Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 18:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 06:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC).

---

• Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

• User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz (KW) voluntarily agrees
  • to be more aware of civility in interaction with other editors, and to refrain from innuendo
  • to restrain himself when it comes to discussing younger editors, emailing oversight if he feels there is inappropriate personal information on wikipedia, and avoiding taking matters into his own hands
  • to state his views clearly and succinctly at RfA, instead of engaging in extended arguments, even if he feels strongly that a particular outcome is not acceptable
  • to be more careful when expressing concerns about copyright, taking any issues to the relevant noticeboards or contacting a trusted administrator privately, instead of making repeated public accusations.

Description

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

Although a few editors have raised issues with User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz (KW), such as...

• User:Black Kite who raised maturity issues[1]
• User:Cerejota who at ANI suggested KW's actions might indicate an issue with WP:CIR (such as using three edits to make one comment, and edit warring with an editor on the editor's own editor review)
• User:28bytes who also mentions the issue with edit warring[2].
• User:Vegaswikian who pointed out that KW's deletion nomination of Category:Peace Corps volunteers was a violation of WP:POINT
• User:Carrite at an ANI - Apparent personal attacks - had to remind KW that he could not remove sources just because he disagrees with them.[3]

... this RfC does not focus on those issues, but instead is aimed at resolving three separate areas of particular concern.

Incivility

The incivility displayed by KW rarely reaches the level of personal attacks, but more often works at the level of innuendo. The comments he makes are generally obfuscated so that the common reader will think nothing of them. The issue comes from the innuendo being so commonplace, the failure to adhere to WP:CIVILITY, and the resulting detriment to the collaborative editing environment. Here is a sample of the comments;

• KW regularly refers to User:Demiurge1000 as DemiWit [4][5][6][7]. As demi is derived from the Latin "dimenus" meaning "half", he is calling the editor a halfwit.
• KW has also referred to Demiurge1000 as "Ratatoskr".[8] Wikipedia's article Ratatoskr says that Ratatoskr was a low status animal that, in Norse mythology, told slanderous gossip to a wyrm. Not, in itself, an outrageous attack, but inappropriate in a discussion where he claimed to be seeking to avoid conflict; and concerning when considered in conjunction with KW's stated views elsewhere on the status of other editors, where he explains that he regards another editor as "an inferior" and that "condescension is appropriate".
• Accusations of harassment, without evidence (see WP:AOHA) [9][10][11][12][13]
• Accusations of "doing the bidding" of other editors (see WP:Meatpuppetry) "voluminous criticisms by Du1000's summoned clique" and "You came at the beck and call of your master, and did his bidding".
• Accuses Worm That Turned of not being a "serious" administrator[14], not experienced[15] and doesn't know what he's doing.

Behaviour regarding younger editors

KW has very strong views regarding editors under the age of majority, and frequently this leads to disruption. Although the editors targeted have reacted with great restraint when faced with KW's behaviour, some of them stopped editing or greatly reduced their editing following incidents in which KW played a part; and there are also safety concerns regarding the possible impact of some of KW's statements.

One of the most egregious cases was at the RfA for Dylan620 - where he made a total of 79 edits [16][17] - well over double the candidate's 32. This is clearly excessive. The edits included the question How are you performing in school?. Many of the edits had sneering edit summaries such as →Oppose: don't you feel better after an outburst of ressentiment after your sense of injured merit rather than mumbling "I didn't know" or "I don't understand"?Please write again. I care.; another example comment was extremely condescending "Rschen, please go to bed. Tomorrow try to find Hodge's penguin book on logic and start to read and work some exercises." It is, of course, permitted to Oppose an RfA on the grounds of age, and doubtless KW's intentions were good; but his behaviour went way beyond simply making a !vote and explaining the reasons for it. RfA candidates, and others taking part in the RfA process, should not have to endure this level of disruption.

Only a few months later, when the same editor added an asperger's userbox to his own user page (making clear from the edit summary that its addition was something to which he had given careful thought), KW reverted 5 times in 4 hours, against 4 different editors. He reverted Dylan620, reverted Strange Passerby, reverted Demiurge1000, twice, reverted Ryan Vesey. Even being generous and not considering the first edit to be a revert - that's still over the 3RR bright line. However, for some reason KW believed that he was justified because the other 4 editors started it. When he was warned about the edit warring - he ignored the warning and posted a return warning on Demiurge1000's page. When told unconditionally to stop, he suggested he had not reverted four times, and made curious comments about "young great apes" and "you should have read a proper dictionary", then attempted to claim that the other editors were the ones at fault (See WP:NOTTHEM).

Having been fortunate enough not to be blocked for this blatant edit warring on another user's userpage, KW reacted to advice about it from administrator User:Worm That Turned by suggesting it was an "indexing error", and suggesting that he would not discuss further. But KW then completely changed the tone of his reply with a misleading edit summary, appearing to call the admin a bore, and telling the admin that he wastes his mind.

An even more serious instance of KW's inappropriate behaviour regarding younger editors was Guoguo12's RfA, where KW used the fact that a teenage candidate had requested oversight to remove personal information from his own userpage, many months previously, as an argument for opposing the candidate.[18] This has serious implications with regard to child protection on Wikipedia - it is very common that minors are encouraged to request oversight if they make a potentially unwise edit, and discouraging other minors from following that advice, in a highly public forum such as RfA, could put them at risk.

