Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Request

Moved from User talk:Elen of the Roads

Hi Elen. I have recently filed an RfC on Kiefer.Wolfowitz. I would prefer it to be a productive RfC - and as such I would like to adhere to one of his requests that you confirm there is a basis for dispute. I am not asking you to endorse or oppose the summary, though you are welcome to, I would just like you to confirm that this not a frivolous RfC. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I've endorsed. I think it's a shame that it's come to this, but I think it might help him to take it seriously. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Elen, my priority was that Kiefer might actually be a willing participant, and make the whole thing actually a worthwhile use of the community's (and my) time. Seems he may not be, in which case the RfC will proceed without him, but at least I've tried. Worm^TT · (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

See my note on his talkpage. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Doing the right thing ....

I saw the note and was very disappointed by it: "it never comes out well for the editor who attempts to ignore the issue". A sitting arbitrator should know better than to use such intimidating language to coerce another editor. Geometry guy 22:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Geometry Guy, I was merely repeating my advice given to Kiefer.Wolfowitz previously, when I advised him to engage with a more informal dispute resolution process. As predicted then, his attempts to ignore/stonewall the issue did not turn out well - look, here we are at a RfC. Kiefer's bizarre argument (made two months ago as well [1]) that he cannot attend to the RfC for two months, but intends to continue to edit freely during that time, are not going to sit well with anyone. It's certainly not a threat from me, as I won't be making any kind of decision relating to the RfC, but in my experience an individual who ignores dispute resolution processes and persists in the problematic behaviour (important point - if the subject chooses not to attend in person, but takes the message away, then of course that may stop further problems) tends to find themselves summarily blocked or banned at WP:ANI. Kiefer needs to see dispute resolution in a different light - he's not dealing with editors who are rabidly against him (Worm and I thought well of him until this blew up in August) and if he engaged with the community, it could probably be all hashed out to every one's benefit. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so it is a second offence then! I can likewise guarantee that not a single Arbcom subcommittee will get done over for 15 bob a week. That's not a threat, but an offer of help and support :)

I do not doubt your sincerely belief that you are advising Kiefer in his best interests, but that does not make coercion acceptable. Furthermore, in your reply, you not only presume to know what is best for Kiefer, but also that you know what may or may not "sit well" with the entire editing community! That diverse community ranges from editors for whom Wikipedia is an online roleplaying game to those who actually come here to contribute significant content. It is the latter kind of editor that has my respect, and if an editor like Kiefer chooses to spend his volunteered leisure time improving articles rather than engaging in playground politics, then that sits very well with me. Any negative consequences of such a choice reflect badly on Wikipedia, not the editor. Geometry guy 18:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, if he decided to ignore the entire proceedings but stuck to editing articles rather than fussing about what other editors have on their userpages and stopped taking the piss out of people's usernames when it clearly annoys them, half of this would go away immediately. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

And the other half? Geometry guy 19:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The other half appears to do with his reaction to political items.... Always a tricky subject for anyone. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

But an important one, and a subject that Wikipedia is ill-equipped to handle. It cannot even handle internal disagreement about whether minors should be admins. That aside, thank you for your concise summary of the editing issues you feel KW needs to address. However, no dispute is entirely one-sided: can you also summarize the issues you believe other editors need to address to restore normal working relations? Geometry guy 20:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe in Worm's case he was genuinely nonplussed that his attempts to resolve things amicably got the reception that they did - Kiefer basically treated him like a junior tick and told him to run along and stop bothering his elders and betters. Worm waited to see if he would stop the behaviour that he perceived as a problem, and raised this when he was of the opinion that he hadn't. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen, you have not answered the question. I am not asking you to sympathize with Worm here. Maybe he was an innocent bystander who got caught up in events, and did the right thing^TM.

Instead, I am asking for your concise summary of issues that other editors need to address (Demiurge, for example?). If you believe that no other editor has even been at minor fault at any stage and that no other editor has anything to learn from the dispute, then you are at liberty to state that view. Geometry guy 21:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Geometry guy, this RfC has a large component about how Kiefer behaves towards other people who are not the filing parties. I appreciate that there may be an element of 'when did you stop beating your wife here', but if he wasn't obsessing over the age of certain users and making accusations without supporting evidence, then there would be no reason for the filing parties to interact with him over these issues. If he hadn't behaved like such an arrogant sod (just going on what he typed into the edit box - I've no idea what he's actually like as I've never met him) this could have been sorted out long ago. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Blimey Elen, you must be in politics, as you still haven't answered the question. I didn't say "filing parties". In any dispute it takes two to tango, but rather than showing leadership in dispute resolution, you take a one-sided position, make pointless arguments using counterfactuals, and refer to one party as (oh lets be very careful here per WP:NPA "behaving like") an arrogant sod. Still very disappointed, Geometry guy 21:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you have an odd view of what an RfC/U is for..... Mismatch of expectations perhaps. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think RfC/U is a structurally flawed process, and my view of it is far more cynical than you imagine. It sets up an asymmetrical relation between involved parties, putting one user on the defensive, while encouraging others to justify the need for the RfC/U by prosecuting their case vigorously. I have no expectations of such a process and would not recommend anyone who does not have a strong masochistic streak to subject themselves to it.

