User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 42

ArbCom Role-playing game
This was inspired by the numerical evaluations given annually by Rschen. I'm glad that he declared this origin to be humorous (on the talk page to The One True RPG table, in my user-space election-guide).

Kiefer.Wolfowitz's working copy
Remember that 10 represents average human ability, so everything above 10 is a (sincere) compliment.

Community participation welcome
Editors are welcome to suggest changes here. Please remember that you have to abide by the WP:NPA and WP:Civility restrictions, of course, and so try to maintain a feeling of warmth.

If anybody object to being included, then of course, we'll remove that line. (JClemens does have a user box identifying as a mentat, for example, and so no disrespect is meant.)

Warmly and sincerely, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  17:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much!
 * Best regards, 12:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom Role-playing game
This was inspired by the numerical evaluations given annually by Rschen. I'm glad that he declared this origin to be humorous (on the talk page to The One True RPG table, in my user-space election-guide).

Kiefer.Wolfowitz's working copy
Remember that 10 represents average human ability, so everything above 10 is a (sincere) compliment.

Community participation welcome
Editors are welcome to suggest changes here. Please remember that you have to abide by the WP:NPA and WP:Civility restrictions, of course, and so try to maintain a feeling of warmth.

If anybody object to being included, then of course, we'll remove that line. (JClemens does have a user box identifying as a mentat, for example, and so no disrespect is meant.)

Warmly and sincerely, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  17:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much!
 * Best regards, 12:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom Role-playing game
This was inspired by the numerical evaluations given annually by Rschen. I'm glad that he declared this origin to be humorous (on the talk page to The One True RPG table, in my user-space election-guide).

Kiefer.Wolfowitz's working copy
Remember that 10 represents average human ability, so everything above 10 is a (sincere) compliment.

Community participation welcome
Editors are welcome to suggest changes here. Please remember that you have to abide by the WP:NPA and WP:Civility restrictions, of course, and so try to maintain a feeling of warmth.

If anybody object to being included, then of course, we'll remove that line. (JClemens does have a user box identifying as a mentat, for example, and so no disrespect is meant.)

Warmly and sincerely, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  17:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much!
 * Best regards, 12:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Voter guide
I couldn't help but notice your characterization of my comment IRT Malleus as an insult in your vote guide; I was wondering what element of that you were referring to? My point was that good edits do not excuse questionable behavior/patterns of behavior any more than good faith excuses repeated failures to get the point (WP:CIR, which I do not wholly subscribe to, but was drawing a parallel.) I don't see that as an attack or insult. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 04:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi David,
 * I thought that I had referenced your statement that seemingly misused "canard" the opposite of your intentions---although you may have been having a post traumatic stress disorder from the Ottava Rima case's discussion of Derrida---and for brain-damage potential Derrida is worse than PCP.
 * My memory of the statement linked follows "There is a canard going around that competence is needed, and I'll observe that competence is needed for behavior also."
 * I'll double check my link. If I mislinked, then I'll of course correct any error. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  09:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well I definitely think you're right about the word—not sure what I was trying to use there because of course that one doesn't fit at all :\ Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * David, I qualified that I had looked at your contributions only since May or so, when I stated that you had been less active. If you have been leading discussions or committees dealing with email, then please let me know and I shall note that you are more active behind the scenes. I think that you were more active around the time of the Monty Hall problem decision, but again my observations are haphazard and limited. Thanks!  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  15:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can really only judge my activity to a degree based on what you can see-- which seems to me a perfectly valid criterion, and something I'm happy your guide takes into account. Editors wanting their arbs to be spearheading things onwiki is a valid attribute to desire and something I certainly have not demonstrated much of :) Only thing I wanted to clarify was your characterization of my comments, which I can see was entirely my error anyhow :) Thanks again for the feedback--even when I wasn't a candidate I always look forward to the voter guides. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's only one thing I can see, your vote here, which I sincerely hope comes back to bite you in the ass. Malleus Fatuorum 19:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Note
You know I read your comments yesterday, and was surprised. My experience of late has been that whenever given the opportunity, you've been happy to find reasons to negatively comment about me. (My guess would be to trace that back to some discordance you had at CfD, where you painted me with the broad brush you painted others you felt were opposing your assertions at CfD.)

So my intention was to come here today and convey my genuine surprise and appreciation at your insight.

Of course your post today, was more like your comments of the past.

(I have to admit that I chuckled when I read it.)

Honestly, I take the voter guides with a grain of salt. They are, after all, merely one person's opinion.

But setting aside the election a moment. I'd honestly like to end the (hmm how to put it) "disdain" with which you seem to accord me.

