User talk:Horologium/June 2013

Invitation to a Wicnic in Gainesville on Saturday, June 22nd
Greetings!

Seeing that you edit many of the same articles that I do, you're the first person I'm inviting to the North Central Florida 2013 Great American Wiknic that will be on Saturday June 22, 2013, commencing at 1:00 pm, in Gainesville, Florida, ten blocks north of UF campus.

If you're able and inclined to come, please RSVP at at this URL.

Type to you later, Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer
Perhaps you should unblock him. He has explained that there was no sexual intention behind his statement and indicated his willingness to strike it out. AGF perhaps? The way this discussion has gone, you're about the only one who can unblock him drama free so that might just be the fair thing to do. --regentspark (comment) 03:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I did not edit Wikipedia this weekend, but what I saw when I came back today (both before and after the unblock request was denied) was enough to push me from "I didn't intend for the block to be permanent" to "it was only a matter of time before he was indeffed". I had a great deal of trouble deciphering the chronology of the edits because of the massive refactoring and reorganization KW performed on his page, which is apparently something he has done on other occasions. I will not be watching the page any more, because his editing has utterly obliterated the sequential nature of the edits in favor of his preferred presentation of the situation. His vociferous denunciation of the admin who declined his unblock request leads me to believe that he will not accept as unbiased any admin who does not agree to unblock him. As you are just about the only administrator who both opposed my block and supported an unblock, that makes you possibly the only admin who he will consider to be sufficiently unbiased. While I will not consent to an unblock (barring some change in behavior) I will not initiate a wheel war over it. The rest of the community might have an issue with such an action, however.
 * I also encountered a rather interesting exchange of edits between KW and another editor in which KW was more than willing to ascribe sexist and homophobic motives to someone else based on the wording of their posts, but on far shakier grounds than those for which I blocked him. Instead of confining the discussion to the talk page on which the edits occurred and the user talk pages of the two of them, he fired off a missive on the talk page for a (presumably) sympathetic wikiproject. The resounding silence from that project was rather interesting, to say the least. It was a rather obvious attempt at canvassing which failed to achieve the desired result. A review of his past blocks (and the 2011 RFC/U) reveal that nothing has changed, and the complaints leveled against him the the RFC are still valid. The wikilawyering and wall of text behaviors that were issues in that RFC have been repeated, and I doubt that he is either willing or able to change his method of interacting with other editors, which is a shame, because he is a great content editor when he is not bogged down with interpersonal disputes. I don't think that the proposal to ban him from RFA is going to eliminate his anti-collaborative nature, which is the primary reason I didn't endorse any proposal which advocated such an action.
 * I was flamed on Wikipediocracy for discussing KW's block on WP:AN, but since a) the edit for which I blocked him was on AN, and b) the discussion regarding this particular flareup was initiated by another editor on AN, it was the appropriate place. I wasn't trying to incite a lynch mob; if I had discussed the block anywhere else, I would have been accused of trying to hide the discussion. Whatever. I wash my hands of this situation, because I am now convinced that KW should remain blocked for a good long time, or until he gets a good whack from the cluebat; even EC (who had nothing nice to say about my block) and Carrite (ditto) have not been successful in impressing on KW the folly of his actions thus far. A couple of other non-admins (Mongo in particular) have given him some good advice, but he doesn't seem to be taking any of it to heart.  Horologium  (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe you may be overly autocratic in this matter. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.9.222 (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Horologium, I didn't actually read your response (too long for my aging eyes and I have only a kibbitzer's interest in this!) but something on KW's page alerted me to a sentence in it and a mild correction is in order. I don't believe I ever opposed your blocking KW. Rather, like everyone else, I agreed with the block based on my reading of the offending sentence. However, when I looked at KW's talk page sometime later, I did notice his misinterpretation explanation and strike request was made immediately following the block and that's the reason why I thought it might be a good idea to AGF. I do, however, agree with your general interpretation of subsequent events on his talk page. --regentspark (comment) 13:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I stopped watching his page (too many revisions, moves, and reorganizations to follow), so I haven't read what he has said. Is it descending to a level where his talk page access needs to be revoked? Three of his blocks last year were modified to prevent him from editing his talk page until the block ended. And while he *did* ask to reword the first sentence of the post, it didn't address the problematic last sentence at all, which was really even worse than the first. I missed your first post, which was supportive of the block, but I clearly remembered your "unblock immediately" statement, because of the AGF request.  