However, you refer to RfC/U as "dispute resolution" and as something beneficial that KW should be "encouraged to engage with" in his own "best interests". So is an RfC/U for dispute resolution, or dispute escalation? Is it a way to help parties reach mutually understanding and agreement with the help of impartial outside observers, or is it a village stocks for slinging mud at arrogant sods and a tick-box on the road to arbitration? Those who claim to believe in the former should at the very least act like they do. In this respect, I find Worm TT's approach to the RfC more admirable and convincing than your own. Geometry guy 22:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It has the potential to be either. More collegial editors will probably "settle out of court" and avoid things ever getting to this stage, more combative editors will just have a row at this stage, and eventually end up at Arbcom. I'm not sure anyone ever goes away happy, on any side, but sometimes it does defuse a situation, either because the subject changes behaviour/avoids that area/stays away from that person or because the filing party is persuaded that it is not a serious problem really. Sometimes what happens is that the subject brings all their friends, ignores the process, or writes walls of impenetrable text, and the matter goes away for a while, until it blows up and they find themselves banned. Sometimes it is obvious that the filing party is acting in incredibly bad faith, and that blows up in their face. So no, not perfect. But then perfection is only for Allah, or so they say. The rest of us are just human. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for replying more candidly and thoughtfully. Geometry guy 23:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing?

Perhaps slightly off-topic here: I couldn't help notice that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics has a notice about the RfCU on KW, even though the dispute involves no mathematics articles or topics. WikiProjects being used as WP:CANVASSing venues is apparently a concern that has been raised for instance in the MfD of Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism, where the Math project was given as a beyond-reproach example of sorts. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is off-topic to the extent that I was brought to the RfC via KWs talk page, not because of any WikiProject notice. My contact with him is primary as a reviewer who occasionally reviews technical content: KW currently has an article at FAC which I extensively and critically reviewed over the weekend. Geometry guy 22:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

He posted one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics (pretty nearly just as unrelated) as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is that he doesn't fall out with the Maths people - and there isn't a location suitable to advertising to where the problem is Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)...and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics. The vast majority of early contributors are related to these three projects. I did consider mentioning it at the time, but the point of the RfC was to see the community's point of view. David Eppstein's comment, whilst acting as a lighting rod, is a very fair comment - we don't want a lynching here and if Kiefer feels more willing to discuss the issues knowing that a lynching isn't the purpose, then I think it will be a positive outcome.

Having said that, Kiefer's latest response doesn't fill me with confidence. I understand he's travelling for a week, so perhaps he'll have more time to address the concerns after that period... Worm^TT · (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I too have noticed that it was mostly editors from those two projects who comment under the view: "I have no opinion on the political disputes described here, but Wolfowitz has performed very valuable service to the encyclopedia bringing mathematical articles [...]". Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism was not notified however, even though a large part of the dispute was on the pages Socialist Party USA. So it does appear that WP:CANVASSing rules were deliberately bent or ignored by KW. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I would not consider it canvassing to put a neutral notice there, if editors from that project were involved. On another note, I have removed the outrageous sentence from his last comment - I know he probably thought it was funny, but it doesn't meet any definition of humorous in these circumstances. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Enter the protagonist

A few responses. First, I should be informed of discussions like this. Second, some of this discussion would be better at the RfC or its talk page.

Third, I do not "obsess about ages", but I am concerned about minors as administrators, and I consistently take the most paternalistic/responsible (your choice) position in discussions about vulnerable persons. Tough that some dislike this position.

Fourth, the articles related to American socialism were in terrible states when I found them, although they had been worse 5 years ago, and so the relevant projects were immediately suspect as dysfunctional/nonfunctional. Those projects have been useless when I have asked for help related to e.g. Tom Kahn; our brothers and sisters at the LGBT project provided useful feedback for it. I have no reason to expect that an RfC notice at the non--high-functional projects would generate feedback, let alone competent feedback.

Finally, even here, at an ArbCom member's talk page, and at an RfC, "Have mörser, will travel" violates WP:AGF with impunity. At least, he has been ignored (at the RfC 07:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would agree that this discussion would be better at the RfC talkpage. I can move the whole shebang over there if you wish. As to why you weren't informed of the discussion, I suggest you ask Geometry Guy, as he is the one asking the questions. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That is very disingenuous. I did not start this thread, nor am I responsible for the portion of it questioning KW's good faith and accusing him of canvassing. Geometry guy 23:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec, reply to KW) Quite. And let me add a couple of observations of my own.