No, every editor need not "have" to "get along", but I still try to make the attempt at times.

Do I think that at times the way you act on talk pages comes across just this side of trolling? Sometimes. Do I also think that there are times that you have something cogent to say that I wish others could get past the "how" of how you are conveying it to hear you? Sometimes.

There is obviously more to you than how you may be perceived.

So anyway, no this isn't so much an olive branch, but honestly, merely just an opportunity for some tea.

Do I think think this will fall upon hard-hearted, deaf ears? Maybe.

But then, I've been accused of tilting at windmills before...

(After all, I threw my hat into the ring for Arbcom : )

Anyway, respond or not at your discretion. Happy editing. - jc37 18:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Experience enjoined from enjoying or joining a discussion that throws away an accusation that I appear to be habitually trolling. Let me then be brief.
 * The good news is that, when you appear, you are less energetic than Scott MacDonald. ;)
 * The bad news is that you appear more often than Scott. ;)
 * Otherwise, you appear for better or for worse in the same cluster.
 * You are running for an office, against many well-qualified candidates. It is unavoidable that informative evaluations rank candidates, and I am impressed that you take my evaluation in stride. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  20:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Sometimes" isn't "habitually" : )
 * And if you really would like examples, I suppose I can go through your talk page history to show why I have had that impression at times.
 * Oh and I'm surprised that you paint me in the same "cluster" as Docg. Though at times I have sometimes (there's that "sometimes" word again : ) - agreed with him, I am now thinking you might be surprised at some of the discussions of the past : )
 * Anyway, thanks for your response. - jc37 22:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI
Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Everybody around the word, come on! Whooo Eeeehhhh! It's a celebration!
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz  09:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Linguists associated with Klingon
Category:Linguists associated with Klingon, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

RPG
I enjoyed reading that, I must say (though I might quibble over INT : )

Am I allowed to ask what things influenced the entries?

Also, one thing I am wondering. Why do you see me as an WP:AN/I regular? I think I comment more at WT:RFA; at various proposals like at the various VPs or RFCs; or even at WP:BN; more than at AN/I. I'm curious what caused this impression. - jc37 20:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Jc37,
 * I wrote the table quickly, after a night without much sleep, etc. In most cases, a few incidents suggested an initial guess of a RPG class, etc., which I sometimes refined after reviewing WP and Google resources. (This was all done very quickly.) Typically, the few incidents and the character class suggested the ratings: For example, I don't know much about Coren except that he created a very useful Bot and he did great work on the Monty Hall problem arbitration. Thinking about the movie Argo suggested Roger Zelazny as a source of characters, e.g. Corwin, but when I thought about it, Yama was more appropriate. Yama and Vulcan's service as artificer for the Gods seemed a good motif for Coren. So I filled out his numbers accordingly, wanting it to be funny. (Vulcan wasn't a hottie.) When he announced that he was running, I thought---well, I cannot have him at Not Applicable for charisma, after all.
 * I probably spent 10 minutes on Coren. For you, I tried to think of an RPG class based on your suggestion of blocking me for various offenses, such as writing your name "JN37" (and there is a user JN36) and your RfA questions. Beserkers are cool and chaotic, so I thought it was appropriate. Beserkers don't fight with intelligence. My standard offer to revise or delete a line of course is open to you. You are welcome to suggest an improved version.
 * Sincerely, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  21:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insight into your process : )
 * I didn't suggest blocking you due to mistyping my username (though now that you mention it, I do recall that you seemed to misunderstand that at the time).
 * As for changes, thank you, but no, it's your opinion, no need for me to place a finger on your personal scale : )
 * I just never would have thought of myself as one of the AN/I regulars (as opposed to editors like nobody ent or dennis brown, who I do tend to think of as regulars there), so that genuinely surprised me. - jc37 21:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Beserkers ate the psychotropic mushroom, apparently. So I had you gain strength at CfD. ANI might have been a stretch. I'll check in the morning and maybe delete it. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  22:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nod, I got that, and it did make me smile/chuckle : ) - jc37 23:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR
Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swalling@undefinedwikimedia.org) with...


