User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 20
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
Shapley–Folkman lemma at FAC
"In geometry, the Shapley–Folkman lemma and the Shapley–Folkman–Starr theorem study the Minkowski addition of sets in a vector space". I think you're going to struggle finding reviewers for this article, but just let me say that lemmas don't study anything: that's what mathematicians do. Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Malleus, for both the caution about reviewers and the warning about anthropomorphizing lemmas. I shall be happy if I receive further copy editing suggestions like this. Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'll endeavour to apply my limited mathematical knowledge to the rest of the article, but you might want to give User:Geometry guy a nudge. Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Malleus!
- Geometry Guy has already been very helpful. He may prefer the splitting off of the "SF-Starr theorem" from the lemma, to improve the accessibility of the article. (I lack the energy to do rewriting of 2 artices.)
- The calls for A-class review elicited no edits or comments from the economics and mathematics projects, but the previous GA review received many helpful comments.
- IMHO, the biggest flaw of the article is the animation of the non-convex consumer preferences, which has been taken from another article; it is encumbered by extraneous information from the other application.
- The double use of User:David Eppstein's illustration is unconventional but (I believe) helpful for readers.
- Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm just trying to gee up the troops, don't expect too much from me. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- You are doing a great job as a catalyst! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm just trying to gee up the troops, don't expect too much from me. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
[1] You give me too much credit. I'm reading and trying to understand at the same time; I just figure that if I can't understand then nobody else will either. What about that for arrogance! :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Malleus,
- I am delighted that you have again contributed to the article, especially because it is challenging for you---just as it was for me when I first tried to read mathematical economics (via the New Palgrave)---and I want to acknowledge your help.
- I try to give credit to editors for their suggestions, following the example of kind editors like ThomasMeeks.
- Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'll get to the end of the article one day soon I hope, but I'm disappointed that other FA reviewers have not yet followed my lead. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Be patient. Protonk's efforts are still in-coming. :) A few dedicated and talented reviewers will be very helpful in improving the article. I am pleased with the suggestions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Mathematics and Wikpedia
- Why is it do you think that so many are afraid of mathematics, and mathematics articles? Malleus Fatuorum 02:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I participated in an interview with the Mathematics Project this year, which I'll link, which has more experienced editors, most of whom are much better mathematicians than myself. You should read that first, then this. (I am usually long-winded at first draft.)
It helps to have good graphics, at least for geometric-inclined readers (e.g. me). The Shapley-Folkman article benefits from David Eppstein's two illustrations, which outclass anything else in world literature. Nobody has even dreamed of creating explanatory graphics like David's. I am surprised that I haven't seen people citing the article yet. (I tried, but my article citing it has been held up in review for more than a year!) It has the best survey of applications; particularly the links to econometric journals should make it essential reading for M.A. students at good universities---or at least at Stanford! ;)
I would not say that people are afraid, but rather than many people are nervous and humble (unless they are young Americans, who have the world's highest positive response to the statement, "I have mathematical talent"!).
Compare mathematics and music: I was reading a bit about your countryman Robert Fripp and reflecting on my ignorance of music, particularly the basics of music appreciation, particularly the musical theory that should seduce any mathematical scientist. Music is even more human than mathematics. Our ability to dance in groups is unknown in other species, I've read. Yet I have not read anything, because other interests and activities were more habitual/interesting/pressing.
Thus, it is a question of economics and of interest. If people understood that they could make better decisions for themselves, particularly to provide for their families, or to make medical decisions for their families, better, by understanding a basic course in statistics, then I think enrollment would increase, at least among mature adults. Young people are probably more motivated about income and idealism (saving the world). I became seriously interested in mathematics because I wanted to understand economics, courtesy of Reaganomics; I learned from economists that statistics was the most important skill to have.
Wikipedia's own Richard Gill, acting in the real world, has helped nurses unjustly tried for murder, because prosecutors committed and judges accepted crazy statistical testimony. Mathematics is important in real life, particularly in criminal justice, business, and military affairs. I think that understanding the basics of probability are essential to proper reasoning. There should be no shortage of examples that make statistics and mathematics come alive. (I can say that I have used examples of fire-department statistics, which grab U.S. audiences, once I mention 9/11 and some personal ties.)
Another example of the importance of incentives and opportunities.
In the communist countries, mathematics attracted people because it was relatively free from Communist BS and unless you were Jewish and in the 1970s (or under Stalin's time) was relatively meritocratic. The USSR and Poland had great books written and inspired by Kolmogorov and Banach---and Kolmogorov was like the Bach of mathematics, so that their mathematical civilization was very inviting and inspiring. Even now, students in Eastern Europe know that science is an excellent way to obtain good jobs in Western Europe or the USA, which is another explanation of why they have such good students.
Boxer: "I will work harder":
One of the best writers of our time is the German poet and essayist Hans Magnus Enzensberger. He has written a pamphlet Drawbridges Down!, calling on mathematicians to write for the public (even if they have to lie a little ...); he has also written a book for children, The Number Devil, which is entertaining. The Wikipedia Project interview discusses the difficulty of writing for the public.
I would say that the U.S. and increasingly Sweden have been crippled by the anti-academic and anti-intellectual Schools of Education, which hobble our high schools, particularly in mathematics. It is like Plan 9 From Outer Space. We are surrounded by intellectually dead people.
It used to be that Swedish gymnasium teachers had a Master's degree in one subject, and had written a B.A. thesis in another. (French gymnasium teachers must have a something like a Master's degree.)
Now, Americans and Swedes can get accreditation by taking watered down classes like algebra for teachers. How can students get inspired by teachers who don't know their subjects? (I was lucky to have caught the end of New Math and to have been taught by teachers recruited with post-Sputnik initiatives.)
We need teachers who are intellectually alive and interested in mathematics. But now, it is hard to imagine the best students taking bachelor of education degrees, which they need to get hired by public schools in the U.S. (If they take a B.A./B.S. and later get accredited, they will not get hired because their union contract makes them entitled to higher pay.)
That is my short answer! ;) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Further comment. I think some of the leading project members write what is obvious for them off the top of their heads. (I do the same in statistics, usually, and just give the general references I read when I learned the stuff.) Many of our mathematicians have interests in algebra and mathematical logic, and have been influenced by something called category theory, so they write articles that are hard for reactionary (set-theoretic) mathematicians (or mathematical scientists like me) to understand. If they had more time, they would be able to write simpler articles, but they are usually writing what they consider to be trivialities in the most natural (i.e., category theoretic) way. This makes it difficult to understand some topics, usually in Ph.D.-training-level mathematics. However, most of our articles are quite accessible, and our editors take great pains to write inviting articles on topics of interest to the public or to undergraduates. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think that about hits the spot. I hardly ever edit in areas I've worked in, because the pain of trying to find citations for what you and everyone else in field knows to be true is just too much hassle. Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
"Mathematicians are like lovers ...": "Give 'em an inch, and they ask for a mile"
The article Tom Kahn would benefit from a good article review. (It is not yet as polished as the SF lemma article.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
FAC nom formatting
FYI on how to format FAC nominations: [2] Karanacs (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
"The road to wisdom": "To err, to err, to err"- "The road to wisdom": "To err, to err, to err"
- Sorry for over-emboldening. If it is any consolation, I did even more blunders, which were egregious because they were premature blunders, on the FA-scheduling page, where I had no business being.