• It is absurd to refer to KW placing a neutral note on WikiProjects where he as contributed as a WP:CANVASS violation. A neutrally-worded notice to a non-partisan audience is not canvassing. If RfC/U is for dispute resolution, not dispute escalation, then inviting comments from other editors familiar with the user's editing should be helpful, not harmful.
• It is an offensive AGF violation to state "Apparently, Kiefer.Wolfowitz has earned the respect of other editors in non-controversial areas, and thought to capitalize on that in this dispute". Is this dispute resolution or dispute escalation?
• "The trouble is that he doesn't fall out with the Maths people". The trouble??!! I'm aghast at the attitude: "okay, so lets try and find some people he does fall out with"! Dispute resolution, or escalation?
• Members of the maths WikiProject have generally responded very responsibly to the notification, not commenting beyond their experience, and in one case providing a rather critical view of KW which KW himself has acknowledged as fair and may learn from. That's dispute resolution. Geometry guy 23:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing again

Regarding "It is an offensive AGF violation to state 'Apparently, User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz has earned the respect of other editors in non-controversial areas, and thought to capitalize on that in this dispute'". WP:CANVASS also says The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions. Clearly asking only groups who have a good opinion of his work is a breach of that. User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz replied: The articles related to American socialism were in terrible states when I found them, although they had been worse 5 years ago, and so the relevant projects were immediately suspect as dysfunctional/nonfunctional. Those projects have been useless when I have asked for help related to e.g. Tom Kahn; in contrast, our brothers and sisters at the LGBT project provided useful feedback for it." ¶ The articles on cannon (FA!) and gunpowder promoted various WP:FRINGE theories before I edited them in late 2011, and still need some work in that respect. Does that make WP:MILHIST worthless and dysfunctional? Consequently, should I never ask for their opinion on anything? I suppose I could fancy myself as a Wikipedia:WikiProject Gunpowder of one, and thus supremely entitled to scoff at everyone else, just like KW could be the overlord of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Democratic Socialism in the USA. His seemingly unmatched expertise entitles him to canvass only experts in Mathematics/Economics/Statistics whenever he has a dispute surrounding his editing of a political party article. ¶ Anyway, after having read WP:DIVA, I scoff at any further involvement of myself in this dispute "resolution"; clearly it won't produce any desirable changes in behavior, but only result in further in-group solidarity and out-group resentment. [Feel free to copy this to the RfC talk page]. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Moerser, writing like this only reduces your credibility. You should try to find counter-examples to statements before pressing the submit button, particularly when you willfully violate WP:AGF despite complaints.

You wrote, "His seemingly unmatched expertise entitles him to canvass only experts in Mathematics/Economics/Statistics whenever he has a dispute surrounding his editing of a political party article."

Your claim is false: For example, in the last days, one of the few articles I contributed to was Socialist Party of America. Reverting an edit from an IP, I suggested that the editor please contact User:Orangemike; he is an honest and knowledgeable person whom I have recommended that people contact Orangemike before this RfC/U: Another reason is that he strongly disliked ("I was not impressed") my initial edits on SDUSA, and identified himself as a supporter of the early SPUSA, while he pegged me as a supporter of SDUSA (a pegging, however plausible, which I disputed).

In this example, and in others, I habitually solicit reviews of political articles from others with different perspectives.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC) 14:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

KW has stated on the RfC that I accused him of canvassing. I did not do so.

However, a parallel example might help to illuminate the issues raised by User:Have mörser, will travel.

Let's imagine for a moment - and this is actually quite likely - that a user raises an RfC/U or an arbitration case, regarding my editing behaviour on the article Robert Zoellick (the current President of the World Bank). If I wanted to post neutral messages bringing that to the attention of other editors, where would it be sensible for me to post them? Options would include WT:BLPN or WT:DRN, since the issues were discussed on those noticeboards - even though highlighting such processes is not really the purpose of those pages. Alternatively, there would be relevant WikiProjects like Economics or Politics or Business or United States. Finally, I could consider mentioning it at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Military History. Although these latter two projects have absolutely no relevance to the issues involved, and their participants unlikely to know anything about them, some of the participants are likely to know plenty about my editing style, since I spend a fair amount of time working on articles in those projects, helping people get their articles to GA or A-class, and so on.

But, in this not-so-hypothetical example, imagine if I posted to WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Military History and no other projects at all... perhaps explaining that I hadn't found the other Wikiprojects very useful in certain past disputes I'd had? Would that be the best thing to do? Or would it be a bit misguided? A bit slanted?

KW has slipped up on this talk page and given away some of his thinking. He says to Worm; 'What do you think would have happened if I started quoting your opponents, and then, per WP:Policy, "had to" contact them'. (A suggestion that he follows with the idea of opening a retaliatory RfC/U on Worm. How constructive.) Curiously enough, KW does indeed seem to have been contacting a few people that he might imagine would give him some support - mostly people whom he's just happened to mention, mostly in passing, in this RfC. [2] [3][4][5][6] The last is particularly interesting; a much more subtle request for attention, to a user whose userpage states that they are a National Socialist. Maybe Worm is just wise to be not so interested in all this politics malarkey.

Where the people KW has contacted haven't commented on the RfC - or not in the way he desires - he's gone on to give them a few "reminders", whether subtly or not so subtly. [7][8] KW has also put a little time into badgering those who have given opinions on the RfC/U that he doesn't approve of; [9] includes lovely accusations of "dishonest hypocrisy", and, when I dare to reply, describes my comments as "childish bullshit".

KW accompanied this rather large number of requests - and remember this is all in addition to his rather curious choice of Wikiprojects to notify - by a single mention to a person that he might argue were not so friendly; [10]. Although actually he had already said that Cerejota and himself had exchanged "declarations of mutual respect". So... overall, a distinctly non-neutral choice of individuals to notify, and some concerns about the projects to notify. Not good.