Accusations of plagiarism and copyright violation; lack of understanding of copyright

According to KW's own edit summaries, a task he undertakes is to "remove neoconservative digression beloved of sectarians and anti-semites". He feels articles related to certain USA political parties have an "ideological bias", which he solves by removing what he sees as OR/POV in them. The problems arise when KW follows his disgust at political views which he dislikes, with accusations of copyright violation or plagiarism against editors who wrote the material with which he disagrees.

Socialist Party of America

The first example of this was at Socialist Party of America. KW found a paragraph that, in his own words, drove him bananas because of statements about the party. One hour sixteen minutes later, he re-wrote his comments on the talk page to mention for the first time copyright violation and plagiarism, as well as COI. He then chose an editor to accuse of COI and plagiarism, User:Chegitz guevara, with sneering political comments. KW continued, with many more revisions of his own comments, to expound his personal views on the true history of the party, and to claim that "the SPUSA cabal" had created the article; "an abuse of the public's trust".

KW went on to state "This plagiarism was due to User:Peter G. Warner", as well as claiming Peter had committed multiple instances of it. Peter made a remarkably calm reply under the circumstances, but KW immediately responded, with unintentional irony, by accusing Peter of making personal attacks and of unreasonably questioning his (KW's) good faith.

KW made many more accusations of plagiarism against Peter. He started on the talk page of the article itself [19], and later included there the fantastic logic "nobody wrote that you had not committed plagiarism", but also spread his accusation across multiple venues, including bringing it up in a WP:POINTy manner at E2eamon's RfA [20], Peter's talk page, WQA after Peter protested KW's behaviour, and repeating the accusations at WT:Copyright problems.

Peter made clear, very early, that he considered the plagiarism accusation false. At this point KW should have stopped making further accusations in different locations, at least until he found an experienced editor who agreed there was a problem. Instead, when challenged, he admitted that he knew the potential impact of his accusations against an academic editing Wikipedia under their real name; "I and Peter are both academics, and we are both well aware of the seriousness of plagiarism." (KW does not use his real name.) To continue the accusations under these circumstances, after multiple warnings, verges on harassment.

Not only that, but KW's own analysis of the alleged plagiarism was tenuous at best. KW had to remove large parts of the text in order to find similarities between a few isolated fragments, and it was clear that the material added by Peter presented similar ideas - not matching words or even structure. The closest matching phrase was "Shachtman and his lieutenant, Michael Harrington" - and since many of those words are names, the worst issue was the word "lieutenant".

Socialist Party USA

KW has also made accusations of plagiarism without presenting any evidence - again regarding a U.S. political party - against User:TrustIsAllYouNeed. Regardless of whether there were indeed issues with the material contributed by that editor, an accusation without any evidence is unhelpful and uncivil.

Freedom in the World

KW had a run in with the retired, long-standing administrator and content contributor, User:Rd232. Once again, KW's initial concern seemed to be the political point of view of the text - his first complaint was to suggest there was "POV pushing" - and once again he followed this with accusations of copyright violation. Rd232 had to come out of retirement to deal with this. KW even violated copyright himself by copying large swathes of a book onto WP to test for copyright (admins only).

Again KW left an inappropriate copyright warning[21] - but this time he left a speedy deletion request on part of the article, completely misunderstanding the purpose of the tag. The issue was resolved by User:Moonriddengirl, from whom Rd232 had sought advice on dealing with the accusations, and who said "this certainly doesn't look to be a flagrant problem by any definition", "the content should be tweaked", and "The blanking for a week is unnecessary". KW followed her comments by accusing Rd232 of incompetence, and claiming - just as he had done with Peter - that Rd232's protests at the accusations were personal attacks and "violations of AGF".

John F. Banzhaf III

Further evidence that KW does not fully understand copyright was when he copied and pasted text from within Wikipedia without attribution (Kiefer's copy & original edit). He may have done similar elsewhere, as he was even mentioned he was "cannibalizing other articles". Copying text without attribution is in violation of the WP:CC-BY-SA license, and therefore against editing guidelines.

Applicable policies and guidelines

{List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:COPYVIO
2. WP:CIVILITY
3. WP:AOHA
4. WP:NPA
5. WP:EW
6. WP:POINT

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Attempts by certifier Worm That Turned

1. Discussions at WP:ANI archived here
2. Suggestion of a one to one workshop - [22] [23] - which although KW was against, he did participate in
3. The one-to-one Workshop, where instead of discussion, KW called some of the issues "laughable" and instead asked for Worm That Turned to be sanctioned. It is unclear who he was asking to impose the sanction, since Worm That Turned had proposed this as a one-to-one discussion. At this point, the Workshop discussion was regarded as a failure.

Regarding this RfC:

• KW suggested that an RfC was a "threat"
• KW raised the RfC at the Administrator's noticeboard, an hour after discussion of it had been closed at WP:ANI, without informing Worm That Turned.
• KW refused to "take part" unless a "serious" administrator (implying Worm That Turned was not one) approved[24]. He went on to state that Worm That Turned was inexperienced[25] and that he doesn't know what he's doing
• When offered an attempt to solve this informally - on a one to one basis - KW attempted to dictate how any discussion regarding problems should take place. His unreasonable terms included the fact that the entire discussion should be by email[26] and that no RfC would be called for 2 months[27]
• KW attempted to deflect the RfC/U by asking for an interaction ban with both Demiurge1000 and Worm That Turned.[28]
  • Prior to warning KW for his 5RR offence, KW and Worm That Turned had only positive interactions, to the extent that KW put a "strong support" on Worm That Turned's RfA and Worm That Turned gained an oppose vote for strongly agreeing with KW; so there was little grounds for claiming that the suggested interaction ban served any other purpose than to prevent the RfC.
  • 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.[29]
  • Since that request, Demiurge has not interacted directly with KW, and only discussed him minimally, and Worm That Turned has kept his interactions with KW to a minimum. KW on the other hand has continued to instigate conversations at Worm That Turned's talk page, has posted images of the Spanish Inquisition referring to RfCs, and even brought up the topic at WT:RfA in a WP:POINTy manner.