- Thanks for the help! Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Almost everyone who tries to nominate at the FA-scheduling page messes up. No worries. Karanacs (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Starr's result
Hello-So, rather than going to the original research, here's a question I have about Starr's result: Does the good behavior of the approximated economy come strictly from the number of consumers, or is it required (as in simple results about the core) that the consumers are clones? CRETOG8(t/c) 18:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is a good question, which applies both to the results of Shapley & Folkman and of Starr. You might guess that non-cloning would be essential, if you had read a (sloppy) remark in the otherwise good c. 1983 Econometrica paper by Whitney Newey and Soeren Bloemqist, on "nonlinear budget sets": It states that "averaging over characteristics" was "implicit" in aggregation, suggesting that non-cloning be essential.
- On the contrary, the propositions (and their proofs) make no assumption about the identity or non-identity of the summands, and it is interesting that everything holds even when all consumers are identical! Troeckel has a very clear statement about that. (It seems paradoxical that economics obtains more informative results by special cases of general theorems ....) You should look at the illustration in Mas-Colell's 1987 "Non-convexity" article, which shows a semigroup of sumsets: I tried to explain it on the talk page. Give me a minute and I'll cut and paste it here. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Mas-Colell, A. (1987). "Non-convexity". In Eatwell, John; Milgate, Murray; Newman, Peter (eds.). [[The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics|The new Palgrave: A dictionary of economics]] (first ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 653–661. doi:10.1057/9780230226203.3173. (PDF file at Mas-Colell's homepage).
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help); URL–wikilink conflict (help); Unknown parameter|newedition=
ignored (help)
- Mas-Colell, A. (1987). "Non-convexity". In Eatwell, John; Milgate, Murray; Newman, Peter (eds.). [[The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics|The new Palgrave: A dictionary of economics]] (first ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 653–661. doi:10.1057/9780230226203.3173. (PDF file at Mas-Colell's homepage).
- The best image would illustrate the set
- S = 1/2 ( [0,1]×[0,2] ∪ [0,2]×[0,1] )
- and then
- for N = 0, 1, 2,3, ∞.
- A translate of this set appears in Mas-Colell's article on non-convex sets (etc.). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Someday, this will take some serious thought! (...and I need to convince my university to pick up Palgrave.) CRETOG8(t/c) 19:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- You can read Mas-Colell and Starr's New Palgrave articles at their homepages. You don't need a subscription. Starr's book used to be available in draft form at his homepage. Enjoy Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 3 October 2011
- News and notes: Italian Wikipedia shuts down over new privacy law; Wikimedia Sverige produce short Wikipedia films, Sue Gardner calls for empathy
- In the news: QRpedia launches to acclaim, Jimbo talks social media, Wikipedia attracts fungi, terriers and Greeks bearing gifts
- WikiProject report: Kia ora WikiProject New Zealand
- Featured content: Reviewers praise new featured topic: National treasures of Japan
- Arbitration report: Last call for comments on CheckUser and Oversight teams
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Positive reinforcement
A beer for you
![]() |
Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC) |
- Hi
RedRose64Redrose64! - It was my pleasure to vote for you! :)
- Feel free to block me any time! ;)
- Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Some falafel for you!
![]() |
Thanks for making Wikipedia a better place to be. Enjoy! Pinkstrawberry02™ talk 15:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC) |
Please reply on Pinkstrawberry02's talk page. If for some reason you cannot, please leave them a {{talkback}} and reply on your own talk page. Also, don't forget to sign their guestbook. Thanks for your attention!
- Thank you! Have you considered joining the administrator corps? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank You...and You're Welcome!
Hey, thanks for the Baba Ghanoush! Try a new food every day - it was delicious! And you are certainly welcome for the falafel, I'm glad you enjoyed it. And no, I haven't. I've actually thought of myself as not good enough to do it - maybe I should start small. Thanks again! Pinkstrawberry02™ talk 18:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Request for Comment: Worse than a colonoscopy, better than an orchiectomy
![A drawing of a facepalm.](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Facepalm3.svg/474px-Facepalm3.svg.png)
Assuredly we bring not innocence into the world, we bring impurity much rather: that which purifies us is triall, and triall is by what is contrary
RFC/U discussion concerning you (Kiefer.Wolfowitz)
Hello, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz, where you may want to participate. As requested, I will now ask a sitting arb, and one of your prefered administrators to confirm whether there is a basis for this RfC. WormTT · (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- My suggestion was that you ask somebody with greater ability and experience to draft an RfC that would focus on a few behavioral changes, for me (as you should do for any other person in an RfC). Your credibility would be greater if you were being conservative in your paraphrasing, rather than distorting User:Carrite's comment about my contempt for Busky's book. Have you bothered to read the pages I flagged as poor scholarship yet?
- I find it humorous that you, who could not even be bothered to source properly the trivial bacon festival, are rapping my knuckles like a school marm about my acknowledgment that I had reused content ("canibalizing"), which I have acknowledged doing in many articles with edit-summaries. Of course, I can do better and perhaps I have slipped a few times.
- Even if you have a respected Wikipedian involved with your RfC, I shall certainly have no time for it until December, as I noted before. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Kiefer, I have endorsed the basis of the RfC, so let's have no more of this "someone with greater ability" crap please. I suggest you get over there and respond to what's being raised - as I said previously, in my experience it never comes out well for the editor who attempts to ignore the issue. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Your contributions at RfC
Thank you for your participation in the discussion - I am hopeful that this can be brought to an amicable solution. I note that you have made a comment in the "Outside View" section - this section is for editors who are not a party to the dispute. For your convenience, I have moved your comments in their entirity into the response section here. You may wish to edit the header as it just says "Moved from Outside View section" at the moment. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your movement was fine, although it does not preserve the soi disant, le soi c'est one autre, and a certain soup de jour qualities of the original. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Surely it's soup du jour :) :) Minestrone perhaps? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- That was an excellent guess! The cuisine is Roman. I am in a "secure, undisclosed location", but I do hear the Mediterranean peacefully loosening its rope of sands. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Surely it's soup du jour :) :) Minestrone perhaps? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
On same team in general, but I advise you to chill out. Roll with the punches, just a little. And jab in spots, not always. Even for humor, it can be more effective. Like when Jerry advised George on not overplaying the jokes.