I'm sorry to make this a case of "what Worm did versus what Kiefer did", but the comparison must be made. Worm went to some trouble to seek feedback from uninvolved administrators about whom he should inform of this RfC/U. The feedback was that people discussed significantly should be informed, and the others should not; and therefore I informed only Peter on his talk page, and Rd232 by private email (he's retired). We also informed those people who asked privately to be told when the RfC/U was completed (two, I think; neither have commented). Peter, who has probably been hardest hit personally by KW's outrageous behaviour, certified the basis for the RfC/U, but chose not to comment further (thus far). Rd232 is still retired, and does not wish to change that. (I don't believe it's appropriate for me to quote his private comments here, but, given KW's behaviour, the tone of those comments can be imagined.)

Now, since then, at least one of the people that Worm and I expressly decided not to inform, based on the advice Worm was given, has now been criticised and condemned - not just regarding their relevant comments, but their editing and status on Wikipedia as a whole - by KW. Who (surprise, surprise) didn't inform them when doing so. So I suppose I shall go and inform them.

While unfortunately non-neutral contacting of editors does happen with situations like this, and it's "no big deal", I feel that the way KW has handled this does go some way towards explaining mörser's concerns. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Movement?

To all - I really think that this conversation should be on the talkpage of the RfC. Should I move it over? Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong view. The canvassing part, at least, could usefully be copied over. Geometry guy 23:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• I think that it should be moved to the talk page of the RfC. However, "Have Moeser, Will Travel" should consider deleting remarks that can be viewed as non-constructive.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• I'm horribly busy today, so I doubt I'll be able comment much anywhere, but I wanted to say that I agree that it should be moved to the RfC talk page - as it is a discussion of the RfC, and anyone participating should also be aware. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of RfC topics

I thought it'd be easier to follow some threaded discussion on specific topics here, since the RfC has become something of a wall of text. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Top section

I see there has been a lot of focus on the first few lines of the RfC, the topics that the RfC was not covering. I feel this was a mistake on my part - the intention was to give the RfC focus, to ensure that the areas at the top were mentioned quickly but not gone in depth - thereby stopping the areas being brought up over and over again ad nauseum. In other words, I was specifically trying to ensure the RfC did not become a lynching (and I'd like to mention that so far, it appears to have worked - none of the issues mentioned at the top have detracted from the RfC).

However, I can see that from a different point of view, it appears I was showing KW in an unfair light and that was not my intention. I wholeheartedly apologise for giving that impression Worm^TT · (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Mocking of usernames

This is a particular bugbear of mine, not something I believe Demiurge1000 has ever commented on. However, I doubt I'm the only person who has an issue with Kiefer bastardising usernames, as Strange Passerby specifically struck it. Even throughout this RfC, Keifer referred to Demiurge1000 as "DemiUrge1000". Now, "Half a desire" is quite a different meaning to Demiurge, something Kiefer himself linked to - clearly understanding the difference. This combined with comments Kiefer has made comparing me directly with a worm show significant incivility, be it intentional or not. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that KW has been doing in this very RfC the stuff he had been asked to stop doing, the RfC clearly has zero chance of neutering the obnoxious aspects of his behaviors. Like I observed above, this RfC is a giant waste of time if resolution is what is expected. Ignoring his puns seems the only option; the alternative being what happened to the guy with the sonnets, which is clearly overkill in KW's case for now. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Moerser,

Please go away, as you said you would. It is cruel to raise my hopes and then dash them by returning and delivering a "neuter" remark, which is weird and pointless even for you.

Why do you think that anybody cares what you think?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Worm and Demiurge,

Your latest research from WikiProject Kiefer.Wolfowitz is even more exciting than previous research reports, but it still remains ridiculous.

I spell Demiurge as DemiUrge because that is how I pronounce the word, and I find it easier to read this capitalization. Returning to that first course in programming, where "indexing errors" are discussed, there is a general principal to capitalize words in this pattern (which apparently is based on some experimental results about readability of programs). I typically capitalize the words incorporated in weird, multi-syllable names, and no other user has cared.

Is this a madhouse?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's tone things down a little. Worm, and at least one other person, didn't like the fact that you repeatedly use usernames as a way to mock people. Not talking about a few instances (as was the case with my rather harsh comments on a certain person's rather arrogant choice of username), but about half a dozen or more instances. What was the aim of it? To keep on doing it until someone over-reacted? Or what? Either way, I've never complained about it myself (much less whined about it, as you said on the RfC), and if it makes it easier for you - for whatever reason - to use my username in a strange variant of camelcaps, then I have no objection to that.

As regards mörser (sorry to truncate the username, is this OK?), they have a viewpoint about the RfC that actually coincides with the viewpoint of one or two other people. I don't think there's a good reason to say they shouldn't comment, and in fact they have added some opinions that are quite useful. I do hope they would be more optimistic, though :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Moerser and his tenderness about names.

(1) I shan't be bothered writing (with my American keyboard) his non-English vowel on English Wikipedia or typing his full "pay attention to me, please" user name.

