was manifest most strongly during the 1968 Democratic Convention, in which members of the Debs Caucus were among the protesters outside of the convention, while members of the Coalition and Unity Caucuses were among the convention delegates.


 * SPUSA ... Max Shachtman’s leadership, ... showing a growing tendency toward a Stalinist “democratic centralism” in practice.
 * WP: the Shachtmanites maintained the strongest tendency to ... democratic centralism


 * SPUSA In the 1972 Presidential election the Shachtmanites supported Henry Jackson .... During the campaign itself, they took a neutral position between McGovern and Nixon, following the lead of the AFL-CIO. Harrington and his Coalition Caucus supported McGovern throughout. Most of the Debs Caucus members supported Benjamin Spock, candidate of the People’s Party....
 * WP: During the 1972 presidential election, ... the Debs Caucus supported the independent candidacy of Benjamin Spock, many of the Coalition Caucus supported ...  George McGovern ..., and  those in the Unity Caucus tended to support Hubert Humphrey and Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson. ...  The party, following the lead of ... the ... AFL-CIO ... declared its neutrality between McGovern and incumbent Republican President Richard Nixon ....


 * SPUSA At the end of 1972, ... many of the states and locals within the Debs Caucus, .... Early in 1973, the Socialist Party of Wisconsin, with the support of the California and Illinois Parties, ... voted to reconstitute the Socialist Party USA.
 * WP: Socialist Party USA ( not Socialist Party of America): Numerous local and state branches of the old Socialist Party, including the Party's Wisconsin, California, Illinois, ... organizations, participated in the reconstitution of the Socialist Party USA.

*SPUSADue to America’s restrictive and often undemocratic ballot access laws (which have made it almost impossible to break the two-party monopoly on national politics),
 * WP the financial dominance of the two major parties, as well as the limitations of the United States' legislatively and judicially entrenched two-party system.

Michael Harrington and the Coalition Caucus left the party soon after, establishing themselves with headquarters in New York City as the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC). Harrington and his supporters, ... believed that the third party road to democratic socialism had been a failure, and instead sought to work within the Democratic Party as an organized socialist caucus to bring about that party's "realignment" to the left. This left Shachtman and the Unity Caucus in unopposed control of the Socialist Party (though Shachtman himself died very soon after). In 1972, this group renamed itself the Social Democrats USA (SDUSA). This quotation shows extensive paraphrasing from the Socialist Party USA's own literature, which does raise concerns about its being a possible Copyright-Violation. These passages no longer appear in the article. (These passages raised questions about COI/RS/Verifiability also.)
 * SPUSA: the party views the races primarily as opportunities for educating ...
 * WP: The Socialist Party USA ... runs candidates for public office, though these campaigns are often considered educational in intent ....
 * WP: The Debs Caucus finally broke with the party in 1972 to form the Union for Democratic Socialism.  ,,, The UDS became the Socialist Party USA in 1973 ...

"Disdain" (sic.)

 * "Disdain for editors who do not get involved in his personal area [sic.] of interest" [sic.] This is just badly phrased and laughable.

On the contrary, I have scorned and I do scorn editors who have
 * "shot off their mouths", accusing me of a political agenda,
 * when they had shown no understanding of the content dispute and
 * when they had failed to try to learn anything (for example by comparing the old version with contemporary reporting by the New York Times).

Such scorn is well deserved especially by Demiurge1000, who has accused me of "bullying" and PoV pushing.

WTT just repeats charges without investigating them, and he wants ... admiration?

Mistakes or silliness
Some of these other complaints are just silly.

Blocking for trolling

 * I  never asked that the editor be blocked for trolling. (The blocking offense was a religious personal-attack on an unpopular editor.)

"Better" than others
Some editors are better than others. For each editor, some edits are better than others.

Good edits contribute to the project of writing a high-quality encyclopedia for the public. Good edits come habitually from good editors.

From good editors, advice and criticism are welcome.

Bad editors seem to confuse WP with a role-playing game, a blog, or a graffiti canvass.

Overview
In short, this budding RfC/U seems to have been provoked by two clusters of issues.
 * 1) First, there is a clique of editors devoted to RfAs and championing minors becoming administrators. This clique has been upset by my comments in RfAs, particularly about candidates who are minors or who do not have a record of contributions to traditional encyclopedia content. In particular, Demiurge1000 has been harassing me for months, interjecting himself whenever a hint of disagreement occurs between myself and other editors, at best distracting discussions but often inflaming drama. Demiurge1000 has refused to accept a no-interaction ban, which has been suggested independently by myself and (in this edit) by User:Fetchcomms.
 * 2) There have been content disputes in American political history (where I have been doing clean up over the last few months). About these articles, RfA enthusiasts have each shot off his mouth without knowing or learning a thing, grossly violating AGF and NPA, fatuously indifferent to whether his charges be warranted or lies, shamed neither in his own or in his neighbors' eyes. For hounding me and wasting time, especially my valuable time, they deserve censure from the community.

Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

{Add summary here.}

Applicable policies and guidelines
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.



Questions
''Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.''

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Additional views
''This section is for summaries and opinions written by users who are not directly involved with the dispute, but who would like to share their views of the dispute. Anyone is welcome to endorse any view on this page, but you should not change other people's views.''

Outside view by
''{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.}''

Users who endorse this summary:

Proposed solutions
''This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties. ''

Template
1) a. User:Demiurge1000 and User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz agree to a voluntary interaction ban for one year.

b. User:WormThatTurned agrees to a voluntary interaction ban on any discussion that has already involved both User:Demiurge1000 and User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz (for one year). c. Users Demiurge1000 and WormThatTurned acknowledge that WP's statement of perennial issues (Majority status) states that WP editors may mention age (minor status) as a personal reason for opposing RfAs.


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support as proposer.


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.