P.s. Yeah, the kids are kids. And trapped in Dunning Kruger (similar to Rumsfeldian unknown unknown). But give them a break. Broadcast at intervals, not continuuous wave.
P.s.s. Peace brah...and don't let the turkeys get you down.
P.s.s.s. That Ossfrob (or whatever his name is) is right about Shapley Lema-thereom. It is still too mathy. You CAN keep the essential content and make it better.
P.s.s.s.s. BEADWINDOW and all that... \
- For the record, the IP editor who refuses a signature above is User:71.246.147.40. LadyofShalott 04:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Reading about the Dunning–Kruger effect and reviewing Bill Murray's Stripes were both enjoyable. I believe that the other allusion is to Donald Rumsfeld's or Dick Cheney's "secure undisclosed location" (often ridiculed on Harry Shearer's Le Show), where the Vice President secured himself after the 9/11 attacks. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- The Rumsfeldian reference was to this, I believe. 28bytes (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- That makes more sense! Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- The Rumsfeldian reference was to this, I believe. 28bytes (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The self imposed interaction ban was, IMHO, only on a discussion basis on your talk and mine I believe. I feel I can add value at the above. Are you in agreement that posting there does not contradict my interaction ban? If not then I will not comment there. Pedro : Chat 22:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Pedro!
- Thanks for asking. I shall try to email you privately.
- Sincerely,
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your email. After fully reading the RFC, I have decided that I'm unlikely to add value. Pedro : Chat 22:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Pedro,
- I thought you wrote a very classy request. I am sorry that I did not see your reply earlier, and acknowledge it immediately.
- If you change your mind please feel free to comment at the RfC, or if you want to email me suggestions for improving my editing.
- You have a lot more experience on WP than I do. If you change your mind about the interaction ban, which certainly did serve a purpose after some derailed conversations, then please email me or write here.
- I appreciate your taking the time to read the RfC and to think about contributing. I shall remember your example of aiming for value-added comments.
- Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Consider the alternatives
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Pedro_Berruguete_Saint_Dominic_Presiding_over_an_Auto-da-fe_1495.jpg/250px-Pedro_Berruguete_Saint_Dominic_Presiding_over_an_Auto-da-fe_1495.jpg)
I wrote this some months ago. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Infantilization
We agree that positive reinforcement is wonderful. However, negative reinforcement is also beneficial. Read Paul Meehl's Presidential Address to the American Psychological Association, "Why I do not attend case conferences":
Reward everything—gold and garbage—alike. The tradition of exaggerated tenderness in psychiatry and psychology reflects our “therapeutic attitude” and contrasts with that of scholars in fields like philosophy or law, where a dumb argument is called a dumb argument, and he who makes a dumb argument can expect to be slapped down by his peers. Nobody ever gives anybody negative reinforcement in a psychiatric case conference. (Try it once—you will be heard with horror and disbelief.) The most inane remark is received with joy and open arms as part of the groupthink process. Consequently the educational function, for either staff or students, is prevented from getting off the ground. Any psychologist should know that part of the process of training or educating is to administer differential reinforcement for good versus bad, effective versus ineffective, correct versus incorrect behaviors. If all behavior is rewarded by friendly attention and nobody is ever non-reinforced (let alone punished!) for talking foolishly, it is unlikely that significant educational growth will take place. (pp. 228-229)
...
The obvious educational question is, how does it happen that this bright, conscientious, well-motivated, social-service-oriented premed psychology major with a 3.80 average doesn’t know the most elementary things about psychotic depression, such as its diagnostic indicators, its statistical suicide risk, or the time phase in the natural history of the illness which presents the greatest risk of suicide? The answer, brethren, is very simple: Some of those who are “teaching” and “supervising” him either don’t know these things themselves or don’t think it is important for him to know them. This hapless student is at the educational mercy of a crew that is so unscholarly, antiscientific, “groupy-groupy,” and “touchy-feely” that they have almost no concern for facts, statistics, ... or the work of the intellect generally. (p. 280)
(Emboldening and links added)
Spare the rod and spoil the child, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Many, many years ago I attended case conferences during my psychology degree, and I was absolutely gob-smacked by the social worker pseudo-science bullshit on display even then. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)'
- (ec) Very true. If all feedback is the same, there is no way of differentiating the useful (important) from useless (trivial or misleading). Manny may (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- p.s. I like your style! Manny may (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- :) (KW)
- It's something that now seems to be deep in the American psyche. I attended an IT training course a few years ago led by an American, and within two hours of the week-long course I was writhing at her habitual "Thank you for that very interesting question" response to almost everything she was asked, no matter how stupid or inane. Whoever it was said that there are no stupid questions is an ass. Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I know parents of fairly bright kids who get really frustrated by the teachers of their children uncritically praising substandard work, on the grounds that their work is much better than that of many of the children in the class. The idea of equality, taken too far, does not challenge and stretch everyone according to their ability, and so becomes fundamentally unfair. Geometry guy 23:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- There was a fairly well-publicised case here in the UK of a football match between two junior teams being stopped at half-time because one team was losing 9–0, and it was considered improper that they should be asked to take the field again for the second half, and perhaps suffer further humiliation. Or perhaps fight back and win the game 10–9, we'll never know. But there's definitely an uncritical view that all efforts are equal, when they patently are not. There are winners and losers in life, and that's a lesson kids need to learn. Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I know parents of fairly bright kids who get really frustrated by the teachers of their children uncritically praising substandard work, on the grounds that their work is much better than that of many of the children in the class. The idea of equality, taken too far, does not challenge and stretch everyone according to their ability, and so becomes fundamentally unfair. Geometry guy 23:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- p.s. I like your style! Manny may (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) Very true. If all feedback is the same, there is no way of differentiating the useful (important) from useless (trivial or misleading). Manny may (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I endorse E. D. Hirsch's The Schools We Need, and Why We Don't Have Them, which traces the disasters of American schools (particularly the systems of schools of eduction) to American romanticism, which viewed everybody as having a spark of divinity, like a narcissistic version of the Quaker religion (without the "leveling" or emphasis on good will and integrity).
- After the publication of an English grammar of Sanskrit c. 1848, there was a fascination with Hinduism and Buddhism; probably German romanticism benefited from an awareness of Hindu and Buddhist influences on Christianity even earlier, and various types of pantheism and spiritualism. Not only romantic novelists but also scientists did research on spiritualism, "energy fields", "ghosts", etc. This BS animates much of American culture, from schools of education to Star Wars.