Horologium  (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am dismayed by the way he's handling the situation. He is getting good advice but choosing to not follow it and, if this continues, then I have no doubt that he's going to lose access to his talk page. The 'unblock immediately' as well as the AGF points are, imo, now in the past and I don't think he's going to get unblocked without some sort of positive action, if then. Anyway, I just wanted to clear up the fact that I don't think there was anything wrong with your initial block. --regentspark (comment) 18:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Horologium, pardon me for taking this up as well. You said above that you would not consent to an unblock "barring some change in behavior". I'm going to take a wild, wild guess and say that you'd not be the only one to state that kind of condition. Since we can't look into each other's hearts, and since there can be no assessment of behavior until there is behavior (the only "behavior" now is an occasional note on his talk page), what is it that you would like to hear from Kiefer? And what kinds of restrictions, if any, do you think can be helpful? An Iban with Demiurge is probably a given, as is some type of restriction on RfA, AN(/I) participation, etc. FWIW, I accept his comments about the offending remark; it would have been better if he had swallowed a bit more pride, and it's clear that I'm probably in the minority there, but I do accept it. I sent Kiefer an email a week or so ago, to see how he was doing--after all, we both were blessed with a beautiful child around the same time last year--and I'm trying to figure out a way to heal some wounds. For the record, I have had my disagreements with him and I certainly don't approve of everything he's done here (I'm sure he feels the same way, and that's fine). I don't wish to be an apologist (for any side) and excuse everything that's happened, but I'm trying to find a way forward. I wish, for instance, that he would find it easier to let bygones be bygones (I think I'm paraphrasing GiantSnowman, from an AN thread about a proposed Iban between the two of them, and I wish KF had accepted that from GS). Anyway, this message is longer than I intended it to be, and I apologize for that. I suppose I'm also asking you if (or when) you can let bygones be bygones. There's no immediate urgency for you to respond; if you could ping me when you do, if you do, I'd appreciate it. For the talk page stalkers: please let's not turn this into ANI. I could have emailed Horologium privately, but I prefer to do this here, in between the privacy of email and the dramah of a board. At some point the community will be involved, if this ever gets anywhere; for now I'm interested in Horologium's response (and, possibly, 's, since he started this thread). Or, pretend you never read this. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you ask :) I think Horologium should have unblocked him immediately after Kiefer posted the "I didn't mean that and scratch the offending remark" note. Now, though, it's a bit late for that. My suggestion (and I made this earlier ) is that Kiefer make a statement apologizing for any offense caused, that his statement was misunderstood, and that he'll be more careful in choosing his words in the future - the sort of statement that our politicians seem to specialize in when they're caught with their pants down. That's the right way to 'move forward'. Unfortunately, everything he's doing right now is moving him closer to a 'goodbye kiefer, it was nice knowing you' end. --regentspark (comment) 15:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please excuse this long and possibly disjointed post. I have been interrupted by real life several times while trying to compose this, so it is possible that it may not be particularly coherent. There is a lot of ground to cover, so it is necessarily long. Bearh with me, and be aware that I might not be able to respond promptly.
 * At this point, I'd expect for KW to throttle back the invective. When I blocked him (11 days ago), his talk page was ~35KB, mostly pleasant interactions with other editors. It's now ~365KB, and has been reorganized, collapsed, added to with quotes from other pages and even other projects, and it's now an unpleasant place to visit. (I haven't bothered to read much of the recent additions, and I am no longer watching it, but I stopped by to check the size of the page.) He's been given a number of suggestions from other editors, most of which are sound, but he's dismissed them out of hand. He also needs to recognize that his block was generally upheld as a valid block, and he really needs to take on board that a substantial portion of the community believe that his behavior needs to change. He is a fantastic content contributor and works well with others when creating content, but he does not interact well with some other editors, particularly in areas outside of mainspace. His behavior at AN/I was particularly problematic, and was where he made the comment for which I blocked him. As to his offer to change the wording, even substituting "young people" for "young men and boys" doesn't really resolve the fundamental problem with the phrasing (there are plenty of pedophiles who prey on young women and girls). There is no direct allusion to illegal behavior, but the particular wording he used is highly suggestive of it, and (even if struck entirely) serves to poison the well.
 * Regarding IBans, I think that there should be one between him and Demiurge1000, unquestionably. I think it would need to be broadly interpreted (as in "neither editor may discuss the other, directly or indirectly, anywhere on en.wp"). I'm not sure about an IBan between KW and Giant Snowman; while there seems to be some animosity between the two of them, it's not nearly as the situation between KW and D1000. He also probably needs to disengage with several others, such as Charmlet, Worm That Turned, and me. I won't be interacting with him or discussing him after this situation is resolved, but I'd like to see him do the same. I don't know if IBans are needed there, but it's something which might be explored.