(2) You should know that "oe" is the English spelling of the nordic vowel. Now go jump in Da. Jones's locker.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

My username. No, seriously?

Supposedly this guy inspired some of the original philosophy

KW has presented his interpretation of what my username means (with the added nicety of "blasphemous egomaniac") so a little clarification is needed. (Save yourself 100 seconds if you aren't interested.)

Demiurge is a Greek word meaning worker or craftsman (with its origins being closer to a more lowly form of "civil servant"). In the Wikipedia sense, it pretty much means wikignome - because that's what I was mostly doing when I created this account; just reading things and making small corrections whenever I saw a need for them.

Now, one of the things I was reading and gnoming at the time was in fact our article Demiurge, which is a philosophical concept of "an artisan-like figure" (says the article), which although it was later adopted by some obscurer sects of Christianity, has never really signified The Creator in the sense that the western Christian tradition views God. In fact, many of the sects considered the Demiurge to be an evil, neutral, or just disinterested entity, and the benevolent God to be entirely separate. I've never known any theists have the least concern over my username.

The username User:Demiurge was already taken (and I'm quite sure that editor was not a blasphemous egomaniac either), so I was stuck with the silly numbers on the end. And I've often considered a rename to something better, especially since being called "Demi" can lead to some confusion about my gender, but that's something else that's never quite reached the top of my list of priorities. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I find this a pretty minor issue to be concerned about, but not because I don't understand.

Usernames are one of the few forms of self-expression available to anonymous editors, yet we manipulate and abbreviate our own and other editors' usernames all the time. I tried for years to explain that I preferred abbreviations such as "Gguy", "G-guy", "G'guy" and "G guy" to "GG", because I am a person and not a horse. Yet editors persisted in abbreviating my username to "GG". I felt entitled to be irritated by this because it meant either they were deliberately trying to wind me up, or they just didn't care enough to treat me more respectfully. I never really got irritated however, and after spending some time away from Wikipedia, I came to the conclusion that advertising my preference was WP:BEANS, and that among all the things that are wrong with Wikipedia, editors calling me "GG" is so utterly trivial that I really don't care.

Among others, Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Worm^TT have both referred to me as "GG" on my userpage recently. I never invited either of them (or indeed anyone) to use this abbreviation, but they both did. However, if it bothered me at all now, I would immediately conclude that I had lost my sense of perspective, and would log out at once to spend my leisure time on something other than Wikipedia. Geometry guy 23:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. DU (which KW only adopted recently, I think) and DemiUrge (again, he only started using this recently?) are not a big issue. As I've said above, "Demi" (not used by KW, as far as I know) is a misunderstanding of who I am, but it's a misunderstanding that is my own fault, and used in good faith.

Misunderstandings that are used to taunt, are not quite the same thing. If something were used once in anger, I would totally understand - people get angry sometimes, they say things in anger. When it's used over and over and over again, one has to wonder what the aim is. Whether the aim is to provoke a reaction.

I should stress that the person "concerned about" my username is KW (he thinks some people might see my username as me being a "blasphemous egomaniac"). If even a few people think that my username is disruptive - even slightly - then I'll change it. But thus far, those people don't exist. I don't like these attempts to provoke problems where no problems exist. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Kiefer.Wolfowitz would be good enough to offer an olive branch and voluntarily retire the use of insulting variations on editors' names such as "DemiWit"? That would allow us to put this issue to rest, I think. 28bytes (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi 28bytes,

First, I have not used "DemiWit" for some months, even in responding to this human Ouroboros.

Let me make explicit what was has been implicit in months of behavior: I agree that I should not have written DemiWit. However, 28bytes, would you examine the predecessor message(s) in those exchanges from Demiurge and agree that he crossed the incivility/AGF/NPA rules also, and perhaps even first. (My memory is that he always did, but memories "can be deceptive".)

Ciao,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I do think that some of the "predecessor messages" you refer to were, at best, unhelpful and unnecessarily provocative. 28bytes (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

KW, I must say that I use camel case every day work, programming in Java. This is the first time I've heard it used in the middle of a word because of it's pronunciation, rather than when two words are concatenated. However, I'm probably making more of an issue of this than it needs to be. If you will agree to be more aware regarding usernames in the future, then I will certainly agree that whole matter is resolved.

Also, Geometry Guy, I called you GG as other people had already done so on the page - my apologies, I'll keep that in mind for the future Worm^TT · (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I don't mind: many editors find "GG" short and convenient. However, if you really want to impress me with your alertness to username delicacies, notice that I never capitalize the "g" in "guy" in either my username or its abbreviations. Geometry deserves the capital, but I'm just a regular guy. :) Geometry guy 23:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Request regarding KW's comments

Hi Kiefer - I've been trying to read through your comments on the main page and I'm having a little difficulty due to the flow of the layout. Would you consider removing (or hiding) the copy/paste from the previous dispute resolution - since the vast majority of points were not raised here as they'd already either been resolved or were not worth mentioning. You are of course welcome to leave your response however you like, but I thought I'd ask anyway. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

On Tuesday or Wednesday I shall more time.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I appreciate that. I'll keep my participation to a minimum until that point. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I really lack the time and inclination to read your RfC, and most of my edits respond to outside views. It seems useful to remind outside viewers that I did respond to your previous draft RfC (at which time you quit) and that your previous draft RfC was even worse than this; outside readers should understand the personal attacks that you have been making, usually in passive-aggressive paraphrase ("KW uses copyright violation tagging to advance his political agenda. Note to self: I should check whether this is true, after posting this on Wikipedia." Alas, you never did get around to withdrawing your personal attack, did you?).

