User talk:Dematt and User talk:Kim Bruning: Difference between pages

• User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 1
• User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 2
• User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 3
• User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 4

• Current status: > jetlagged. I don't think I've said anything *too* silly yet. But I'd better get some rest now.

Please leave your message below this line.

---

Policies

Well, I had provided the explanation in the previous revert [1]: "rv, "not [...] the correct one", makes perfect sense here".

But agreed, you're right, posting a reply to an individual is not the most appropriate use of an edit summary

Nonetheless, I saw no reason for Kzzl's change... and thought it a bit disruptive, but I didn't want to smear that assumption (that might have been my erroneous appreciation of the situation) in the edit summary - that would have been an even worse use of edit summaries.

Anyway, I much liked your initiative to de-block (deblokkeren, hoe zeg je dat in't engels?) the Editing policies proposal by wikipedia:Policy patrol --Francis Schonken 10:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy Patrol

Heh, yea, I think I have a pretty good grasp of policy. I'm willing to take a straw-test if you wish. Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 22:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

My proposal for AfD reform is up

So, I've made public my proposal for AfD reform, as per your suggestion. It appears to be enjoying nice support so far, including from Jimbo. El_C 04:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No comment so far? I urge you to do so soon, as it appears support by those who feel AfD is fine as it is is increasing. Thanks. El_C 18:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, support is currently four times the size of the opposition (knock on cat). I was just panicking. Good reception for my proposal for specific prospective categories, too. Which isn't to say that I should start being complacent (so, let someone else do it!). El_C 06:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying you have no idea how to effectively implement the technical side of this proposal? Because that would be bad. :( El_C 12:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Not much detail to read through on that front. The technical matter involves having the categories exist alongside the current master list, and setting up the technical basis for category selection at the nomination stage. El_C 13:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Op tijd

Het was er vanochtend toch op tijd. Bedankt. Waerth 09:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sandifer article

What are the "obvious legal and tactical reasons"? Why is this "the right thing"? None of the people supporting the deletion are being very coherent or logical about their reasons. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If one is involved in a "situation", one does not divulge information. In this case wikipedia is tangentially involved, and it would be immoral to undermine the real life of one of our editors? I feel like everyone it talking in code. What "information" is being "divulged" by including public information in an article? Whose "real life" is being "undermined"? Do you think that Phil would object to this article? If so, have you asked him? Can someone be explicit, rather than speaking in riddles? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't not speak in riddels (sorry), but I'm shutting up now. Based on new information, I withdraw my opposition . Sorry about that. Kim Bruning 22:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

IRC

I'm deepshuck - bumm13 banned me for saying "bite me" to him. --SPUI (T - C) 23:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer DRV

Hello,

As I have just commented at DRV, I can assure you that I would AfD nom this if it were undeleted, as I'm sure many other admins would also. I'm not convinced it passes A7, and it certainly isn't a sure keep. If you're serious about avoiding forest-fire above all else, your first instinct was correct, and you might wish to consider changing back to it.

This has nothing to do with Mr. Sandifer -- it has to do with the evidence presented in the article. According to encyclopedic standards to which the community typically adheres, I cannot imagine this article remaining kept without a lengthy AfD. Best wishes, Xoloz 03:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I too do not understand how a) an AFD would cause a forestfire and b) how undeleting it and saying "You cannot AFD this." would not cause an uproar. If it is undeleted, someone is going to AFD it. c) If there needs to be calm discussion in a back alley somewhere with that making the decision (I'm sure people will be happy with that!) why do we need to have the article undeleted in the meantime? Kotepho 12:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I propose letting the DRV sit for 10 days with the article deleted. If by that time there still isn't consensus on the issue of notability I think AFD would be appropriate. It isn't the first time a wikipedian has an article written about them and it isn't going to be the last. However, you are screwed both ways. If it is deleted (or kept undeleted) cabalistically people will raise a stink about that (it is already on wikitruth even?), but AFD has the potential to become a huge mess also (it hasn't particularlly been the case in the past, but this situation is different). I just don't see a cogent argument for "undelete and don't afd we don't want forestfires." Also, implying that people are either stupid or not making their own decisions doesn't seem to be the nicest thing ("the lemming option"). Kotepho 12:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If I had been following the discussion? Isn't that rather presumptious of you? Considering I frequent the Wikipedia Review and I've posted in most of the threads involving this topic and that I read wikien-l I believe that I am abreast of the situtation. Also, I am not sure what the issue is other than notability and verfiability. Snowy has said that he doesn't mind the article and that he doesn't think he is notable and we certainly do not normally give much weight to a subject's opinion (cf. Daniel Brandt and Ashida Kim). Kotepho 12:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If Snowspinner does have some skeletons in his closet and Brandt or Amorrow finds them I am sure that they can get the word out without using Wikipedia, but he is a big boy that can handle himself. Nevertheless, that is not the sort of thing that should be allowed on wikipedia so I would be likely to revert it anyways. I already have DRV watchlisted and habitually check discussions I am involved in anyways \= Kotepho 13:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kim,