Attempts by certifier Demiurge1000

1. Demiurge1000 requested that KW withdraw his accusations about Peter Werner. (KW's response was to suggest that he regarded the request as "a joke".)
2. Demiurge1000 asked at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems for clarification on whether the material contributed by Peter Werner constituted copyright infringement.
3. Demiurge1000 sought clarification from KW, on KW's talk page, about his potentially misleading comments on Dylan620's RfA; also mentioning the issue of making dozens of comments on the same RfA. (KW's ultimate response to this query was "you are not welcome here, and I ask you not to post again", which he followed by an edit summary of "hide idiotic discussion".)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
2. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
3. --Peter G Werner (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Since Kiefer.Wolfowitz has previously stated that he will not take an RfC/U seriously unless it is "approved" an arb [30], and since I have previously attempted to explain that RfC's don't need Arbitrators to approve them, and he should really try to just resolve these problems by discussion [31] I can endorse that this dispute has been ongoing for a while, and sadly attempts to solve this by less formal means has failed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
2. TFD (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC) I have come across Kiefer Wolfowitz, and while he has a great deal of ability as an editor, his approach is non-collegial and disruptive.

Additional views by User:Worm That Turned

Reply to David Eppstein

I wholly agree that Kiefer should not be driven off the Wikipedia, we would lose a fine editor should that happen. I've no quibbles with his work on articles, however I do not believe we should turn a blind eye to the valid issues raised above.

Users who endorse this summary

1. Worm^TT · (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
2. I really strongly agree with this. In fact, it seems to me that the way KW would be able to spend more time creating excellent encyclopedic content, and less time in unproductive disputes, would be to take seriously some of the suggestions that are made here - that's exactly the sort of advantage that the project (and everyone concerned) could gain from this process. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Kiefer, I note that you refer to your previous response as a response to a draft RfC which it was not, it had none of the formality of an RfC and was designed for us to discuss the issues. This RfC does cover similar topics, but goes much further into areas where there are issues, and details them for you to look at. Dismissing them as the same as a 1-1 dispute resolution is wholly unhelpful.

Regarding your other comments, your Voltaire quote did not appear to be self deprecating, nor was it obvious that it was Voltaire and the likelihood of me interpreting that quote from a 17th century philosopher as uncivil is much more reasonable than say, you interpreting a facepalm as a direct insult. As for the agreeing that I waste my mind comment, I'm unsure how me trying to reduce drama (remember, this was the first time that I had admonished you) is relevant.

It would be much more helpful if you actually responded to the diffs above than dismissing them with comments about our usernames.

Users who endorse this summary

1. Worm^TT · (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
2. Unfortunately KW's response is mostly a big copy paste of his comments at the one-to-one workshop; combative comments that resulted in that workshop being abandoned. Not only were the comments almost entirely free of diffs to back up what KW said, but they also failed to address the points made then - and are even less relevant to the points made in this RfC/U. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Additional views by User:Demiurge1000

Better ways to handle copyright concerns

When looking at the problems with how copyright concerns have been handled, I think it is worth everyone's time to read this explanation by Moonriddengirl of some of her practice in dealing with possible copyright problems.

In particular, she says that in some circumstances, 'I have myself created new text to replace close paraphrasing concerns that I thought very tenuous. I don't use {{cclean}} on the talk; I don't rev delete; I don't in any way suggest the content is a copyright violation in my edit summary. I usually just note that I am "revising to separate further from source" or something like that.'

She goes on to say that 'I'd really like to see diplomacy and consideration on all sides of the copyright equation. We should approach the issue thoughtfully and try to keep emotions down. I think our best chance of creating a harmonious community, conscious of copyright issues and in agreement as to what constitutes acceptable content, will come in eliminating drama and shame from the equation insofar as humanly possible.' And finally, 'But by the same token, we don't want to burn people who try to help identify copyright problems if they are wrong; they, too, are trying to improve the project and need to be kindly brought in line with community standards.'

I think KW was indeed trying to improve the project, and (despite its billing in some venues) this RfC/U was not for the purpose of burning him or anyone else. But he needs to move from his wildly extreme methods of attacking editors over disputed use of source material, to be closer to Moonriddengirl's "harmonious community" approach. Even if he doesn't quite go all the way.

Users who endorse this summary

1. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Response

This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.

I have responded at length before to these charges by Worm and Demiurge1000, at ANI, etc. I shall past my previous reply to Worm's draft RfC/U, from the copy saved in my user space.

Response to concerns

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

RfAs

WP:3RR

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

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

In this RfC, Worm again refers to this incident, now querying my explanation "indexing error". Let me explain. In a first course in computer programming, after students learn for loop they are warned about the most common programming mistakes, perhaps the most common being an indexing error, where they want a loop to execute N times but it executes either N+1 or exactly N-1 times.

My error was the N+1 mistake.