 * As for his participation at RFA, I am not sure if he needs to be banned, but some sort of restriction is clearly needed. Perhaps simply preventing him from engaging in threaded debates on the RFA page will suffice. (If that were to occur, I'd like to see some restriction preventing other editors from baiting him or starting a discussion on his comments, because that's not fair either.) Editors who are minors can expect him to oppose at their RFA, but there is nothing that prevents him from having such a criterion for his support. It's certainly an objective, reasoned position, although it is one which does not represent the majority of the community at this time.  Horologium  (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Horologium, thank you for your response. We're all in between things, I imagine: apparently Kiefer's daughter is messing with his laptop, I'm at work running here and there, and you have real life. At any rate, Kiefer asked that I post a note here (I hope you don't mind) so you don't have to load a new version of his talk page (holy moly, that is a lot of bytes): Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote the following: I did not intend to suggest that Demiurge1000 is (or ever was) a sexual predator targeting minors. The largely critical reaction at AN (by even those whose who were not canvassed on IRC or who were not adoptees of Demiurge1000 or Worm That Turned) suggests that I  should have known that my phrasing was liable to be misinterpreted. I sincerely regret my phrasing, as I have tried to demonstrate from my attempts to clarify my intention (with citations) and also to strike the ambiguous phrasing. I pledge to honor the standard interaction ban (as seemed to have been consensus at AN) with Demiurge1000, as long as he does not break it. Regardless of his adherence with an interaction ban, Demiurge1000 cannot be subjected to such allegations, which would violate WP:ChildProtect. I trust that I may remove any such allegations without violating the interaction ban. I have read the concerns about RfAs and WP-policy talk pages. I am pleased that Horologium has raised concerns about others' treatment of me at RfAs and has expressed his concerns against making a one-sided demand (particularly during a block for the AN comment). I do not know of a simple mechanism to solve this community problem, but good will and the appearance of equity are essential. Certainly Fram and Salix were treated with respect by me, in these events, because their administrative actions showed a concern for fairness. An even enforcement of civility would resist temptations for all us sinners. I'm not sure what to do next, besides asking you what you think. I had not expected such quick responses which, in my reading, are positive: I hope I'm not reading anything into your words. I hope also that the message by Kiefer strikes you as productive. Now, let me add also that Kiefer mentioned in another message that "he shall abide by NYB's suggestions for avoiding threaded discussions"--I don't have a diff for such a suggestion by, but this may be close enough. So. I apologize for the TLDNR and am open to responses and advice. Thanks again for your time--and there is no real urgency so don't interrupt real life. Kiefer better send me flowers for this, since I'm missing lunch. At some point I'll form an opinion of my own, but the very fact that I'm writing you probably suggests what I think--and let me add, for the benefit of anyone reading this, that I am well aware of the commotion caused by Kiefer's remark and of the problems some other editors have with his editing style. Again, I make no apologies for him, and I have no critique to offer in regard to the original block. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on the above statement from KW, despite its more obvious flaws, I would favour an unblock, if it would be accompanied by an agreement (buttressed by a formal restriction) to refrain from threaded discussion in RfAs. I'm not going to agree to an interaction ban between myself and KW, as it serves no purpose other than meeting the established wisdom that one-way interaction bans are unworkable. Community patience with him making attacks of this nature is obviously now at zero with no real likelihood of ever refilling; thus further problematic behaviour would result in a reblock almost immediately, without recourse to interaction bans or any other byzantine behaviour-modifying arrangements. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Demiurge. Horologium, how about you and me get some lunch? Drmies (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have endorsed the unblock (on KW's page; I hope he will not consider it to be trolling). After reading the statements above, I was prepared to unblock him myself, but the good doctor took care of it for me.  Horologium  (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Horologium, thank you so much for your cooperation and your time. To quote Blazing Saddles, I love a happy ending. I hope there won't be a sequel anytime soon. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Fish and chips
Dear Sir - I see that you take wikipedia seriously, as indeed I do. May I ask why you keep re editing my additions on fish & chips? Every fish & chip shop in Britain and quite a few in Ireland will sell pickles to go with your fish and chips. You can choose from jars of pickled onions, pickled eggs (my particular favourite) & Gherkins. There is nothing controversial in my comments so there is no need to remove them. I have now sourced/referenced the information for pickled eggs. BTW I was in Dublin last month visiting relatives.dorkinglad (talk)
 * Have you confused me with someone else? I don't believe I've ever edited Fish and chips, and I certainly have not removed anything about pickles. Looking at the article history, I see that there has been a tussle between you and ; you might want to talk to him. (I am not the same person.)  Horologium  (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. As you took part in the KW topic ban and block. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