 * the subject line "JSTOR"
 * your English Wikipedia username
 * your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   21:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Finally!
Someone shows up at the Rfa to tell me what I already knew...for the record, the same people that have been prodding me to run for admin also tried to get me to run for arbcom! Imagine that bloodletting process! I told them I would "run" but only if they kept their noses clean and didn't !vote...since I knew this would be a disaster. I cannot understand why I let myself get drawn into these situations...I hate drama and have plenty of it in real life. Live long and prosper.--MONGO 11:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * One of my gifts is stating the obvious, with high probability. Alas, with low probability, I state the obviously false. Luckily, this time, the fates were with me.
 * There is plenty to do without the tools. I have wanted administrative status to block Jew-hating assholes, nationalists using Wikipedia to spread their theories that their hometown was the Garden of Eden and that their neighbors are spawns of Beelzebub, etc. I really need tools to exact "revenge against all my enemies---they should die like pigs in Hell" and to correct English mistakes at DYK.
 * Remember how the world was destroyed: "a man named Albert Shanker got hold of a nuclear warhead"! Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  11:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Many of the 9/11 CT's are full of Jew-bashing garbage...whenever I raise that issue, I get crucified even though a blind man could see it. I already blocked every truly horrendous jackass back in 2006...not to sound like a saint (since I surely aint) back then you really did need Wyatt Earp...I guess we don't now though. Back then we had the GNAA here enforce...and some pretty vile real life stalker thugs that were harrassing the lady-folk...but alas, all those efforts of mine seem to be forgotten now. Shrug.--MONGO 11:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's true that they are forgotten, Mongo, just that they are overshadowed by your temper. It really is just a matter that what many people think you haven't adjusted your methods to the changing times.  You really shouldn't take the Rfa – or the attitude surrounding the opposes – personally.  That Roosevelt would be laughed out of a presidential race today with his "new deal" ideas doesn't mean he wasn't the right guy at the time, or in any way diminish his accomplishments.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh well..Rfa is a good place to get some feedback if nothing else. I was dismayed a few decided it was a good place to leave comments like "never" (and nothing else) or "infantile"...neither of which are "constructive or civil" Malleus was blunt but decent and Kiefer was the one who provided the best message. After Malleus was barred from engaging in threaded discussions, I thought I should do so voluntarily. Its pretty rare threaded discussions cause anyone to change their mind about their !vote anyway.MONGO 14:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed my evaluations several times through discussions. Usually I change it most easily when somebody gently suggests some additional information or suggests a faulty inference. Readers of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus know that demanding action leads to resentment; it's better to state the problem, and let the dumb man decide on how to implement a solution (even if not as smart as a woman's). I try to correct my errors....
 * I should have closed the RfC, unofficially. I commented before I saw that you had withdrawn; otherwise, I could have just left my comment in the comment section. :)
 * MONGO, I respect your work on 9/11. I used to play wiffleball at the WTC (having worked a few blocks away), and a friend of mine had brothers on the NYPD and NYFD, and I was too afraid to ask him about the Micks listed among the dead. I would not have been able to edit that article. I suspect that your work has taken its toll, just as events in my little WP world (like my RfC and a few blocks, earned but perhaps imprudently implemented and certainly implemented in a one-sided fashion) have taken their toll. Maybe you could write about NYC's music. A friend of mine especially recommended Don Byron as tonic for the soul. Best regards,  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  20:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just doing the stubs on glaciers as of late...there is more than enough redlined articles that just want to be even a stub. Don't fret one second about how, why or when you cast your opinion. Thanks though...best.--MONGO 03:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

+1 for the Fantastic Four reference
That was good. I hope I wasn't the only one that got it. 64.40.54.243 (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was up too late last night! But, less damage was done than usual! (Sometimes, a saltine is good for cleansing the palate, and a ridiculous comment may help in relieving tension, and helping a return to productive editing.) I'm glad that one riff was enjoyable! Cheers, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  10:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Boomerang comment
Boomerang? Why? For all intents and purposes, I consider myself a free radical providing drive-by comments (much like yours and Bishonen's), some gnoming and some article writing. But at least I'm not in the bad habit of assuming bad faith with other people, unlike Bishonen. So I don't see a Boomerang issue here. Just a group of people who would take just about any excuse to shield "one of their own" from valid criticism. Quite the communal ad hominem: Who cares who I am when what I say is correct? How does it invalidate the fact that Bishonen assumed bad faith and made personal attacks? --87.79.128.230 (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * My interactions with Bishonen have been respectfully circumscribed for two years, and (like earlier times when I respond civilly to a civil and friendly question about her) now my comment should be minimal.
 * I commented on the process of WP:Boomerang: A person reporting another editor at ANI also has his behavior scrutinized. This boomerang-process is important, because of fairness, and to avoid giving incentives for vendettas at ANI. Most editors are human, and leave a trail of mistakes, which can be presented at ANI as terribly uncivil editors, simply by accumulating diffs. ANI justice forgets the good deeds of a person and focuses on violations of policy.