I had thought that Worm worked in computing and had a M.A./M.S. degree, so he would have understood "indexing error".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

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

• "General incivility [32]" (sic.). I stopped responding to a conversation going nowhere, because I did not want "to explain everything", which is "the secret of being a bore" according to Voltaire. WTT seems to have failed to recall or to have Googled this famous phrase.

Striking-through text: Another RfA

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

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

Requests for Administratorship (RfAs): "Overzealousness"?

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

RfAs of minors (non-adults)

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

• Requiring that administrators be adults (a perennial proposal): "Editors are free to use age as a personal rationale for opposing adminship on RfA".

Political articles

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

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

Parallel passages raising concerns about possible copyright violations, etc.

*SPUSA: The ISL was a Trotskyist splinter group founded and led by Max Shachtman .... In 1958 the ISL dissolved, and its members joined the SP-SDF. ... the concept of “Realignment.” Shachtman and his lieutenant, Michael Harrington, argued that what America needed wasn’t a third party, but a meaningful second party. The Realignment supporters said that in sixty years the Socialist Party had failed to bring labor into the Party, and in fact kept losing their labor sympathizers (such as the Reuther brothers) because they saw they could do more within the Democratic Party. WP: In 1958 the party admitted to its ranks the members of the recently-dissolved Independent Socialist League led by Max Shachtman, a ... Trotskyist .... Shachtman and his lieutenant [[Michael Harrington[33]]] advocated a political strategy called "realignment," arguing that rather than pursuit of ineffectual independent politics, the American socialist movement should instead seek to move the Democratic Party to the social democratic left by direct participation within the organization. SPUSA: At the ... Democratic National Convention ... in 1968, Realignment Socialists were present as delegates.... At the same time, many Debs Caucus members were in the streets with the demonstrators. WP: This division was manifest most strongly during the 1968 Democratic Convention, in which members of the Debs Caucus were among the protesters outside of the convention, while members of the Coalition and Unity Caucuses were among the convention delegates. SPUSA ... Max Shachtman’s leadership, ... showing a growing tendency toward a Stalinist “democratic centralism” in practice. WP: the Shachtmanites maintained the strongest tendency to ... democratic centralism SPUSA In the 1972 Presidential election the Shachtmanites supported Henry Jackson .... During the campaign itself, they took a neutral position between McGovern and Nixon, following the lead of the AFL-CIO. Harrington and his Coalition Caucus supported McGovern throughout. Most of the Debs Caucus members supported Benjamin Spock, candidate of the People’s Party.... WP: During the 1972 presidential election, ... the Debs Caucus supported the independent candidacy of Benjamin Spock, many of the Coalition Caucus supported ... George McGovern ..., and those in the Unity Caucus tended to support Hubert Humphrey and Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson. ... The party, following the lead of ... the ... AFL-CIO ... declared its neutrality between McGovern and incumbent Republican President Richard Nixon .... SPUSA At the end of 1972, ... many of the states and locals within the Debs Caucus, .... Early in 1973, the Socialist Party of Wisconsin, with the support of the California and Illinois Parties, ... voted to reconstitute the Socialist Party USA. WP: Socialist Party USA (not Socialist Party of America): Numerous local and state branches of the old Socialist Party, including the Party's Wisconsin, California, Illinois, ... organizations, participated in the reconstitution of the Socialist Party USA. *SPUSADue to America’s restrictive and often undemocratic ballot access laws (which have made it almost impossible to break the two-party monopoly on national politics), WP the financial dominance of the two major parties, as well as the limitations of the United States' legislatively and judicially entrenched two-party system. SPUSA: the party views the races primarily as opportunities for educating ... WP: The Socialist Party USA ... runs candidates for public office, though these campaigns are often considered educational in intent .... WP: The Debs Caucus finally broke with the party in 1972 to form the Union for Democratic Socialism. ,,, The UDS became the Socialist Party USA in 1973 ... Michael Harrington and the Coalition Caucus left the party soon after, establishing themselves with headquarters in New York City as the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC). Harrington and his supporters, ... believed that the third party road to democratic socialism had been a failure, and instead sought to work within the Democratic Party as an organized socialist caucus to bring about that party's "realignment" to the left. This left Shachtman and the Unity Caucus in unopposed control of the Socialist Party (though Shachtman himself died very soon after). In 1972, this group renamed itself the Social Democrats USA (SDUSA). This quotation shows extensive paraphrasing from the Socialist Party USA's own literature, which does raise concerns about its being a possible Copyright-Violation. These passages no longer appear in the article. (These passages raised questions about COI/RS/Verifiability also.)

"Disdain" (sic.)

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

On the contrary, I have scorned and I do scorn editors who have

• "shot off their mouths", accusing me of a political agenda,

• when they had shown no understanding of the content dispute and
• when they had failed to try to learn anything (for example by comparing the old version with contemporary reporting by the New York Times).

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

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

Mistakes or silliness

Some of these other complaints are just silly.

Blocking for trolling

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

"Better" than others

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

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

From good editors, advice and criticism are welcome.

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

Overview

In short, this budding RfC/U seems to have been provoked by two clusters of issues.

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

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

October update

I have read enough that I do not wish to participate in this RfC/U, because of gross dishonesty and hypocricy.

Dishonesty

1. Worm quotes me above, where I noted that he was too smart not to be contributing to content about more serious topics. What is surprising is that he fails to quote his response, following the objection by a friendly editor that I was being obnoxious. Worm wrote something like "Well, he has a point. I should write something. In fact, I am writing an essay for young editors, and I would like your feedback." I replied that I would be sincerely honored to comment on his essay.