You seem to have been surprised at the reaction of the community, given that you mentioned a "lambasting" on a talk page, and are still complaining that I said that you didn't know what you were doing---which I said not to insult you but to try to make you think. I would bet that you have zero experience in debates, zero experience in politics, and probably negligible interest in politics---for, otherwise, why would you go after me with the insipid passive-aggressive manner that Robert Dole used in his last debate with Bill Clinton. You should go watch Liam Neeson's performance in Taken and consider yourself lucky that I have downgraded your category from promising youngster to only "not worth my time".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC) I would have hoped that Elen, who does have some experience, had written to you privately and asked you to think of the possible consequences of your actions: So far, you have harmed your credibility and promising charm with a lot of serious editors who probably looked towards you as a future leader of Wikipedia.

What do you think would have happened if I started quoting your opponents, and then, per WP:Policy, "had to" contact them, or what would happen if somebody opened an RfC on you?

It's a pity that we don't do this on a Skype video conference, and we could all witness how well you answer questions, when called to account for all this passive aggressive bullshit.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Now, hang on - the "draft RfC" as you keep calling it was designed to be just between you and me, I thought using the RfC format would help. I told no one of it, I explicitly suggested that it was a private matter between you and me. No one else commented on it or was likely to view it and yet you used to request sanctions! It was clear that you were not looking to discuss the matter with me in an informal manner, so I looked into doing this formally.

As has been well documented on this RfC, you do accuse people of copyvios incorrectly when upset regarding articles that do not fit your political opinion. Your article work in these political areas is great, I've said that a number of times, but the way you've treated the editors who have done nothing more than hold the opposing opinion is unacceptable. I didn't withdraw it because I still believe it to be true.

Regarding your opinion of me, I couldn't give a damn. I keep such things off wikipedia and so I'm not going to get drawn into discussions regarding my political leanings or my expertise. There are valid issues here and this whole things would go away if you actually had the decency of responding to criticism without escalating. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

And Kiefer, I welcome feedback and criticism. I'd certainly welcome you finding my "opponents" and discussing my faults. You might have some difficulty, because I don't consider wikipedia a battleground and I don't think I have "opponents". Keep an eye out in January, I expect I'll be putting an editor review up around then, feel free to bring anyone along you want at that time. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer's hanging out in the lower parts of the triangle

I've had a little time to think on these comments from Kiefer and I do hope he redacts them in the future, as they yet again step over the line from incivility to outright personal attacks. Thinking back, I find it ironic that he's willing to call me "passive aggressive" and that I'm not worth his time, yet he specifically has chastised me for suggesting that he should tone down the "aggression".

Clearly Kiefer has difficulties with concepts such as commenting on the content, not the contributor or other forms of dispute resolution. The thoroughly depressing thing is that this whole sorry affair could have been avoided - and still can be quickly finished - if Kiefer were to accept that there are valid issues which have been raised and discussed them. This alienation of editors who are only trying to help will end badly. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Worm/David, please review what I wrote before addressing me again. You are welcome to address others, of course. Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer, I have gone to great lengths to not only review what you've written, but also to make this process as pain-free for you as possible, though I am beginning to wonder why. You have made a fair number of accusations on both this and the talk page - some of which are inaccurate, whilst others are patently false. I wonder if you might go to the effort of providing WP:Diffs for any accusations you wish to make, as I have. They are, after all, the standard method the community uses to point to further information and can help with any memory troubles you may be having.

Perhaps you would even do us all the favour of not attempting to add your particular flavour of humour into the proceedings, as it appears to be straying into the realm of personal attacks [11][12]. If you do persist with personal attacks, I will take the matter up at AN/I, where a neutral administrator can look over your comments. I am loathed to take that step, please do not force me down that route. Worm^TT · (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

If I "persist in personal attacks ..."! And your personal attacks and the personal attacks of the others?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC

(edit conflict)You are of course free to do the same - should you feel there are personal attacks on yourself. However, I would certainly advise you to use diffs (see Help:Diff), as people at AN/I do require them. I do not believe I have made a single personal attack on you yet you have made a number on me (the two most recent shown in my previous comment). Perhaps you see all criticism as personal attacks? I suggest you read a bit more about what a personal attack is - see WP:NPA. If you can provide a diff where I have made a personal attack on you, then I will gladly look into it further. I note that you have added a total of one diff to this RfC, not counting the ones you copied from elsewhere. Considering the amount of text you've added, that's quite appalling. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

With the usual distaste but unusual fortitude, I did read Worm/David's comments. Let me respond:

1. RE Diffs. I am writing for encyclopedia writers, not for persons so intellectually lazy---and, for administrators, also so malfeasant or malfeasant in their duties---that they would make a decision (whether endorsing a partial statement or acting at ANI) without examining your diffs and looking around a bit. Anybody who does look around can see that you and Du have been cherry-picking diffs, often after Du has delivered a personal attack on me and before I (often with the pacifying leadership from others, ) have established peace.