- Another good book is by Robyn Dawes, House of Cards: Psychology and Therapy Built on Myth. Dawes emphasizes the importance of time on task for learning, especially homework, and criticizes the absurd and anti-scientific cult of "self esteem" in the U.S., particularly in "education". Dawes has been a professor at the magnificent Carnegie Mellon University.
- His CMU colleagues Herb Simon, John R. Anderson, and a third have written criticisms of education-school BS, claiming to be based on "cognitive psychology". Wikipedia's own mathematics education has claimed that "research has shown" that short homework lessons are best, etc. Simon, Anderson, et alia have explained that many of these claims contradict the core findings of experimental psychology. (One of the disasters of Swedish social-democracy is that Alva Myrdal and her successors have imported the anti-intellectual U.S. system into a country that already suffered from conformity and leveling egalitarianism.)
- I agree with the above expressed revulsion about the neglect of gifted children in many schools. It is nearly child abuse that some students never are challenged and so helped to learn time-management and study skills until they get to university. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
|
|
![The hamstrung smith Welund, portrayed on the Franks Casket.](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Franks_Casket_vorne_links.jpg)
![Photograph of doctor/internist performing a colonoscopy](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/Endoscopy_nci-vol-1982-300.jpg/220px-Endoscopy_nci-vol-1982-300.jpg)
I have been having a deja vu experience all over again, but now I understand why: I recognize that I have been transgressing Jante Law, which is familiar to anybody who has lived for a half year in Sweden or Norway:
Jantelagen has ten rules:
- Don't think you're anything special.
- Don't think you're as good as us.
- Don't think you're smarter than us.
- Don't convince yourself that you're better than us.
- Don't think you know more than us.
- Don't think you are more important than us.
- Don't think you are good at anything.
- Don't laugh at us.
- Don't think anyone cares about you.
- Don't think you can teach us anything.
An eleventh rule is:
Those who transgress this unwritten 'law' are regarded with suspicion and some hostility, as it goes against communal desire in the town to preserve harmony, social stability and uniformity.
Jante Law has never been adopted officially in Nordic countries, although it is enforced daily with gusto. Why should Wikipedia be different? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/Rizi_Francisco%2C_Autodafe_-_Plaza_Mayor_%28Madrid%29.png/200px-Rizi_Francisco%2C_Autodafe_-_Plaza_Mayor_%28Madrid%29.png)
From WikiSpeak by Malleus et alia:
- RfC n.
- (editor conduct) A place to bring anyone you have a longstanding grudge against. There, they'll be subject to countless attacks by uninvolved editors (also known as "outside views") and generally be tortured until they agree to submit to your every whim. This is, of course, unless they are a popular editor, in which case the RfC will be dismissed as bad faith and you blocked indefinitely for some purportedly unrelated reason.
- (content dispute) A place where editors who know absolutely nothing about the subject chime in in an attempt to destroy an article further.
The propriety of "national socialist"
|
---|
![]()
Continuation
Another voice
And another voice
"Planet Janet"Elen's insult "Planet Janet", about an emotionally troubled teenage girl, was new to me. Here's the lede of the Janet Dillon article.
Apparently, Planet Janet also the name of a series of young adult novels about an EMO teenage girl. It will be interesting how Elen's bullshit plays at her next ArbComm election. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC) |
![Back of a Saint Benedict Medal, displaying "Vade retro satana"](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/St_benedict_medal-2006_04_24.png)
- ^ "Exorcism - Revised rite" by John L. Allen, Jr., National Catholic Reporter, 1 September 2000
![Saint Michael, laying the smack down](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Guido_Reni_031.jpg/600px-Guido_Reni_031.jpg)
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio; contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium. Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur: tuque, Princeps militiae Caelestis, satanam aliosque spiritus malignos, qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo, divina virtute in infernum detrude. Amen.[1] | Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray: and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.[2][3][4][5] |
- ^ Leonine prayers after low mass
- ^ Raccolta Manual of Indulgences Published by St Athanasius Press, 2003 ISBN 0-9706526-6-6 page 340
- ^ Prayer to Holy Michael the Archangel
- ^ Common Catholic Prayers
- ^ Rev. Alfred Boeddekker, Our Guardian Angels
Wikipedia's treatment of Jewish exorcisms lacks suitable graphics.
Polite request
All good things must come to an end
|
---|
Hi Kiefer. Can I please ask you to stop copying my comments out of context to other pages, with my signature and time stamp. A diff is a lot more appropriate. If you must copy and paste, please ensure it is very clear that it is a quote, perhaps using the {{talkquote}} template - I know you used blockquote, however talk quote is a lot clearer. WormTT · (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Knock it offLook, I'm about ready to indef you (and only you, because you're the source of everyone else's discontent it seems now) so if you don't stop interacting with people you don't like (read: stop responding if they say something, even if it's plain wrong), then find something more useful to do in real life. Wikipedia is an utter waste of my time when I have to babysit a crowd of whining four- and five-year-olds. In the real world, I can get paid for doing that. So you can either choose to write articles and only that, or you can choose to keep on posting messages on others' talk pages. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Carrying onKiefer.Wolfowitz - TParis, Geometry guy and I are looking into closing this RfC, as well you know. I'm wondering why you felt it necessary to add a further 8k of text. It implies you're not looking for a close. WormTT · (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
|
Finis: Status quo ante bellum
Quotation of closing summary
|
---|
Kiefer Wolfowitz is a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia. All participates very strongly agree that KW's participation in the project is a net plus and would hate to see this RFC result in his absence from the project. In addition, Carrite has said their view was improperly conveyed by Worm That Turned and Demiurge1000. A few editors have also felt that this RFC is not productive or appropriate. However, at times his communication habits have tended to learn toward incivility in the least and personal attacks at worst. No matter a person's excellent contributions, all editors are treated with the same rules. KW's opinion of young editors, especially in RFAs, is not necessarily wrong but the way his opinion was communicated was inappropriate. Kiefer often has trouble accepting constructive criticism without perceiving it as a personal attack or becoming defensive. To move forward, KW has agreed voluntarily with two viewpoints in particular (Fetchcomms and Sławomir Biały) that he can be tactless and aggressive in discussions, although most editors can be at times, and that he should try to minimize the behavior and be a little more respectful to those around him (close paraphrasing of Sławomir Biały) and also that he should say things in a nicer and non-demeaning manner (close paraphrasing of Fetchcomms). He has also agreed on the talk page in his proposed closing statement that he cknowledges that WP:Oversight may be contacted in future cases involving minors voluntarying too specific personal information. There has been no consensus for actions, restrictions, bans, or any other community sanctions on Kiefer Wolfowitz. Truly, unbiased, and honestly, --v/r - TP 15:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC) |
I thank TParis for his fair closing summary.