I don't consider the tone you've taken with me to be entirely appropriate -- of course, my interests are for the encyclopedia. As Mr. Sidaway is fond of saying, the encyclopedia comes first: Sandifer does not so obviously belong such that an AfD can be avoided. If his article is undeleted, it will be AfDed for the sake of the encyclopedia -- I will not avoid conflict at the cost of the integrity of encyclopedic standards. I will do the AfD -- if you don't want the AfD, hope for the keep deleted group to succeed at DRV. Those are your two choices. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. Hope you feel better! You always seem like such a nice, funny guy -- I wish we didn't disagree as often as we do. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 16:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak and arbitration

If I see support for the idea, I'll likely be filing an RfAr over Linuxbeak's actions and the events which ensued. El_C 22:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

RE:Request by User:Kim Bruning

I merely request that - as per usual- the arbitration committee simply applies the rule that activities outside wikipedia by any of the parties do not apply on the wiki itself. This rule happens to protect Blue Aardvark, but it also protects Raul654 and Linuxbeak, and many other key wikipedians going about their daily business. — Hey, whoa, what, wheem? I'm a bit confused here. Could you give me a link to that rule? And also, could you explain what you wish its application to results in, practically? In terms of the 3 people you mentioned? Thx! El_C 11:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I got your note, but would you mind answering the (previous) above question, for ex., in relation to WP:NPA#Off-wiki personal attacks. Thx again! El_C 19:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

IRC

Hi Kim, could you please check in on IRC and give me a ping there. I've tried to send an email to you, but you've chosen for that option to not be available. I'd like to get a message to you before 21.30 CET today. Siebrand 13:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah drat, I was going to fix that. Let's see... Kim Bruning 16:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

User talk:SlimVirgin

To clear up any confusion -- Jayjg removed a Wikipedia Review person's encouraging SlimVirgin to stay gone. Jkelly 23:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That earlier one that I removed was a Zephram Stark puppet/imposter. 15:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm

You're a good one to talk. Guettarda 15:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

SV talk page of limtited value

Hi. I agree with your comment on Slim Virgins talk page, as my comments are now being removed. Then I wanted to endorse your comment, below, and it was also removed, and was not even negative toward SV, only supported the same statement you made. I feel this is blatant censorship and ask you to help in restoring it.

I stated my view, responding, to your comment below about when I think for sure SV will be back in full action but it was suppressed and reverted. I asked why but there was no answer, just another revert. This underscores the message of this section in regards to silencing any voices, opinions that state a view with commentary that can be interpreted as negative. I don't have any agenda as im not anti or pro SV, but I do have a view on the incident. Its sad that not all views are tolerated, and does make this talk page of limited value as a result. This comment will probably be removed as well per the pattern. If you support my view, Bhandani, I hope you will restore this if and when its removed. Giovanni33 17:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC) [2]Giovanni33 17:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm puzzeled. Hopefully she'll show up on skype sometime soon. Kim Bruning 17:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Any group of civilized people will censor whatever their society cannot face. The particular case here is interesting by illustrating that WhatTheSocietyCannotFace need not be negative but can be merely procedural. --Rednblu 18:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If the group of people can not tolerate allowing an expression of rather harmless contrary ideas then they are not too civilized in my mind.Giovanni33 19:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So you think a civilized society should allow more expression of contrary ideas than a barbarian society? I think I would agree, but I am repeatedly disappointed. :)) --Rednblu 19:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The line between these forms of a society are always in state of flux as is the society itself which moves in ways closer to one end or the other. A crucial element deciding where things go is the active involvement of its citizens taking a stand for the values they believe in. With the use of reason to voice dissent and then defend that dissent, the forces of reason do win within the realm of ideas (take a look at the argument on my talk page for a perefect example). However it also requires that that good thinking be backed up with actions that reflect it. The idea is not simply to understand the world but to change it. In order to do this people must get together and support each other. Its always being changed so it's important that the englightened elements of a society/community do not abicate their responsiblity for playing their own role, however limited.Giovanni33 20:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well said, thank you! --Rednblu 20:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