 * Jesus Christ called people hypocrites, repeatedly. A 24 hour block for a pattern of repeated incivility!
 * Jesus Christ used violence against money changers! A site ban!
 * IMHO, a word about Jesus's revival of the late Prophetic (e.g. Micah) and Buddhist traditions of justice (e.g., of caring for the sick, the poor, the fatherless and widows) and healing of the sick would be in order at ANI?


 * Of course, the persons who collect such violations of WP:Civility and WP:NPA usually have a history of such incivilities themselves, often preceding the (unwarranted) retaliation of their target.
 * In sports, referees often miss the first cheating or assault, but almost always see the retaliation. In Wikipedia, the diffs make it easy to explore context, so we have no excuse for not holding all parties engaging in incivility accountable. Even enforcement of civility is needed.
 * Please forgive any unfairness to the IP at ANI, and understand that I am concerned about uneven enforcement of WP:policies. Perhaps a rejoicing about WP:Boomerang was misplaced or inappropriate, then. If so, then please accept my apologies.
 * Sincerely, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  10:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Notice
Thank you very much! I should improve the references on Ralph Patt. The American Luthier volume with a profile arrived recently, and I've used it to improve his biography. Best regards, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  10:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

relisted
Relisted DRV: Deletion_review/Log/2012_November_27 NE Ent 12:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I do think that the discussion should take place at MfD, and notices should again be given (despite everybody being tired of this).
 * It is especially with unpopular items that we should obey all the rules.
 * My coffee was unusually strong this morning, and I'll take a break. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  12:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed your comment
FYI - I have removed your comment because it is rather polemic, and it is outside of any DRV. I also don't understand what you're upset about. You complain that a notice wasn't posted "on the page of the category", however no category was under deletion review on this page, it was an essay in the Wikipedia namespace. Furthermore, the category (Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian) has been deleted, so I'm not sure how it would even be possible to post a notice there without re-creating it. If you still have any complaints about how the DRV was handled, please clarify your complaints and I will look into them. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 15:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Scotty.
 * The essay was deleted following DRV. However, the DRV should have simply ruled on your snow closure without usurping the MfD discussion. Given that you were "wet-trout smacked" (not my favorite phrase) for your snow closure, the MfD discussion should begin anew/renewed (perhaps after the voting for ArbCom) with appropriate notifications.
 * The distinction between a review and the discussion was violated repeatedly before, by many of the same people.
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz  15:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I should not have discussed the category, again, in any place. I intended the essay, which should be userfied rather than deleted, if consensus is against it staying in project space. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  15:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically, I believe it was a "side trout", although I'm not sure I fully grasp the distinction between that and a wet-trout smack. Regardless of the various complaints about minor procedural things, I think it is abundantly clear that the community has rejected memorializing Jclemens' comment at Arbcom in the form of a category or an essay.  It has been discussed to death, and every discussion has ended with a landslide majority.  I can't imagine why you would believe that yet another MfD on the subject would have any reasonable chance of changing the outcome.  If anyone wants to set up a little Malleus shrine in their userspace that discusses/records the incident, I can't imagine that anyone would put up much of a fuss (although I wouldn't be surprised if someone did put up a fuss, considering).  ‑Scottywong | babble _  16:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, just to clarify, I wouldn't agree that the DRV came to a consensus that my snow closure was wrong/inappropriate. There were some who agreed that the snow closure only served to increase the drama, rather than the opposite as it was intended (and this is what the trouting was for).  However, there is an overwhelming consensus at the DRV (as evidenced by the nearly unanimous Endorse votes) that the MfD was clearly heading towards deletion and the outcome would not have changed had it been open for a full 7 days.  ‑Scottywong | gab _  16:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I agree with most of your political assessments and thank your for the clarification on the trouting business---any mention of which tends to make me consider reaching for the "retired" template....
 * DRV has no more business usurping MfD than CDR (Category deletion review, if that is the name) has of usurping CfD.
 * I wish that I were surprised to see Scott MacDonald making the same mistake at DRV. This is the same abuse of process that was excused as good-willed before, but which should not have been repeated. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  17:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the whole category - CfD - DRV - CfD - Essay - MfD was undesirable. There is a small temptation to expand on what was wrong in these processes, but *that* would be a Polemic, as we are not going to go back and rerun the process.

I intend to return to an essay on civility, and Wikipedian-political response to incivility, and community responses to attempted action against incivility, and the role of ArbCom with respect to established but contested behavioural norms. But not any time soon, not during an ArbCom election, and not until case-specific brawling has calmed.

Generally, I think the XfDs and DRV are in fair to good shape. I apologise for not pasting the DRV notice on the MfD page.