Response to closing summary:Youth
|
---|
Small caveats:
Of course, given the ruckus here, I shall avoid such statements towards others. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC) |
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
![yellow smiley-face :)](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/Smiley.svg/600px-Smiley.svg.png)
The largest waste of time I've witnessed on Wikipedia. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
A black hole has hellish properties: Eternal darkness, etc.
Final message
Hi KW. I hope you don't mind me leaving you a parting message here. I considered leaving something at the RfC, but as far as I'm concerned closed means closed and I've no wish to go back there. I'm sorry I didn't reply to your guide to IRC request, the coordination was never going to happen there due to the fact that TParis and I operate on opposite timescales - however if you'd ever like some tips, let me know.
On the RfC itself, I'm glad it's over - I hope all the participants have learned something and will modify their behaviour based on what they've learned. I know that all participants have the ability to, I know I will. My hopes for the RfC weren't realised, which is a pity, but I think my goals were. In any case, I thought you'd like to know I'll be keeping a wide birth from now on, I doubt you'll see me except in my regular haunts. I've no interest in taking things further, as I can't see any positive outcomes if I do.
However, I'd like to officially extend this hand of friendship for the future, if you ever need help that I can give, please don't hesitate to contact me. WormTT · (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi David/WTT,
- Thank you for your note, whose spirit of reconciliation I appreciate.
- In the same spirit, I did try to write more generous and good-humored comments in the last days, at least at the end of the RfC's talk page.
- I have been honest when I have said that I found it very difficult to read the RfC. I have tried to read the most egregious violations of civility or NPOV, presented in your selected diffs, and to deal with the issues you raised.
- A. I commented yesterday about my "rudeness" toward a "new user"---an SPUSA/SP-Florida officer, with 2-3 accounts and at least 2 cases of WP:Outing his party opponents. I had forgotten the details of the edits for which my righteous indignation violated WP:Civility.
- B. I have now written a note, with diffs, for talk page of the article on Penn Kemble. In the RfC, you quoted my removal of text, which you alleged was for political reasons. Reading this allegation, I was puzzled by the diff you quoted, because I spent years working against Kemble's Central-America politics and for human rights, and my edit seemed bizarre---at least until I took time to compare it with the source. In a (later) edit summary, I requested that an editor who lacked my horror at Contra terrorism examine the edits for POV, because that edit restored the (shameful) details of his supporting aid for terrorists. I really have trouble understanding how you could have failed to check that edit summary and to see that I had restored the legitimate content without the OR/BIAS problems., I would ask you to review that talk page
Penn Kemble
- Quotation from Talk:Penn Kemble#Explanation of Central-America edits
I wish to explain three edits (old A-B and new C).
The initial edit (A) occured because the article had this sentence
This article (before my edits): "Kemble alienated many activists in the Democratic Party by actively aiding the Reagan administration in its financial and moral support of the anti-communist "Contra" rebels in that country. (Holley)
which was based on Holley's Washington Post obituary:
Washington Post: "During the Reagan administration, he founded a group called PRODEMCA, or the Committee for Democracy in Central America. He caused consternation among many fellow Democrats by advocating support for the anti-communist contra rebels in Nicaragua. He sought a democratic middle way between communist Sandinistas and former supporters of rightist dictator Anastasio Somoza."
(A) I removed the old text because the phrase "actively aiding the Reagan administration in its financial ... support" had problems:
- OR, because the source does not state that Kemble aided the Reagan administration in anything. It states only that during the Reagan administration, Kemble advocated support. (As usual, however, the OR problem is a real problem, rather than a formality, for which anybody can provide a reference, because of a content concern.)
- NPOV/BIAS: Kemble lobbied Congress, which has the power of the purse, under the U.S. Constitution. The ambiguous suggestion that Kemble helped the executive branch provide funding is at best an infelicitous paraphrase:
- The Iran–Contra Hearings featured subpoenaed testimony, given under oath, about illegal support and illegal solicitations of illegal support by members of the Reagan Administration and by its associates. (I think that Cameron's memoir discusses Kemble's shocked reaction on hearing about these unconstitutional crimes; I think Cameron wrote some kind of public belated apology to Kemble in his book.)
(B) Having these concerns, I restored the legitimate content, which had been removed in edit A.
Elsewhere, an editor recently raised a good-faith (public) concern that my initial edit (A) removed material because of my personal politics. Despite overlooking the middle edit (B) which restored the removed content, this public concern prompted my last edit (C). This sequence of edits exemplifies the complexity of editing political articles and our own limitations. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- and then to consider whether that charge from your RfC deserve amendment. (Being familiar with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and his obligation to refuse to follow an order to murder civilians, TParis should understand my concerns about the Contras's terrorist attacks on civilians (in which c. 60 thousand were killed), and being upset by the allegation that I was removing evidence of Kemble's involvement; he might allow a change to the closed RfC.) On a positive note, revisiting these edits prompted me to make further edits to Penn Kemble, so some good has resulted from this charge, despite my feelings of its propriety.
- WTT and other readers, please reflect on the
61-2 hours I have spent responding to just one of the allegations today (Kemble), and the hours needed to respond yesterday to another (my indignation/incivility towards the SPA-Florida officer). These two allegations' diffs seemed to be the most severe violations of WP policy, so I spent time addressing legitimate concerns. I repeat my concern that the presentation of isolated diffs seemed sensationalistic; the number of diffs presented precluded any substantive response to more than a few.
- Some thoughts for posterity
- Before editors opt for filing a request for comment on another editor, they may reflect on points apparent in my RfC:
- Presenting my edit as a diff, and labeling it as a POV-pushing edit or a civility violation---these actions may have taken my critics roughly one minute each.
- Restoring my understanding of the context of each diff, even for the most dramatic diffs, has taken 5-10 minutes even for me, and I have been seriously engaged with these issues for decades.
- Explaining one diff,
often takescan take (from 5 minutes) up to 3 hours, if the explanation is to be comprehensible to a general audience. (Updated, following WTT's correction 00:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC))
- This gross disparity between the time needed to make an accusation and that to explain a questionable edit suggests a practical conclusion: In the future, RfC filers should limit their complaints to 3-4 of the most serious issues, and the diffs to 10-20 (of the most severe examples). In general, I would advise editors to first attempt to use Wikipedia's formal mediation procedures before considering an RfC.
- I agree that time and space can reduce ill feelings, in the immediate future, more rapidly than further discussions.