   Anybody who reads the page can see that you opened your statement with a bush-league list for which you have finally apologized, but only after it exploded in your face. You shall have to live with the consequences of your opening passive-aggressive bullshit for a long time. Everybody can see that you and Du developed that opening passive-aggressive bullshit over at least 2 months (despite my suggestion that you consult with somebody with experience and focus on a few issues).

2. Go to ANI or do whatever you want. As I wrote before, I really don't care. Again, any serious administrator will look around at the diffs you provided and judge your character and Du's, accordingly. That Geometry guy has independently discussed personal attacks against me should give any administrator with a functioning brain-stem pause.

Seriously,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

My participation in this farce is over

I have participated here long enough that the content of my character and the others' personalities has been established.

At the repeated and increasingly insistent advice of friends, I shall retired, and let others answer for me.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be unfortunate, but if it is the case I'm sure we can carry on without you. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Query regarding comments on this RfC

Hi folks. I was wondering what should be done regarding the comments of a couple of users on this RfC.

• User:Manny may, has been blocked as a returning sockpuppet of a blocked user. The user is not banned.
• User:71.246.147.40, a user who has exercised the WP:RTV, but has returned to edit anonymously and has subsequently been blocked.

As neither are banned, I would personally suggest a <small> comment which explains the situations to any editors coming in to the RfC and also whoever close it. I think it would be probably inappropriate for me to do though, since I'm one of the filers of the RfC. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding User:Manny may, I made a few enquiries and;

1. The block is an arbcom block.
2. The edits to this RfC/U were made in violation of an earlier block (i.e. block evasion).
3. A number of uninvolved administrators believe that the editor in question is banned rather than just blocked.

Elen is probably in a position to know more of the facts for certain :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Mattisse is banned. Revert her edits. TCO is an idjit, but he's not actually blocked, so I don't think anything should be done with his edits. This note is enough.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarfication from Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, I was wondering if you could clarify

• After Worm's behavior over months, following his gratuitous attack on Malleus during Worm's RfA (where I AGFed despite my conscience), I just told him that he can write whatever he wants (without expecting me to read it)

I'm wondering what gratuitous attack I've made on Malleus, who was not involved in my RfA. In fact, as far as I know, Malleus doesn't even know I exist... I've certainly not interacted with him significantly. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. I may have confused you with Tryptofish. I am sorry but I have to go. I hope to correct any error or supply a diff in an hour.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I understood where most of your issues with me come from - I disagree with them, obviously, but that one really threw me. To the best of my knowledge I've never made any personal attacks on anyone, let alone gratuitous ones! Worm^TT · (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry again. I should have doubly checked my memory, at any time, but especially now since my heart does not overflow with benevolence for you.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Rules about editors' views

RFC has specific rules about who gets to edit what. This isn't a regular discussion page or an article. The rule is "Do not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them." If KW wants to endorse my view, he's welcome to do so. But nobody except me gets to change the text of my view—exactly like I'm not changing his view, not even to correct the spelling of the word defuse. ("Diffuse" is what soluble chemicals do in a solvent; defuse is to make an explosive situation unlikely to explode.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

WaId,

I removed your personal attack, per WP:NPA; then David/Worm Elen modified my comment to clarify that I had removed your personal attack, providing a link for anybody curious to see what a user with "an annoyingly high IQ" might have written.

Please leave restoring your personal attack to Elen or David, whose judgment (either one will do) I pledge to accept.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Although I think Elen was the person who added the diff, I'd suggest it stays redacted. It's hardly difficult to ascertain what was said, and since a large part of this RfC is regarding civility (and KW has also had his comments edited in a similar manner during the RfC), I have no issue with the redaction. Remember, he's not changing your view, it's clear that your whole view is not showing. Just my 2p. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as I have noted, Kiefer.Wolfowitz redacting that very mild observation as if it were a personal attack is a demonstration of the problem that has caused this RfC/U. If one cannot say anything even mildly critical without it being regarded as a personal attack, then dispute resolution becomes very difficult. Technically however, Whatamidoing is in the right here. If a view contains a completely egregious personal attack then the victim may request a neutral party to redact the term - but it would need to be at the level of a blockable insult. Other than that, editors must not refactor each other's comments on the RFC/U page. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You think it is blockable to write "I trust that they are not going through my garbage", which you redacted with a snide comment?