suggestions at the WP in 8 words merge thread

Wikipedia_talk:Simplified_Ruleset#Merge_suggestions.3F. i had a few ideas. feedback hoped for :) -Quiddity 02:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much!

Thanks for wishing me luck with that problem, I appreciate the thought! ~Kylu (u|t) 04:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Guesswork?

Are there practical reasons for not making the details public (and discouraging public guesswork), or is it only for the benefit of his reputation? Considering (what I'm assuming are) the remaining circumstances, I would have expected a more public response, pour encourager les autres. Kirill Lokshin 21:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Meh, you don't have to tell me ;-) (I'm fairly confident, at this point, that I've figured out the majority of it. Quite by accident, too; certain unexpected things tend to come up when doing obvious Google searches. I assume, of course, that the ArbCom has more concrete evidence.)

I agree that, all things considered, he probably doesn't deserve further punishment. Given recent events, though, I am ambivalent as to whether making an example of him—cruel as that might be—may be necessary to prevent a repeat. Kirill Lokshin 21:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching

You are signed up as a volunteer for the Esperanza admin coaching program, but as far as I can see you are not assigned to anyone as a coach. Are you ok to take on someone? Petros471 20:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure! Kim Bruning 20:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've did a fair number of assignments yesterday, but I've been leaving the best to last ;) As you are one of (if not the, I've not checked that hard!) most experienced admins on the coaches list I thought you'd be the most suitable coach for those who are already admins, or got a lot of experience already. The top request is currently from Bhadani, I did ask him if he still wanted a coach, so far no reply, but if he does then I thought you could help out there. Also Tangotango has requested help from an experienced user, but was willing to be pushed back in the schedule for full coaching (Tango is the next in the queue, the others in front are not currently active), so if you're willing to drop over to User talk:Tangotango and do any informal coaching needed there, that'd be great :) How does that all seem? Petros471 18:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

mediation

User:Ric36, User: Mazzanet,User:Mezzenine, User:Where User: ILovePlankton, User:CelestianPower, User:Linuxerist, User:Tom Beers, User:ComputerJoe, User:Karynn Whopper

Bloody fuck

Forest fire in progress - Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways --SPUI (T - C) 01:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hey Kim Bruning, thank you for your message. I'm actually scheduled to go for an RfA next week - probably on Monday. However, it'd be great if you could coach me on some of the advanced wiki concepts so that I will be better prepared both as an editor and an admin candidate. Thank you, Tangotango 14:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

*drum roll*....

Proudly announcing - WP:GUERRILLA! Coming soon to a dispute near you! :)

By the way, I found out I had, in my initial alpha version, misspelt "guerrilla" as "guerilla", which was irritating, since I found out after I'd migrated the damn thing to Wikipedia: space. I just, in my pedantic way, thought I'd mention it.--NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