2. As I explained to Worm, above, the Voltaire allusion was self-deprecating, suggesting that I did not want to be a bore by explaining everything. Despite my explanation and link to Google, he turns it around and writes that I was suggesting that "an administrator" [himself?] was a bore.

A list of errors not to be pursued

Unworthy of an honest man but alas well established as a debating tactic of scoundrels

3. Opening the RfC with a list of my errors, which will not be pursued in this RfC, was a very short-sighted stratagem, which immediately raised concerns about the intent and appropriateness of this RfC, particularly since some of these events seem to be presented unfairly

It is hard to think of an opening that could be more damaging to their credibility---apart from a listing of their prior complaints (on my talk page, at ANI, at AN, at Worm's talk page, etc.), which were even more filled with errors and partiality: The kilobytes of attacks and falsehoods, carried on for a half year, and the 128 bytes of partial apologies should horrify any neutral reader.

The citations of Carrite, Cerejota, Black Kite, Vegaswikian deserve some context:

A. User:Carrite is cited as having to tell me that Busky's book could not be removed just on my whim. What Carrite wrote was different. Most importantly, after Carrite's comment (based on my knowledge of Carrite's integrity and knowledge), I have not removed Busky, which is the only source for some true statements. Where we could find independent reliable sources for other true statements previously attributed to Busky, we have listed them. (See Carrite's statement of "astonishment" below.) In fact, anybody who looks at this history can see a proper concern for writing a truthful article using reliable sources.

B. Cerejota removed my comment from his editor review, which was an unwarranted action; I proposed amending the editor review rules, to allow the editor review to be treated as virtual user-space. Happily this suggestion was implemented. Thus, this example is a fine example of WikiLawyering, in a positive sense.It is unfortunate that a cliched smear against the legal profession has become cited as policy on Wikipedia, by those who should know better, particularly Americans. After initial squabbles, Cerejota and I have exchanged good-humored declarations of mutual respect, in fact.

C. Black Kite immediately understood why I would have been so upset with a "talk to the hand" message, particularly in that context. At least he immediately accepted my apology on my page. Nonetheless, I made a longer apology on his talk page, because of contrition and a need to set the record straight everywhere I had made a mistake.

D. Vegaswikian cited and misunderstood WP:Point in the discussion of Vista volunteers and Peace Corps volunteers, and apparently Worm shares this confusion. The record shows that the other participants clearly understood the benefits of a parallel discussion of the two analogous organizations, so much so that several copied the same arguments to each. (Substituting words of the same type in an deduction, to test whether nonsense arises, is the basis of grammar and logic. It is also true that we reason better about familiar topics, so that it was better to discuss the case of the Peace Corps than VISTA.) Finally, I and another participant joked about the mental habits of mathematicians. Thus, in this case, I helped to frame a productive discussion that led to consensus; I was not disrupting Wikipedia in bad faith, the problem of WP:Point. It is really a disappointment that Worm cites this example, and continues to misunderstand WP:Point, particularly at something as time-consuming and emotionally charged as an RfC/U.

In all these cases, there is a repetition of an initial charge, without attempting to provide context or to examine the ensuing discussions.

Hypocrisy

This RfC is especially objectionable because of the sanctimonious hypocrisy of the nominators and their culled supporters. A few examples:

1. DU1000

A. "DemiWit" DU whines that I called him "DemiWit" 4 times some months back. Succoring DU would be more likely if he did not make a habit of insulting and baiting myself and Malleus F; in particular, DU has mocked Malleus's command of Latin (since an earlier account had a Latin error apparently) while engaging in personal attacks about Malleus's motivations following his RfA. Where has DU apologized to Malleus for mocking the name of his prior account? DU should choose a username, whose writing does require heresy from monotheists, who must regard him as a blasphemous egomaniac.

B. DU is shocked, shocked that I could regard RD232 and himself as making personal attacks or violating AGF. Judge for yourself. This is what DU wrote on the page he linked above:

• "Kiefer seems to be stepping up his use of accusations of plagiarism and copyvio - I'm unsure if he understands the difference between the two - when he disagrees with content on political grounds."
• I quote RD232 to refute the accusations from DU, with distaste, because the RD232 is retired (and despite the following) tried to make peace and made statements of goodwill:

   :: (1) “Recently someone claimed that this section was a copyright violation [34], though the decoration of the section with POV tags is indicative of their real complaint, I think.”

(2) “[Y]ou continue to try to use allegations of copyright abuse to achieve your editing goals. […] your initial attempt to speedy delete an entire article because a section of it which you don't like supposedly has copyright issues....”

(3) “Frankly, this nonsense is disruptive enough, and prima facie bad faith enough....”

(4) “AGF is not a suicide pact, and I don't think I made any personal attacks. If your concern about a copyright problem was indeed genuine, then you made just about every mistake I can think of to make it look like bad faith.”

As this final quote shows, RD232 did make some AGF efforts and ended on a peaceful and good-willed note; beyond suggesting improvements for my editing, he made some suggestions for his own improvement, an extraordinary act in Wikipedia---at least on this page. I am sorry that my having to defend myself against DU's misrepresentations requires my quoting some AGF violations in his earlier comments.