Kiefer, if you were alert to the DRV discussion, what would've you added that was not added by anyone else? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * SmokeyJoe, essays rarely call out editors by name, or even refer to specific incidents that happened on-wiki (yes, I know there are some exceptions). The essay you eventually write should describe the community's differing positions on civility in general terms, not a documentary timeline of who said what when.  As long as your future essay keeps this in mind, I can't imagine you'll have any issues with it.  ‑Scottywong | gossip _  04:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realise. It makes it hard to have an factually informed multi-author essay.  I think this is a major factor as to why incivility is such a difficult issue.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for assistance with article for Mindjet
Hello Kiefer.Wolfowitz, I found your username listed as a member of WP:Cooperation, and am writing to ask if you might help me out with something. I've recently been working on behalf of the company Mindjet to make some small updates to their WP page. Because of my COI, I posted a summary of my proposed changes over at Talk:Mindjet, and User:Silverseren has taken a preliminary look at them. He suggested that I get input from other editors about the changes before they are moved into the mainspace. I was hoping you might be willing to pop over and take a quick look at the changes? Thanks! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 17:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time now, I'm sorry to say. I am behind on a Good-article nomination review, and I was unable to help a Berkeley cooperator. Good luck though! Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  17:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks for your quick reply! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 19:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Your question
Hi. I'll be more than happy to offer whatever answer I can to the question you posed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Richwales — but I believe it would be preferable for you to ask the question on my official question page. I had considered simply copying what you wrote from the talk page to the question page, but I decided it would be better to have you do that, in case (for example) you might decide you wanted to tweak the phrasing of the "official" version of your question. — Rich wales 19:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Rich!
 * Thanks for replying. I forget my question's wording, which I'm sure could be improved.... :) I'll read your response in a few minutes.
 * If I were more clever with searching or less lazy, I could have come to a conclusion after an exhaustive search. However, I trusted you could remember such events, and am glad that you could respond quicly. This was my question mark about you, which remained after I read your previous responses. I figured a direct question was timely, since I cannot search.
 * Thanks again for the reply!
 * Sincerely, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  21:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You were right. It was on the wrong page. You'll note that I made the question more expansive, since one case does not an arbitrator make. Thanks again. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  21:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benefit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My 76 Strat  (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. However, I have already commented that this questionaire is worthless, too long, badly written, and designed to obtain support for a policy already decided, like a focus group. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  10:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for having missed your comment. I do appreciate your kind manner in declining this request. I do believe your regards will be missed, but understand your apprehension. Cheers, My 76  Strat  (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Rivaling Justin Bieber with our YouTube presence
Google's YouTube features computer-read videos of selected articles, including these:


 * "The cup that holds the wine of silence": Robert Fripp, Discipline Global Mobile , Grooveshark, New standard tuning ,
 * Scientific statistics: Optimal design
 * Mathematical optimization: oriented matroid.

Read by a speech synthesizer, my prose has never sounded so prolix.... :( I shall have to read H. L. Mencken and Elmore Leonard!  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  23:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Get your thoughts on a Wikipedia Service Academy to coordinate admin prep. Guðsþegn (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Summary of guides to ArbCom elections
Summary chart by Ealdgyth

Kiefer .Wolfowitz  09:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification
Hi KW. Just noticed this edit and thought I should drop you a line regarding it. To the best of my knowledge, neither User:HJ Mitchell nor User:Elonka are WMF staff, though User:Ironholds is. I've met the two gentlemen and can confirm they are not the same person and that their userpage images are accurate. I've also discussed civility at length with Harry and was surprised you referred to him as a critic of Malleus. Worm TT( talk ) 11:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, senility has advanced more than I'd feared. I have to run now. I'll strike this when I get back. Anybody is welcome to strike whatever is wrong.  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  11:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * DONE. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  12:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Steady on there, old bean
Hi K.W. The old Usenet rule was "don't post angry". Can't help but worrying about you. Are you OK? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't heard "Old Bean" since The Mad Scientists' Club or a similar book: Something about two strange scientists, one from England, and a bunch of kids in a rocket.
 * I had thought my editing this morning was my simply adding the question links to the voter guides, so that readers can access the question and answers without having to go to the individual candidates' sub-page and looking up and finding the questions in the template (on display only on the individual page).
 * I added links to YouTube, making a joke about Justin Bieber, twice. Perhaps that made you worry about my equilibrium...?
 * Are you referring to something in particular?
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz  11:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you are referring to "Go fuck yourself, sinebot", that was a joke, at least for me---similar to my heartfelt declarations of love for disambiguation-bot. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  11:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sinebot just gets some people that way. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Our motto must be, "Bang on, Old Beans". 10:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well done, SuggestBot! I recognize all but 3 of the mathematical scientists, and all deserve articles. The Ice Age in Finland does not discuss the compression of bedrock, and subsequent expansion. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  12:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Major thirds tuning/GA1
I'm not sure what you were trying to do when you doubled up the GA list at Talk:Major thirds tuning/GA1, but I find it terribly confusing...  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 13:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I hate edit conflicts. It's best that at any time at most one of us writes, I think. I did not want to lose my responses, so I copied the whole thing. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  14:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I did a substantial upgrade of Ralph Patt using American Luthier, and I would like to do the same with M3 tuning. Maybe I should do the upgrade tonight and then you can resume your GAN review for the rest of the European afternoon and early evening and after I finish tomorrow? Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  14:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (In Japan, actually). I'll resume whenever you let me know you're ready.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk <sub style="margin-left:-5ex;">Contribs 21:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, the nose is a bit better, and I shall return to M3 tuning in the next 2 days. 19:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your comments. I believe that I've responded to your concerns now. I do appreciate your suggestions. Sincerely, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  16:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Just for you