Signs and wonders.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes actually. Accusing someone on no basis whatsoever of a criminal act, just because you disagree with them in a Wikipedia discussion, could very well be a blockable offense. You really need to take the beam out of your own eye you know, before you start criticising others for motes. Some of the things you say are outrageously rude, and you are too intelligent to post a defence that you were not aware of it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You are aware that the dynamic duo live in England and I in Sweden?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen's in England too, I think. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I am indeed. I cannot see that anyone's location is a modifier of "accusing someone on no basis whatsoever of a criminal act..." Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me spell it out, then. ;p

I trust that none of you limeys will jump out of my Swedish computer and punch me.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess I was just trying to keep the peace. The two comments are very different. Suggesting that Kiefer is lacking an ability (especially that it is a commonly lacked ability) is not a personal attack. It is an interpretation of all the evidence shown on the RfC, and whilst it is criticism, "lacking the skill to defuse drama" is not an attack on character. However, suggesting that someone is likely to "root through garbage", tantamount to stalking or other forms of harrassment - a criminal act - is an attack on character. I think the only reason you weren't blocked for it is because you are in a different country and it was intended to be lighthearted. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Your distinction makes sense, despite your lacking in the ability to engage in honest discussion, an ability which our best editors have.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC) (Struck through, as part of my pledge to leave such parodies to those adept at unconscious self-parodies. On second thought, the parody may exhibit an adeptness at unconscious self-parody of myself, which would render me free to parody Worm. Maybe we can have a logician help with an RfC on parodies? 10:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC))

Much better. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer - these aren't parodies. I'm not going to speculate on why you apparently cannot see the difference between the statement "lacking the skill to defuse drama" and your two 'parodies' - "lacking the skills to read and write" and "lacking the ability to engage in honest discussion." Any number of possibilities present themselves. What I will say is that if this is not mere trolling, you need to discipline yourself to stop allowing your wit to override your intellect, because the next time you accuse anyone of lying - which is what "lacking the ability to engage in honest discussion' means in plain English - you will find yourself back at the incident noticeboard. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Another example of honest discussion

I repeat this comment from the previous page:

Fetchcomms proposed an interaction ban months ago. Above, his discussions are misrepresented in an AGF violation and falsification (emboldened):

• "KW attempted to deflect the RfC/U by asking for an interaction ban with both Demiurge1000 and Worm That Turned.[13]"
  • "KW implied that the interaction ban was the suggestion of User:fetchcomms - but Fetchcomms had specifically stated he was unaware of the history. He was only explaining how to make an interaction ban request.[14]"

This was a misrepresentation. Deal with it, Elen.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that since fetchcomms' first comment assumed it was a content dispute - (paraphased) "why don't you all just try to avoid each other" was followed by his second comment "I haven't followed the thread"... it was definitely not a misrepresentation. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• note, I have removed the comment on the other page - it was not appropriate where it was, but should be discussed here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

  While the sun shine out of your behind, Elen, please remove your personal attack on "TCO".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

  DONE!

  I took care of the removal of a particularly cowardly personal attack on a retired editor, which has stayed while the ArbCom member has been delivering hypocritical lectures about WP:NPA and threatening ANI, despite my having called it to her attention.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

  What retired editor? Do you mean an editor who had previously exercised WP:RTV? That's a different thing to retirement, and that page says "Vanishing is a courtesy. Vanished users have no right to return under a new identity or as an IP" (my emphasis). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

  Du,

  Cannot you see any problem with your response, at least here? You ask a bunch of rhetorical questions, whose answer you know, raising a cloud of dust through which no illumination may may spread, alas, from even the brightest of bums. This pattern of response is why you should agree to an interaction ban.

  The user has been blocked and an apparent IP has been also blocked, the IP that wrote on this page. Simple charity, and particularly the deepest charity and respect due to an editor who has contributed so much to WP, should have prevented the insult.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Kiefer.Wolfowitz, please stop refactoring my comments. You seem not to have a clue when something is said in malice or affection, is or isn't a personal attack. I'm beginning to think WP:COMPETENCE applies here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

  Your calling the respected now vanished editor an idiot ("idjit") was beneath your person and your office, and would be read as a personal attack by most unfamiliar with your saintly meekness.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And I'm not makeless either - my husband of 30+ years is still very much alive thank you. You gave it the modern Swedish meaning. I - a Yorkshirewoman - automatically gave it the Middle English meaning of widowed. Interesting. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was thinking of the English translations using "matchless" or peerless, a secondary meaning used in "Pearl" for example.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries. It's an oddity - it must always have been one word with two different meanings. 'Make' is still occasionally used in Yorkshire to mean a spouse or partner, but like makeless in both senses, it's largely obsolete these days. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved from talk page

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC) The housekeeping crew seems to have a one-sided concern with removing comments helpful to me. Elen somehow missed this in her last clean up operation.

It's worth mentioning with regards to Kiefer.Wolfowitz's reply to this view (that DGG should review the word "or") is similar to an event at WT:RFA, where Kiefer was criticised in absentia. He ended up focusing on the difference between AND and OR there too... Worm^TT · (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Worm/David, the error with "or"/"and" was made. The article had problems (and the book offered a pseudo-scientific/non-scientific account of schizophrenia). Do you deny this?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that we live in the real world and can't use && as a short-circuit operator, I would suggest that your comments there were attempting to wikilawyer your editorial commentary out of the discussion. It was nothing to do with and/or. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

David,

You may also have a problem with or.

An example may help. The sentence "David/Worm wastes my time by engaging in AGF violations ("attempting to WikiLawyer") or denying the relevance of a discussion of and/or" does not deny that you waste my time in other ways.

Stating that 3 factors each suffice to cause an editor to fail to fix a problem does not deny other factors (e.g., the editor being tired).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)