- Sincerely,
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not certain where you got your times from - approx 1min and 1hour, though there does appear to be a disparity and I expect your figures do illustrate it well. Perhaps, to save yourself time you could have focussed on the themes, rather than the nitty-gritty and challenged a smattering, including any that were particularly raised? Just a thought.
- I would of course be willing to discuss anything from the RfC with you - I'm not keen on changing anything on the RfC itself, but we could always put a note in big letters at the top that links to further discussion and agreements we've come to? However, I do request a bit of a break from the drama, I've got 3 people running through adoption courses and I haven't written anything significant on the encyclopedia for months. Let me know when you've finished at Penn Kemble, and I'll wander over and review.
- Otherwise, I hope your enjoy your continuum. WormTT · (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching the time-dilation! I corrected the 6-hours error, leaving it struck-out, and time-stamping the most important updated sentence. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
"hand of friendship"
WTT "hand of friendship" included another AGF violation. "I've not commented even once on the National Socialism issue so far - except to inform Lihaas that it was going on, but in my opinion it was simply KW making a stink over a side comment to deflect attention from a long post about... KW's canvassing." (emboldening & italics added)
With friends like these ....
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
From Macbeth
Quoting a villain reveals character, like Senator Alan K. Simpson quoting Iago on the importance of reputation in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing .... *LOL*
- "2 WITCH. Fillet of a fenny snake,
- In the caldron boil and bake;
- Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
- Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
- Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting,
- Lizard's leg, and owlet's wing,—
- For a charm of powerful trouble,
- Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
- ALL. Double, double toil and trouble;
- Fire burn, and caldron bubble."
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry
ive been a bit pissed off at these WP "admins" willy-nilly doing what tickles them too, but id forgot to comment on your dispute. Do you still need support on some issue, because your edits were more valuable than the vast majority of nitwits whod rather complain to admins than do work.Lihaas (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Lihaas!
- I'm glad that you are well.
- My RfC is over. I am irritated that a charge stands that I removed material on Penn Kemble's advocacy of congressional funding of the Contras (AGF/NPA violation) because of my personal politics, when I had restored the content in a later edit. I give a euphemistic discussion above.
- However, there is extensive discussion of a very selective discussion of a few of your user-boxes, which shamed the editors
slanderingsmearing (15:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) you and shamed Wikipedia, in the judgment of honorable men. - Sincerely,
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Kiefer.Wolfowitz_continues_to_make_allegations_of_slander Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, ArbCommer and Administrator!
- You should have chosen another issue for the next battle in your campaign.
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I quote previous discussions, for ease of reference:
The propriety of "national socialist"
|
---|
![]()
Continuation
Another voice
And another voice
"Planet Janet"Elen's insult "Planet Janet", about an emotionally troubled teenage girl, was new to me. Here's the lede of the Janet Dillon article.
Apparently, Planet Janet also the name of a series of young adult novels about an EMO teenage girl. |
Discussion from WikiProject Logic's talk page:
Discussion of Logic
|
---|
My Request for Comment now has a discussion of whether I am wrong to assert that at most one of two contradictory statements can be correct. My statement of this consequence of the principle of explosion is misquoted and judged to be incompatible with WP policy. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
|
Kiefer, are you willing to learn about creating diffs? This practice of constantly copying in full people's comments from other pages bothers me. It not only clutters the discussion, it makes it very difficult to see the context of the discussions. Karanacs (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Karanacs,
- In my reply to WTT/David, I used diffs.
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
A friendly suggestion
You have been kind to me and my son, and I have great respect for the labor you donate here. I hope that we will collaborate occasionally for a long time to come. My suggestion is that you consider disengaging from Elen of the Roads, and instead consider devoting some of that effort and mental energy toward improving an article or two. Thank you for thinking about it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- What Cullen said. It seems to me that both you and Elen have the impression that the other is "out to get you". You may each have justifiable reasons for that belief, but it is driving your interactions in such a way that it becomes self-fulfilling. This disqualifies you both as objective judges or critics of the other's behaviour or competence. We all have flaws and we all make mistakes, especially under stress. Throwing stones isn't going to help either of you. Disengaging and walking away with your own sense of personal integrity will. Geometry guy 23:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Geometry guy,
- You have repeatedly praised WTT, indeed calling his behavior in the RFC [something good], and even awarded him a barnstar of good faith.
- Please view the above discussion, where WTT violated AGF and NPA in alleging a political motivation for my removing information about Penn Kemble, even though I had already restored that information!
- The shameful charge still stands uncorrected.
- I agree with your statement "We all have flaws and we all make mistakes".
- Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi both of you!
- I had forgotten that I had mentioned the "national socialist" smear in the note on Lihaas's page, else I should not have referred to it explicitly above.
- My impression, after looking through the entire list of Lihaas's user boxes for the first time, is that the editor is comparable to a political button collector, with a propensity to display a disparate group of provocative ones. Only difference is that they're free here and take very little effort to collect. I've never seen a Strom Thurmond '48 Dixiecrat button for sale, but if I found one, I might buy it for a buck or two for private display along my polished hammers and sickles, but I certainly wouldn't flaunt it to people who barely know me, let alone strangers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- My interest in Elen has long been limited to minimizing damage in areas of Wikipedia of greatest interest to me. I briefly responded to her posting at ANI yesterday, no more and no less.
- Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Dittos on Cullen's comment... Ixnay on the Olemicspay. Recall the saga of Cirt, in which his enemies couldn't touch him at RFC so they kneecapped him elsewhere. Fisticuffs are all good fun in their time and place, but the final bell has sounded and the bout is over. Stop chirping. Forward and onward. Carrite (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Did you witness the AGF violation by WTT? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Double standards: "Bitching and moaning" gets a block
For convenient reference, I quote the discussion from ANI. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It is not a smear. It is a self-proclaimed fact. His edits confirm it. BTW, I pointed out his user box on talk page long
|
---|
![]() I'll try and keep this brief. The other day, I noted a nomination by Lihaas (talk · contribs) at WP:ITNC was posted on the wrong date [8]. So to get back at me, he undid one of my revisions on the page marking a seperate nomination as ready [9] (it was eventually posted by an admin). Later on, another editor moved the nomination to the right day [10] but Lihaas later red-added it [11] and decided to take a shot at me unnecessarily [12]. So I warned him not to do it and explained that he was wrong in assuming I moved it [13]. In response, he made this somewhat threatening response [14] and now he's comparing me to deposed dictators [15]. Hot Stop talk-contribs 21:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Kiefer.Wolfowitz now blocked for 24 hours for continued discussion of the "national-socialist" issue after ample warning. Fram (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC) |
Kiefer.Wolfowitz, drop the whole "Lihaas was smeared" thing[16], or you'll get blocked for disruption. This has been discussed to death, no action is going to be taken, no one is going to do anything about it. Rehashing this over and over again is disruptive. Fram (talk) 09:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Lihaas was just blocked for using the phrase "bitching and moaning". Blocking Lihaas was disruptive of writing an encyclopedia.