 * Dear Elen,
 * Thanks for the tip! I have loved all my visits to Copenhagen, and some of the best food I've eaten has been in Denmark. That looks like a restaurant for our anniversary!
 * Thanks for another kind thoughtful gesture!
 * Best regards,
 * If you do get to go, I want a full report :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
— ΛΧΣ  21  22:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

666: The area code of the Beast

 * Ye of little faith,
 * Ye scoffers,


 * When KW testifies about America, you have ears but you do not hear.
 * When KW cites reliable sources about Americans, you have eyes but do not read.
 * ""The 15-year-old sophomore says the ID badge, which has an embedded radio frequency identification tag, is a violation of her rights. The student, Andrea Hernandez, believes the ID is "the mark of the beast" from the Book of Revelation.""

- Wade Goodwyn


 * Repent before it is too late!
 * Confess your sins before you are sent to ANI!


 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz  10:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

re: hat template
Keifer,

I've already checked Template:Hidden_archive_top. It shows that it is to be used by uninvolved editors or administrators. I'm not an admin, but I am uninvolved. So no foul there. Thanks for the note, however, KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 18:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You missed e.g. the keyword "discussion". The template is for closing discussions, not for silencing somebody with whom you disagree. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  19:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you're getting at.  Actually I didn't stop the discussion, only an incivil portion of it.   And, "silence someone I disagree with" isn't accurate.     I have no dog in this fight, I'm merely enforcing civility, but I understand your viewpoint and will leave it be.

KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 19:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Kosh,
 * Go to a water faucet and get yourself a glass of cold water, and let me know when you are ready for the next instruction. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  19:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

— ΛΧΣ  21  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. — ΛΧΣ  21  05:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  13:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Your ArbGuide
I've just taken the liberty of fixing what I thought was an obvious typo (or word-o) in your Arbitration Guide ... but since it's your guide (plus my nominal COI), I thought I should give you a heads-up and make sure I got it right. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Brad,
 * Thanks for the help. Like spelling "Timotheus Canens" and "Salvio [not Rudy-Can't-Fair Guiliani]", spelling "Carcharoth" unnerved me...! Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  00:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Even when my name is mis-spelt, I appear like magic... :-) BTW, the change Brad made was wiped out with this edit. And there is still an 'r' missing in the name (pedantic is my middle name). For a real laugh, look up the show where Stephen Colbert tries to pronounce my user name. Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Carcharoth, FloNight, Newyorkbrad, and of course ... Wizardman." Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "They are just like the Supreme Court, only their robes are  bathrobes. These are lifetime appointments, in that they do this until they get a life."
 * *LOL* Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  15:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

While on the topic of your voting guide, I would like to offer my thanks for taking the time to write it up. Not only do you raise points about several candidates that I hadn't thought about, but I think that we agree pretty much completely on what goes into making an acceptable Arbcom candidate. Trusilver 03:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Trusilver!
 * I think that e.g. Hersfold is probably a very good arbitrator, although some of his actions in civility enforcement were problematic. I would dislike a committee with a majority of Hersfolds, but he does have an important role to play (as a point of view, representing the initial sentiments of a chunk of editors and) especially as an open, direct, mature, and intelligent member
 * There are some candidates who may be close to e.g.'s Hersfold's positions, but I am skeptical of whether they share his backbone and sitzfleisch..., and I would like the committee to reflect (imho) the community.
 * Thanks for your kind words. I knew that I would raise points that nobody else thought of. The big question was whether anybody should think of any of my points...
 * That a few points were helpful to you is gratifying to me, and makes me think that the effort was worthwhile, despite my struggling with a Beck-worthy sinusitis, etc..
 * If you sample the page history, you can see that my uncertainty is greatest about some new candidates. I try to be forthright when I have relied on others' evaluations, (no only to pay debts but also) informally to warn of my own uncertainty.
 * Best regards, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  11:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