New Mexico cuisine
I take it your not from New Mexico. It is well known there exists regional differences in many national fast food chains. Here in New Mexico there are indeed local-grown green chiles in many menus absent in say, Texas and Arizona. McDonalds is an example, where it is offerd as an off-menu item. Kehkou (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not from New Mexico. I am also not from Missouri, but you need to show me references which confirm the assertion contained in New Mexican cuisine or I will remove it. Every statement in Wikipedia is subject to verifiability, and when a statement is challenged, if no verification is provided, then it can (and usually will) be excised. When considering the efforts of major chains to standardize their menus nationwide, a claim that they change their menu for New Mexico (only) is a rather exceptional claim, and it needs to be cited. If it is offered as an "off-menu" item, then the statement needs to be reworded, because that is not what it currently says; the current wording states that it is "added to the standard menu of many national American food chains."  Horologium  (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Re-worded and cited. Have a nice day!:)Kehkou (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Dyatlov incident version editing
Appreciate yr advise why have you deleted a whole section of the one of the versions of the Dyatlov group incident. This information is not available in English anywhere else and I have done my best to wikify it and provide independent sources. For some reason you deleted it without even asking questions or warning on errors correction, if any. Doubt its in line with WIKI principles

Thanks, Портовик (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As noted in my edit summary, the entire section was uncited and read like original research. You state that you provided independent sources, but there weren't any footnotes at all in that section. Without sources, there is no way to verify the information presented. Further, devoting a substantial chunk of an article on what appears to be a conspiracy theory runs afoul of our proscription on promotion of minority views. My deletion was totally in line with "WIKI principles". Read our policies on verifiability, original research and undue weight (part of our Neutral Point of View policy). All of these are Wikipedia core policies, and my excision was thoroughly justified by these three policies, both by close adherence to the policies as written and by following the spirit of the policies.  Horologium  (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a research which was done by Rakitin and I put correct source to that. Other supportive sources were in Russian only, so there were no sense to put footnotes, however I added maximum sources available. The version includes explanation of the most critical factors of the incident which are not so nicely explained by other versions, already mentioned at WIKI. Thus it deserves to be mentioned among others, at least. Also, the version is supported by circumstantial evidence from the era which is found at other wiki articles which I included into the text. Not clear what you meant on minority views promotion proscription - this version is definitely not a minority view in Russia.

I could agree that article could be reduced, even if I tried to keep essential information only. However complete deletion denies access of english-speaking world to the quite important version of the incident and prohibits potential development of the article by those who might have anything to add from other countries.

Finally - this article is fully present at Russian WIKI, so it definitely doesn't violate WIKI principles. Trust you agree that cross-breeding of the information for different languages is quite important and you could appreciate attempts to expand WIKI article on Russian event with new info available so far in Russian only.