2. The Four Deuces (TFD) TFD labels me a "disruptive editor". The reader should look at the examples of our interaction (like AGF/NPA violation cited by me on the page cited previously by DU) and particular TFD's pattern of jumping to ANI/AN other bulletin boards (Reliable Sources, etc.) when there is apparent disagreement in his articles. TFD's pattern is well established, not only with me but with his work on several other projects. His editing has been labeled as "disruptive" in the same ANI thread previously cited (thanks to DU):

A. "TFD is apparently using AN/I to be disruptive and waste peoples' time. It's not the first time. --OpenFuture (talk) 1:18 am, 5 August 2011, Friday (2 months, 10 days ago) (UTC+2)"

(where he omits my statement about my own poor vision, when quoting my asking him whether he might have some kind of disability); others have called his behavior "WP:forum shopping". It is useful to look at the history of articles on which we both worked, and the reception of our work by knowledgeable or fair-minded (or both) editors. Look at TFD's recent banning for violating an ArbCom enforcement ruling or Caritte's judgment that it was unproductive to discuss history with TFD (on Carrite's talk page).

October Coda

I could go on, but these 3 examples suffice to explain why this RfC is a bad idea, or at least why it starts so badly that when I consider reading further I start thinking about my own mortality and feeling existential dread.

Nonetheless, because of respect for the community, I have and I shall continue to comment on outside views, stated below.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 13:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No interest

in participating unless a respected Wikipedian affirms having read, reasonably investigated, and agreeing with the charges

Elen has not indicated that she has read the charges, examined the evidence, and agrees with them. Until a Wikipedian of her stature (or greater) affirms having read the charges, looked around a bit, and agreeing with them, I shall not participate in this process. (At least I shall not read the complaints further.) I have read a few of the outside comments, which so far seem to be fair-minded attempts.

I am the primary author of Shapley–Folkman lemma, which is now in the featured-article nomination process, and as I have stated to my peers, I am travelling this week. I expect that the FA process will occupy me for at least 2 weeks: Apparently I'll have internet the next few days.

If a respected Wikipedian confirms

1. having read the complaints & the above evidence,
2. having made a reasonable viewing of the context of the above diffs,
3. agreeing with the charges,

then I would consider participating after the FA (i.e., making some attempt to read the above complaints), most probably around late December.

My reading of the above complaints has been like Shelley Duvall's reading of the long "All work and no play make Jack a dull boy" manuscript: Horror at obsessiveness and re-evaluation of the author.

I see no need to read further.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Response to Elen's comment (related to my precondition on participating---or, in her words on my talk page, "crap"):

  I have responded previously to Worm and Du's complaints at ANI, on Worm's page, etc., so I have satisfied any reasonable demand for participating in community discussion. Indeed I have wasted too much time already.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC) 21:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Responses to outside comments

I'll respond to comments made by outsiders here.

RE David, et alia

Thanks for the kind words about my efforts in the mathematics, statistics, and computer science projects! It is wishful thinking however to wish that this RfC would not detract from my editing: The FA nomination for the Shapley-Folkman lemma has been closed following my inactivity.

Editors who are not mathematical scientists should think about David's statement and its implications. If an editor behaves well in one major area of Wikipedia, it may be that apparently problematic behavior in other areas may be symptomatic of a interaction-problem, involving both the editor (me) and other editors.

In general, mathematicians and statisticians are good at visualizing relations among 2 predictor variables and one response variable. Statisticians discuss interaction among the predictors, and study them using factorial designs and generalized randomized block designs (GRBDs, whose short article may be my most important contribution to Wikipedia).

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

RE Elen et alia

Tonight, let me respond to "Have Moeser, Will Travel".

Honestly, I wrote "sic." after "disdain" with deliberate reason; however, it does not seem helpful to explain this edit (and I do not claim that writing "sic." then was prudent).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

RE Biały et alia

Most of what is written is fine, and I endorsed its main messages, e.g., that sometimes I should think thrice before submitting a comment on another editor's behavior.

However, we should be clear about the areas of dispute.

(0) In many of the above instances, where I seem to have said something uncivil, there was already incivility directed at me: while others' previous incivility does not excuse my incivility, fairness does suggest some discussion of others' personal attacks or incivility is appropriate.

In the worst cases (I believe), I have already withdrawn or apologized for writing too roughly; it strikes me as disingenuous to quote the severest statement, without noting that where I have withdrawn or apologized, particularly when I have already complained about the misleading quotation.

(1) An editor paraphrased a SPUSA pamphlet that accused Michael Harrington and others of "Stalinist democratic centralism"; the editor knew enough to remove "Stalinist" but left "democratic centralism", and used this unreliable "history" to introduce a lot of partisan claims, for which reliable sources are wonting, and some of which appear to be false. The editor provided citations to Drucker's biography of Shachtman, which in fact does not support the claims made (and usually contradicts them).

(The editor in question is not an wunderkind, innocent of the norms of academic scholarship, either.)

(2) I cleaned up about 10 articles and tagged about 10 others one day, when I found that they were derived from a left-wing website. (More recently, I have removed a lot of right-wing conspiracy junk from neoconservatism; interestingly, nobody has cried in protest.) The tags exist so that experts from our copyright project can determine if a violation exists, and take appropriate action. In every case where I tagged an article, extensive rewriting or history-deletion was done.

(Why MrG rewrote an article while gently assuring others that it was not a violation of WP policy is a question that has never bothered my sleep.)

For these actions, DemiUrge1000 accused me of pursuing a political agenda, and particularly regarding (1) accused me of "bullying" while also assuring the editor in question that nobody on Wikipedia besides myself cares about the "democratic centralism" slander. (I have yet to read an apology for these charges, or a word of chastisement of DemiUrge1000.)