More page views than voters
25 00 66 views so far. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  12:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC) 15:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Afterwards
Thank you for a pictured impuls for thought. - Independently, I received Peace music on my talk, matching nicely ;) - My short list of personal preferences is also on my talk, since then I added Elen of the Roads, who answered my civility questions, well, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

candidate names with coming to my attention as awesome Wikipedians, worthy of Precious, in chronological order:
 * 26 February
 * 29 March
 * 19 April
 * 22 April
 * 13 May
 * 14 June
 * 4 August
 * 19 October
 * 25 November
 * --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, Gerda!
 * I think that your preferences were shared by many in the community, :) and your list explains some of the deviation in the community's voting from my recommendations! ;)
 * Have a good 2013! Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  14:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the inclusion in your guide. As said above, before the election was over, Elen of the Roads joined the group ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ps: the civility questions she answered to my liking are now up for discussion on a broader forum, and the Peace music is on the Main page: Did you know ,,,... that the Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 was broadcast by loudspeakers throughout the city, and to the German forces as psychological warfare? (thank you, Nikkimaria, for better Christmas music than the soft shopping background!) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A comment in your voter guide
Regarding your comment that if a certain candidate is not elected, the arbitrators should invite him to prepare a draft of something: The best way for an editor to propose a draft of a motion or decision, in a pending case, is by opening a section on the workshop page. Often, if something is well-drafted, it will be used in the decision. This is how I got significant drafting experience before I was an arbitrator, and other editors have done it as well. By contrast, when Fred Bauder once copied some proposals I made into a draft decision and gave me special (unsolicited) authorization to edit the page, I was flattered and very appreciative, but the ad hoc arrangement created a little bit of confusion for everyone else. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Brad,
 * Thank you for the quick response, whose reading I have recommended to my readers:
 * "Please read the comment of Newyorkbrad, who shared his experience on non-administrator drafting."
 * Best regards, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  20:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding that very comment, I seriously doubt I'll ever run again, regardless of the results of this election... Eh, I guess we'll never know how good I might have been as a drafter.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Salvio!
 * I don't think anybody has made any criticism of you, but people have just mentioned that so far you have been very active as a conscientious administrator, not as a politician. When I consider ArbCom, I worry about groupthink and group polarization, which occurs to all committees, and therefore I want to have members who have a history of pulling the emergency chord to avert train wrecks.;) I think that you are qualified, and I would just liked to see you in action.
 * Sincerely, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  09:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI
Just a courtesy note to say I mentioned you by name here (in a nice way). I didn't approve of the survey either but ultimately decided that silence might be riskier. Rivertorch (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the courtesy notice. I of course appreciate your appreciation of these edits, which are best linked with a diff (for ease of access and permanency).
 * I complained that the survey was too long. Statistics Sweden suggests 10 questions on one page is a good size, unless you want severe problems with non-response and cognitive-effects of the survey instrument. About the latter, responding to 10 pages of survey-questions about men abusing women in Sweden or about incivility on Wikipedia results in a different response than asking the same question at the start. Also, Swedes are far more likely to respond to official surveys than Americans or Brits, for example. I suggested that the survey writer (was it Jc37?) read Robert M. Groves's Survey Methodology text, which is used for undergraduate sociologists, for example. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  12:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. On an all-volunteer, pseudonymous project like Wikipedia, the people who hold real-world competency in certain areas (like survey writing) aren't necessarily the ones who end up performing the relevant tasks. I think the survey is too long, too, and I believe that some of the questions rely on certain assumptions that they shouldn't, and that they're liable to lead anyone attempting to answer them concisely to gravitate toward simplistic, either/or choices that won't necessarily illuminate the topic very much but may lead to false findings of consensus. Then again, I'm not a professional survey writer! I linked to a stable version rather than a diff because I wanted to show your remarks in context (including what Pesky said in reply to you). Rivertorch (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Wiki-way is difficult, although perhaps not so challenging as the way of Ghost Dog.
 * The problem is not the lack of competence, but the insouciance and fatuity about research methodology, which is nearly a requirement for participation in the humanities and many social-studies disciplines and semi-professions.... One needs editors who are curious about finding the truth, rather than indulging in moralistic crusades or reliving glory days as hall monitors.
 * I would suggest that you not publicly declare that you believe that there are wrong ways to do things and that editors should defer to or seek competence. Such behavior is almost as antithetical to the Wiki-Way as referring to an article you've written as "yours"!
 * That sounded harsh. I am really a marshmallow teddybear dusted with cayenne pepper. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  19:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Better that than a candy-coated habanero! (We have a few of those around here.) I'm not at all sure what you're referring to in your sentence that begins, "I would suggest". Could you clarify? RL beckons, but I'm curious and look forward to reading your reply later. Rivertorch (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oooohhh! Bear-and-cayenne! Tasty! (But I always suspected you were tasty ...) [Pesky nibbles] <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 13:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about violating my interaction ban with "fatuity", Pesky! Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  13:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * [Chuckles] Never mind ... just don't do it too often! Hugz. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 22:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the laughs
Well, your attempt to slam me has been shut down, but one thing was gained from it, it is abundantly clear that at least when it came to your comments on me you proceeded in a very casual, thoughtless manner and apparently just repeated things you saw others saying without doing any real research. You've done more damage to your reputation as a guide writer than to me. Your claim that the fact that you did not notice because you, like everyone else, is not interested in it is contradicted by the fact that you did in fact comment on the talk page to make some unfounded accusations directed at the author. Kind of odd that you took the time to make such accusations but did not the take the time to figure out who it was you were accusing. As for this alleged lack of interest, again you appear to just parrot what others have said without taking the time to be informed or surely you would have known that over 100 users have posted replies to the questions. I look forward to ignoring the claptrap you call a voter guide again next year, and I am sure I won't be alone now that it is clear how careless you are when researching it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite the contrary. At best you were ranked 7th or 8th by some guide writers whom I respect, but nobody suggested you were a strong or even mediocre candidate this year. The majority of guide writers dismissed you quickly, with Kurtis doing perhaps the most thorough review of your unsuitability. None of us discussed your "questionnaire" because it was a waste of time. None of us discussed your having written it because we had already decided our recommendations based on your other behavior.
 * The charge that I was parroting other writers was absurd. Notice my discussion of David Fuchs, for example. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  20:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well now, that is odd. You are now saying nobody discussed it because it was a waste of time, when just a few hours ago you we claiming the reason was that you did not know and now you are very upset to have found this out. Those appear to be contradictory statements.