Appreciate your reconsideration Портовик (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * While I don't read Russian, I can see that Гибель тургруппы Дятлова is quite well referenced indeed. While English language sources are preferred (in the English Wikipedia), if the only sources available are in Russian, then use them, with a notation that they are in Russian. If you are using citation templates, just add the parameter |lang=RU ; if not, just write out that it is in Russian. While I cannot read Russian (and most of our readers cannot), if you source the material to a reliable source, someone who can read Russian can verify the information if there is a dispute. Without any sourcing at all, it reads as a bit of original research, which is a no-go on this (or any other language) Wikipedia. If you cite sources for the information, I'll not revert you, but you have to source anything you add (especially something that large, and with that many statements about alleged coverups). The greater the variety of sources you can use, the better off we'll be. It looked like almost everything in that huge section was based on a single book, which is why I brought up undue weight concerns; if the claims in the book are discussed in other reliable sources, feel free to add them.
 * For the record, the English language article being discussed in this section is Dyatlov Pass incident, for anyone who is watching this talk page and is wondering what issue is being discussed here.  Horologium  (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I made a small note at talk page of Dyatlov incident and expected if any problems with my addition, it would be discussed there first, not outright deleted. I have cited few sources which confirm information on the timed firing of the key KGB executives mentioned there and other sources confirming high degree of tensions in this field. But as this version is based on combination of circumstantial evidence and logic, its quite problematic to find sources supporting this particular version as such (as opposed to the bits of evidence built-into it), after all, all what could be found had been included by authors into their investigation already. All original facts are known and may be interpreted in different ways with varying degree of probability, even less known degree of truth. Anyway, as we seemingly agreed that this version deserves to be illuminated on en.wiki, appreciate if you could undo the deletion, so I could improve the text as abv. Thanks, Портовик (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What you have stated above clearly indicates why it cannot be restored in its current form. But as this version is based on [a] combination of circumstantial evidence and logic, it[']s quite problematic to find sources supporting this particular version as such indicates that it is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. More specifically, it is synthesis, which combines a collection of independent data points into a novel conclusion. Wikipedia only repeats what other reputable sources have said; it does not create new ideas. Please read the Wikipedia policy on original research, particularly the section on synthesis; you must understand how the policy limits what can be stated before proceeding with your edits.
 * I will be moving this discussion into the June 2013 archive in a few days; if you wish to continue this discussion, please start a new thread. (I will link the archived thread in the new discussion if necessary.) I prefer to keep my archives organized by month for ease of locating discussions; this is the first time I have had a substantive discussion spill over into the next month.  Horologium  (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems we are back to square 1 again. Let me reiterate:

1. There was some mystic event, which is already mentioned at both RU. and EN. WIKI articles

2. RU.WIKI briefly or in details mentions minimum of 16 different theories, trying to explain the event: avalanche, small snow fall, sound, wild animals, fireball, drugs/alcohol, some internal fight or assault by escaped criminals/local residents/police/other people, secret weapons test, secret missiles test, UFOs, Snow Man, and, finally controlled delivery.

3. EN.WIKI mentions only 2 theories out of 16 (avalanche and secret weapons).

4. So I tried to fill the gap at En.WIKI adding 3rd version of "controlled delivery" to the very specific section of the EN.WIKI article - "Theories" and "Controversy", with all necessary remarks of it being difficult to carry on thus not overly probable. This version is already present at Ru. WIKI article and I used its exact text as base for translation, adding few extra lines from other parts of RU.WIKI article, for the bigger picture benefit.

5. You excluded that version for variety of reasons, main being "original research", which is not. Its a translation of RU.WIKI article for the benefit of EN.WIKI community.

6. As a result you prohibited access to one theory out of approx 20, while leaving other 2 theories intact. However each of 20 or whatever theories, obviously, has absolutely equal right to be mentioned at WIKI as _all_ of them are based on same facts and differ _only_ by circumstantial evidences and logic of the researchers, i.e. what you point as my error, while its the essence of any theory or version.

7. So in fact by artificially promoting 2 theories out of 20, you are de-facto promoting the minority opinions which are at least outdated and ignoring the RU.WIKI information and screening they've done already, allowing all dozens of theories to be available for public information in RU domain.

So I appreciate its hard to assume a stance of expert trying to understand events in different country and not having benefits of language but why don't you simply compare size of RU.WIKI article with EN one and presence of the controlled delivery ("контролируемая поставка") theory over there ? This should be good enough to understand that versions at En.Wiki need to be elaborated. Also you may always seek help from any other En.WIKI russian-speaking author to verify my text, if you don't trust my translation for whatever reason.

Trust that clarifies.

If you wish, you can move our discussion to the Rakitin's section of the article Talk page, as long as you continue it there Портовик (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate yr advise on the issue Портовик (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

As no answer for 9 days, I will restore the text Портовик (talk) 04:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)