- Your double standard is disruptive to writing an encyclopedia.
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not stating that you can't oppose the block of Lihaas, but it is a completely separate issue of your anti-smear campaign, which has to stop. It doesn't matter whether you were right or wrong about that, but when discussion is over (and that discussion is clearly over and done), you should drop it instead of restarting it any tangentially related discussion. Fram (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Lihaas was just blocked. This is hardly "any tangentially related".
- Please see my reply at ANI, where I object to to the overly broad scope of your gag order. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- The comments about his userbox had nothing to do with the current block. Fram (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Please acknowledge that many editors are concerned about double standards.
- That Wikipedia blocks for "bitching and moaning" (etc.) and not for
"national socialist"WP:NPA violations (etc.) is evidence of a double standard. (10:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC) striking through "national socialist") - That said, a discussion of double standards may be made constructively in another place than ANI.
- Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
You have been blocked for 24 hours. What was so hard to understand about "drop it"? Fram (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/42/Stop_x_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_x_nuvola.svg.png)
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org.
Discussion of block
- I don't understand your block.
- I just acknowledged that a general discussion of double standards is better made elsewhere, and I did not respond to Paul's statement at ANI.
- This seems to be punitive. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Please avoid rhetorical questions, particularly when acting as an administrator and especially when using the block button. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)No, you just continued comparing the Lihaas block with the national-socialist thing, and how that is a double standard. "That Wikipedia blocks for "bitching and moaning" (etc.) and not for "national socialist" (etc.) is evidence of a double standard." How is that compatible with multiple warnings to "drop it"? Fram (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- The next sentence stated that it was unproductive to discuss "double standards" at ANI:
"That said, a discussion of double standards may be made constructively in another place than ANI."
- Obviously, your block was punitive.
- Admit it!
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- The next sentence stated that it was unproductive to discuss "double standards" at ANI:
- And what's your problem with rhetorical questions? Isn't "Who cares what 10 lightweights think when Geometry guy has explained the impropriety of smearing Lihaas?"[17] a rhetorical question as well? And a loaded one to boot, of course. Fram (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Did it hurt your feelings? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't edit my comment again.[18] You did not "restore diff improperly censored from incomplete quotation", you inserted a later version of your post. Please don't accuse people of "improper censoring" when nothing of the sort has happened. As for your reply: you asked for the avoidance of rhetorical questions, even though you used them in this duscussion. And why would my feelings be hurt when I have never offered an opinion on the whole thing, and when I couldn't give a rat's ass about your opinion of whether some people are lightweights or not? Fram (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- You quote deliberately from the version without the diff, then---all of 7 minutes later. (Sadly, I am no longer surprised by such behavior by administrators.)
- Why did you bring it up the "lightweight" rhetorical question? Why did you use "rat's ass"? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- (ec, again)I went through your edits to that ANI discussion, thinking that I had seen a rhetorical question from you, and used the first diff of it, as it was an example of a rhetorical question. Whether you changed it afterwards was not (and still isn't) relevant for this discussion and the example at all. Why did I bring it up? Beacuse I didn't understand your reaction against my rhetorical question, something which you still haven't tried to explain, and I needed an example of you using one as well. When using it, I noticed that it was quite a loaded question as well (with or without the diff), so I noted that in my reply. I don't believe anything in my behaviour here was problematic, unlike e.g. your edit summary when changing my post. Fram (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't edit my comment again.[18] You did not "restore diff improperly censored from incomplete quotation", you inserted a later version of your post. Please don't accuse people of "improper censoring" when nothing of the sort has happened. As for your reply: you asked for the avoidance of rhetorical questions, even though you used them in this duscussion. And why would my feelings be hurt when I have never offered an opinion on the whole thing, and when I couldn't give a rat's ass about your opinion of whether some people are lightweights or not? Fram (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- I am sorry for hurting your feelings. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- So you apologize for something you didn't do, and remain mute on the things you did do? You did not hurt my feelings by adressing a loaded rhetorical question towards other people, how could it? Fram (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Did it hurt your feelings? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- And what's your problem with rhetorical questions? Isn't "Who cares what 10 lightweights think when Geometry guy has explained the impropriety of smearing Lihaas?"[17] a rhetorical question as well? And a loaded one to boot, of course. Fram (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Review of block
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This seems like a punitive block, given my acknowledgments: * I had just acknowledged that it was unproductive to discuss the "double standard" issue at ANI. * I had not responded to the latest mention of "national socialist" at ANI. * I had just written at ANI that discussion of the "national socialist" issue should be limited Wikipedia venues, e.g. RfCs, RfAs, ArbComm elections. This seems like a punitive block, given my acknowledgements that future discussions of "national socialist" were improper except perhaps at these venues (and only in rare circumstances, which I would imagine would only involve 2 editors).
Decline reason:
Right up to your last edits before being blocked you were persisting with your disruptive editing. Saying "I acknowledge that it might be a good idea to beat something other than this dead horse" while beating the dead horse is not putting the stick down and walking away from the dead horse. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I shall format the diffs outside the appeal box, because the diffs choke the compiler.
- I had just acknowledged that it was unproductive to discuss the "double standard" issue at ANI.
- I had not responded to the latest mention of "national socialist" at ANI. This latest mention again violated WP:NPA by making unsubstantiated political allegations against an editor, and Fran's response was only to ask that no further comments be made, to avoid giving me a reason to complain of a double standard! (Nobody has left any message at the gloating administrator/provocateur's talk-page.) (Fran's response voiced no concern about the WP:NPA violation by a gloating administrator, but worried that a continuation of such comments would make his forthcoming block appear to be one-sided.)
- I had just written at ANI that discussion of the "national socialist" issue should be limited Wikipedia venues, e.g. RfCs, RfAs, ArbComm elections.
Changing this section's header from "Lihaas" to "Double standards: "Bitching and moaning" gets a block"[19], and starting the following section on "free speech", doesn't give me confidence that unblocking would be wise, but I'll let another admin decline or accept the unblock request as they see fit. Fram (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fram,
- You violated talk page guidelines by putting Lihaas's name in the header. If you can propose a better NPOV header do so. Please acknowledge your mistaken misuse of Lihaas's name.
- Fram, would you explain yourself.
- My comment about "free speech" (below) comments on another editor's inappropriate request to Lihaas, which is the only way I can comment, given your punitive block (of 24 hours).