 * You took a cheap shot at me today that cannot possibly effect the results of the election. I don't know why you woke up today and decided to attack me, but luckily all you have accomplished is to reveal your own bumbling and lack of diligence in this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Listen here, small fry.
 * Read what I wrote about "Bayesian decision problem" on that page, consulting for the next weeks dictionaries and encyclopedias, and come back when you know something. You are just not worth my time in your present state.  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  21:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

For others, let me say that my comment was of the "self and mutual criticism" type I made, after reading Sandy Georgia's comments about Keilana. (Tip of the hat also to Rschen, whose guide deserved more attention.) 21:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I see, personal attacks. The last refuge of the dishonest when confronted with their own lies. I can't say I see any point to continuing to listen to your pompous bullshit any further myself so I guess we will just call it a day on this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * These are not personal attacks. You have stated above your regarding as a contradiction the distinction between antecedent and consequent likelihood (prior and posterior probability, in contemporary confusing terminology). Until you understand that distinction, at least in terms of your writing behavior, no te doy a comprender. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  21:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keifer, "listen here small fry" is a personal attack. A little humility goes a long way. good bye. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, Mr. Civility for thee but not for me,
 * "Small fry" is literally fish that is too small to fry, and is thrown back so that it will grow and become a "keeper".
 * To become a keeper in a discussion about your contradiction allegation, you need to read the beginning of the article on conditional probability or something similar.
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz  22:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The civility issue aside, that's not the correct etymology of small fry. A "fry" as a young fish is unrelated to the term "fry" to cook in hot oil.  See definition 3 here.  -- Jayron  32  01:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. I should not risk etymology like the father in my Big Fat Greek Wedding. Perhaps there is some truth to the BS charge, also, just like the pompous charge! Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  10:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Results
Following the voting period, the scrutineers will examine the votes, and will release a tally of the results. The tally will rank candidates by level of support, defined as the number of votes cast in support of the candidate divided by the total number of votes cast for the candidate ("no vote" preferences are not counted). A total of 858 editors cast votes this election, and 824 votes were determined to be valid.

Ellen deserved more support, but I am pleased that only qualified candidates were elected. Also, the good showing by Guerrillero and Regents Park reflect well on the voters. Kiefer .Wolfowitz  19:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)