I have signed Bialy's "view from the outside" in the following sense: In the course of a c. 16-hour clean-up of the leftwing-conspiracy website infected articles, I could have written a nicer note to the editor(s) in question.

Finally, it is worth considering

• whether any actions, such as introducing racist or misogynist or anti-Semitic or sectarian trash, should ever receive stern messages on WP. (For example, Archie Bunker last night blamed an influx of jiggaboos for an alleged increase in juvenile delinquency in a Cleveland suburb. Referring to WP:RS seems to be an utterly inadequate response to such poison.)

It is worth considering

• whether plagiarists should be welcomed (as many or even most participants in recent RfAs seem to have affirmed) or whether stern messages are sometimes appropriate (as SandyGeorgia and others seem to think).

Insofar as we are trying to write an encyclopedia (rather than providing a therapeutic environment for PTSD-sufferers), it is reasonable to expect that negative reinforcement will occasionally be useful:

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. Paul Meehl, "Why I do not attend case conferences")

RE "Have Moeser, Will Travel" and Canvassing

Moeser and Demiurge (elsewhere) accuse me of canvassing, because I placed notices regarding this RfC at my primary projects, rather than at the WikiProject socialism, etc.

Why?

Why? Why? Why? ...?

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.

I have no reason to expect that an RfC notice at the non--high-functional projects would generate feedback, let alone competent feedback.

The advantages of having non-involved parties commenting on this RfC has been previously addressed by Geometry Guy, at Elen's talk page---which is soon to be moved to the talk page here. I discussed the pleasures of contributing to articles related to mathematical-sciences WikiProject in the interview in SignPost.

Finally, even here at an RfC, "Have mörser, will travel" violates WP:AGF with impunity and with a notable failure of empathic imagination.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Views

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

Outside view by David Eppstein

I have no opinion on the political disputes described here, but Wolfowitz has performed very valuable service to the encyclopedia bringing mathematical articles such as Shapley–Folkman lemma as well as related biographical articles such as Jon Folkman, Graciela Chichilnisky, and Andreu Mas-Colell up to a high editorial standard. I would hate for the issues described in this RfC to overshadow his improvements to article space and cause him to stop contributing in this way.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
2. Geometry guy 21:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
3. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
4. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
5. Ozob (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
6. Manny may (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
7. Sasha (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
8. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 00:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
9. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
10. OpenInfoForAll (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
11. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
12. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
13. 28bytes (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
14. Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
15. This is fucking Kafkaesque. Step back and breathe deep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.147.40‎ (talk • contribs)
16. --Forich (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
17. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
18. —Ruud 12:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
19. —LK (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by CRGreathouse

This RfC seems to be procedurally invalid because even were the assertions factual they would not suffice to sanction Kiefer.Wolfowitz.

1. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
2.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC) (Arguing in the plural)

Outside view by Carrite

I'm a little astonished to see my name mentioned above as one of the accusers here. I think K-Wolf is a terrific editor at Wikipedia and I earnestly wish ticky-tack soap operas like this would cease. I've got no problems with K-Wolf, I think he's a reasonable person and a good historian who understands and cares about the Wikipedia project. He can be passionate in his views and sometimes needs to hear views of others to keep situations in focus — but that's a minor party foul. K-Wolf is an excellent content-creator, it is time for his detractors to cease and desist... Carrite (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. (me!) Carrite (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
2.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC). In the case of Carrite, I instantly accepted with his ruling, so I find it bizarre to find it listed in a good-faith RfC, which is supposed to list problems that need to be addressed.

   There are similar problems with many of the other incidents, which seem to be a comprehensive list of my worst edits: In most cases, and certainly the worst, I later apologized or struck through a remark. This was true in the discussion of condescension and inferiors, which Worm keeps presenting in the worst light---where, after having been brushed back on the previous pitch, I did not resist swinging for the fences when I was presented a hanging curve ball. Worm has repeatedly criticized me for this edit, irresponsibly prolonging stressful attention to a vulnerable editor, despite my having corrected it.

   If this RfC is supposed to reform me, why does so much of it consist of old edits for which I have tried to make amends?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

3. Agree with Carrite's statement. And also with what K-Wolf says above. To me K-Wolf seems to have a good heart and to care deeply about Wikipedia. He is human. Manny may (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
4. I also think Carrite gave an adequate summary (incl. the term "soap opera") Sasha (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Elen of the Roads

Kiefer.Wolfowitz's statement above No interest in participating unless a respected Wikipedian affirms reading the charges is indicative of the behaviour that has brought about this RfC - a combination of Wikilawyering, insulting people's intelligence (probably entirely accidentally) and attempting to find a way to ignore the issue. Good contribution isn't a free pass - I guess few of us do criticism well, but if Keifer would only engage a bit more with what other people see as problem behaviour, then this could all be sorted out and he could get back to contributing to articles, which is his real strength.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
2. Editors who possess a superior intellect should strive to use it towards improving Wikipedia, not towards composing elaborate attacks against those less capable of witticism. (And Webster knows of the word disdain, so my inferior intellect fails to comprehend what KW's "Disdain (sic.)" is supposed to mean, especially when KW admits immediately thereafter that "I have scorned and I do scorn editors [...]".) Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
3. Elen put it perhaps more bluntly than I would, but KW does have an unfortunate habit of showing palpable disdain for his "inferiors": for example, in the liberal use of "[sic]" when quoting other editors, this edit summary, and the whole 'Demiwit' business. While he is of course free to disdain who he wishes, it would make for much smoother interactions if he could make it a touch less palpable. 28bytes (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
4. Says it all, really. And User:Have mörser, will travel's endorsement here makes the most incisive comment I have yet seen on this RfC/U - on which, more later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
5. Emphasizing that "engage a bit more" is directed towards KW figuring out how he's creating and contributing to these problems, not that he spend more time engaging in problem behaviors like insulting people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
6. Indeed. And let me say I totally disagree with David Epstein's view. Producing good content in NO WAY gives one the right to be an arrogant jackass--this attitude is at the core of many of wiki's problems. PumpkinSky talk 23:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Sławomir Biały