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment from an uninvolved admin: I must say I disagree with this block, but I would like to see Kiefer acknowledge he was in the wrong here before an early unblock request is accepted. — Joseph Fox 13:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- I struck the "national socialist" word from above, which Fram cites as triggering the block (which he foresaw at ANI, when he cautioned others to stop commenting).
- I commented above with diffs showing my public pledges to stop discussing "national socialist" at ANI.
- What more do you want?
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Replacing "national-socialist" with NPA is the kind of wikilawyering that could be predicted, sadly. I warned you mutliple times to drop the Lihaas "smear" issue: i did not warn you to stop referring to "national-socialism" specifically, but to drop the whole issue, not only at ANI, but at user talk pages, unrelated discussions, or nearly everywhere else imaginable. Yes, if there would be an Arbcom case about anyone directly involved, you would be allowed to discuss it (or it would at least fall outsie the scope of my warning here). If you would start an RfC about the issue (one of the venues you mentioned as appropriate), you may well get blocked for it though: if there were recurring, similar problems with an editor, and this was one of them, then using it as an example would be logical (no matter if you were right or wrong): but starting another discussion about this (e.g. starting an RfC about it, or a talk page discussion), or hijacking unrelated discussions (and discussions involving you or Lihaas or anyone else involved are in most cases unrelated to this issue) would be considered disruptive and would lead to further blocks. Fram (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- You "told me multiple times", "sadly", etc. Who do you think you are?
- I'm telling you to enforce WP:NPA now, and I've told you multiple times. Should you be blocked?
- You all failed to enforce NPA, and acquiesced when WTT disguised your double standard with a "There's nothing to see here" cover up. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- (reply to an earlier version of this page after multiple edit conflicts, again)If by "there's nothing to see here" cover up, you mean the collapsing of the discussion: that was done by another user[20]. Apart from that: you started by introducing the Lihaas - userbox issue into the discussion, and continued after you were warned to stop (not only by me, admin User:Worm That Turned also told you to drop it). Other users didn't start this, and didn't continue after a warning. I'm not going to warn someone more severely for one remark uttered by the provocation of your continued disruption. By the way, if you consider it to be a personal attack, why did you add it as the header text of your ANI recap[21]? Fram (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- The quotation shows your and ANI's double standard. You don't take WP:NPA seriously.
- This is what you allowed to stand unchallenged at ANI: "It is not a smear. It is a self-proclaimed fact. His edits confirm it. BTW, I pointed out his user box on talk page long before Elen ever did. Paul B (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)" (end quote)
- Lihaas was blocked for his sentence showing contempt for the atmosphere at ANI, a contempt which is shared by many writers.
- WTT has been involved from day one, and just days ago was approving of Elen's description of me as an "idiot", quoting the villain of Macbeth---rather appropriate, that! :)
- He hushed up the discussion at ANI with a misleading edit summary and a cover-up description of the events. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is clearly yet another poor block, but obviously you need to drop the national socialism thing Kiefer. I've rarely seen a request for unblocking granted anyway – Joseph Fox's observation above, that you have to express some remorse for something you don't agree you did – is typical of the convoluted logic that's so prevalent here. Best just to maintain your dignity and let the clock run down IMO. I've never requested an unblock and I never will. Malleus Fatuorum 15:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Malleus, thanks for your advice. I shall be secret and take defeat. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Think of it as more of a tactical withdrawal than a defeat. And remember that the only real purpose of blocks is to infantilise both the blocker and the blockee. Don't play into their hands by apologising for anything you don't agree that you did. Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Malleus, thanks for your advice. I shall be secret and take defeat. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- I shall e-mail you. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Disruption: A refresher of policy
I quote the disruption-section of the blocking policy:
A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to:
- vandalism;
- gross incivility;
- harassment;
- spamming;
- edit warring, especially breaches of the three-revert rule;
- breaching the policies or guidelines, especially the sock puppetry policy;
- attempts to coerce actions of editors through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite.
How was I disrupting anything? I agree that I was drawing attention to the double standard at ANI, but this was not in any way disruptive. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Refusal to "get the point", and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Signs of disruptive editing: "continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors". When something is (repeatedly) discussed, no action is taken, and when you restart the discussion, you get asked by different editors (uninvolved admins) to stop it (with a clear indication that you will get blocked otherwise), and you continue anyway, then you ar acting disruptively and can be blocked. See also WP:FORUMSHOP, part of the consensus policy. Fram (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- For reference, I quote the policy, so you can see from what Fram is cherry-picking: Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Signs of disruptive editing
- This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.
- A disruptive editor is an editor who:
- Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.
- Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
- Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
- Does not engage in consensus building:
- repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
- repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
- Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.
In addition, such editors may:
- Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles.
- WP's description of "disruptive editing" does not apply to me, and so this block was improper, or at least its rationale was mis-stated.
- I was not asking for sanctions against those violating NPA, so your description of "forum shopping" is grossly misleading. I was protesting against the blocking of Lihaas for his complaint about an editor's "bitching and moaning" at ANI; there is no policy warrant or "consensus" that expressions of contempt for "running to ANI" over minor or even moderate irritations should be blocked---otherwise, you would have to block half of the regular contributors at FA. Lihaas is a victim of a double standard. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Misuse of template
The hidden archive template was misused by WTT at ANI. Here are its instructions:
- This template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors.
- The reason for closing can be changed with the
|reason=
parameter which defaults to "This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it." Be sure to sign the closure statement. If the default statement is to be left, you may use the|closer=
parameter to indicate which user closed the discussion.
The close was by
- an involved administrator, with
- a POV-loaded and misleading reason= ("User blocked for a week, tangential discussion closed - nothing left to see here."), and with
- a misleading edit summary ("This should be closed.") .
This was an abuse of tools by an administrator. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of Speech
A good-faith editor suggested politely and with good humor that Lihaas remove the n.s. userbox. While I would welcome its removal, it is extremely improper to make such a request, per WP:NPA.
An editor's politics are irrelevant; if an editor is POV-pushing, then diffs should be provided on a talk page and if need be an RfC/U conducted. I have never witnessed any POV-pushing by Lihaas, so it is grossly improper to discuss his politics.
There is also an honorable tradition of liberals championing freedom of speech by publishing provocative things. For example, The Waltons's John-Boy published extracts from Mein Kampf ....
The principle of free speech is preserved by protecting the rights of minorities, even despised minorities, not by celebrating conformity and staging dramatic conniptions.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
C.f., The Pledge of Allegiance and Looking Backwards, for "national" socialism by the Bellamy brothers: "I pledge allegiance ... to the nation", was repeated by George H. W. Bush, who volunteered and fought against fascism. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)