I'm not deeply familiar with the specifics of this case. I have seen Dr. Wolfowitz's observations at RfA regarding the maturity level of administrators, and at the time I thought he had a very good point. As Carrite says, Dr. Wolfowitz is passionate about his editing. He can also be somewhat tactless and aggressive in discussions. Other editors are sometimes put off by this attitude even when he is being perfectly civil.

That said, the basis of the RfC makes it seem like sometimes Dr. Wolfowitz crosses a line into incivility. That's hardly surprising. I think it's something most of us do from time to time, but it's obviously something we should try to minimize. Let me just say, in as friendly a way possible: Kiefer, try to be a little more respectful of those around you. I think as a result you will earn their respect as well. (This is advice that we all should try to follow, I think.)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
2. Well put. 28bytes (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
3. This seems about the right balance. If editors want more than this from the fundamentally one-sided process that is an RfC/U, there needs to be some give and take, for instance by discussing mutual non-interaction agreements or similar ways to disengage from dispute. Geometry guy 20:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
4. I do think that would go a long way to help. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
5. --Kmhkmh (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
6. This is not the quality of editor that Wikpedia needs to chase away. Too many such have give up. Manny may (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
7. Besides the small niggle that Kiefer Wolfowitz is not the user's actual name (but rather a combination of two eminent mathematicians), I do absolutely agree with this view - and think that many of the points would disappear if KW (and indeed all of us) followed such advice. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

   After having been addressed as "Kiefer" (and variants), I have sometimes signed my postings as "Kiefer", with considerable amusement.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

8. Appropriate balance, although I'd suggest that KW might have used stronger language if this were a discussion about another user. —WFC— 15:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
9.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC). A couple caveats. I avoid the word "maturity" at RfAs, rather using "minor" because of my concern with the legality and vulnerability of minors being administrators. Second, I can be direct and forceful with persons who need to address problems, particularly persons introducing BGoodP violations by using sectarian trash, for which no apology should be made. (I have apologized to Carrite for initial roughness, and accepted his apology, the same.)
10. —LK (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
11. -This is the minimum of what needs to happen.PumpkinSky talk 23:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Have mörser, will travel

I'm concerned about the biased WP:CANVASSing that went on in the initial hours of this RfCU. User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz has notified

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics [35]
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics [36]
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics [37]

but as of 14:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC) he has not notified any of the following WikiProjects:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political parties
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour (he had posted there before)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Socialism

even though the latter but not the former group of WikiProjects are listed on Talk:Socialist Party USA and Talk:Socialist Party of America—articles that were focal points of this dispute. Not surprisingly, the initial outside view above was unrelated to the main dispute at hand here. Apparently, Kiefer.Wolfowitz has earned the respect of other editors in non-controversial areas, and thought to capitalize on that in this dispute.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Tkuvho

The first in a list of allegations against KW is a complaint by User Black Kite, who reportedly raised a "maturity issue" with regard to the following comment by KW which user Black Kite found objectionable: What we see is a repeated, deliberate violation of WP:Civility by an administrator against a plebe, by an administrator who threatens to slap plebes with trouts. Facepalms are used by teenage punks. I made no personal attack. Now this is certainly a colorful comment by KW, that could be profitably toned down, but if this is the level of the complaints against KW, I suggest the complainers stop wasting the community's time and withdraw their complaint immediately. Tkuvho (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Tkuvho (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
2.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Comment: I remain embarrassed by my reaction, which was based on my mistaking the good-willed and good-humored "face palm" for "talk to the hand", which is one of the most obnoxious expressions of contempt in contempory decadence. Black Kite was innocent (and the trouting a triviality, which only bothered me after the hand misunderstanding).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
3. Totally agree with Tkuvho's view. Manny may (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by WhatamIdoing

Two principles seem to be relevant:

1. Hoyle's Law applies to the English Wikipedia: Whatever the game, whatever the rules—the rules are the same for both sides. We neither have nor want 'special exemptions' from behavioral policies for editors with excellent mainspace contributions. People with excellent editing skills do not get a free pass on their treatment of other volunteers (e.g., [38]).
2. "Assigning blame" for causing drama and "solving the problem" of the unhelpful drama are unrelated activities. Some types of comments and responses tend to create or inflame disputes; other approaches tend to defuse them. Our best collaborators are highly skilled in defusing drama. Kiefer.Wolfowitz is not exactly unusual in lacking this skill, but Wikipedia would be improved if he figured out what changes he can make in his own behavior to defuse disputes and reduce the drama around him, no matter who or what caused the drama.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
2. This sums up 80% of the root problems raised in the RfC in one go. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
3. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
4. -yepPumpkinSky talk 23:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by ExampleUsername

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

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

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