My evil question

As I pointed out on User talk:Kimchi.sg, would you mind not talking about "on how to answer Petros471s evil question about Ignore All Rules". Obviously if you're on IRC I can't know if you do, and if you hadn't dropped that note on the talk page I wouldn't have know you were planning to, so I'll just have to trust you to respect this, but I'd find it far more helpful to know the candidates views on the subject rather than yours. After Kimchi has answered that question feel free to share your views on the subject with him/her/anyone! Hope that makes sense :) Petros471 21:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit silly at times, though I mean no harm. :) Kim Bruning 22:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Petros471 08:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I've no doubt that you mean no harm! I'm slightly puzzled by what you mean by 'a bit silly at times' in this context? Anyway now that Kimchi has answered the question, I'd be interested to hear what your thoughts are on the matter (the IAR/process question). Petros471 08:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind cribbing answers on IAR from Kim! :D However, your message was lost in the flood of changes to my page after I launched my RfA, and I never got around to responding until 2 days later. :(

P.S. I'm on IRC now, and I don't seem to see you. What's your nick? Kimchi.sg 13:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ohhh, I might have kim, kim_, kim_register, or kim_bruning, depending on the irc weather (eh? that's actually a lot less simple than I remember it). But just ask people if they've seen me, there's always someone who knows, it seems.

And... cribbing answers off me? Who says I was going to make things easy for you? ;-) <innocent look> Kim Bruning 20:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA vote

What the heck did that support vote mean? I also sent you e-mail with this question. Appreciate the vote, but confused. moink 21:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

now you know ;-) Kim Bruning 22:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

G. Patrick Maxwell (as opposed to James Clerk Maxwell)

Thanks for the edit. You correctly read the case. The appeals court did find that he had, in fact, not informed his patient. What was sent back to the trial court was instruction that the jury/fact-finder could then infer that the failure was 'concealment' since he had a duty to disclose. That concealment was critical, because that was an exception that would toll the statute of limitations. Had she pursued it further in court, she would have had to prove 'damages' (what was the harm) and causation (the failure to inform did cause the harm). We don't know what happened there, since there is no further court case. Josse added the class action settlement release....These are important in a bio, if it is not to appear as a CV. But there has been ongoing warring over this, because the author was a student of Maxwell's and evident fan.

Oh, I think your summary was stellar. There is no need to go into more detail, but it should at least be mentioned. Even the mention of it was rigorously attacked by the author of the article. MollyBloom 00:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope the student(?) is also happy with the way I put it now :-) <cross fingers> Else it might still need some tweaking. Kim Bruning 00:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I found the facts of that case egregious. But, the only way the student (now a plastic surgeon) will be happy is to have no mention of anything negative. He continually removed that paragraph, including what Jossi added, claiming it was not 'relevant'. So the only tweaking that will satisfy him is total removal. These facts are most certainly relevant to any biography , but not what you would want to include if you were publishing a CV or a marketing promotion.MollyBloom 01:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess everyone does something controversial from time to time. I'll wait to hear from the student himself. Who knows, I'm sure it'll be possible to find a compromise! :-) Kim Bruning 01:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with my colleague Molly Bloom. I still think the G. Patrick Maxwell article is Vanispamcruftisement and it ought to be deleted. Gfwesq 01:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, seeing all the Pubmed IDs quoted, he has published quite a bit, so I guess that's not too bad. Kim Bruning 01:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

All academics publish, and many publish voluminously. This man's publications is not extraordinary for academics. However, that has been discussed, and the vote for now was to keep the article. At the very least, it should not be a puff piece, which is what it was, and what the author has attempted ot make it.MollyBloom 20:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't he an (assistant) professor? Typically that's notable enough that you can find sufficient reliable information on a person. Perhaps only just, but still. :-) Kim Bruning 20:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

An assistant professor is not sufficiently notable for a bio, no. If so, there would be thousands and thousands. I have some experience with academia, and it would be ludicrous to create an encyclopedia bio for every assistant professor, or every professor, for that matter. But the arguing about that is over, as far as I can tell. Unrelated to his 'notability', however, I would never go to this doctor!MollyBloom 00:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Kim, what I object to is the inclusion of an untried allegation in a 20 year old lawsuit. This patients claim was never in fact never tested other then the fact that it was remanded back for consideration. Regardless, an obscure & unpublicized med-mal claim would not be ordinarily included in any bio-sketch of a figure noted for academic/surgical contributions. BTW, I hope you find it as amusing as everyone else how MollyBloom has decided that she is able to assess who is notable in a field she in fact knows nothing about. Please examine the political editing carried out between related entries on breast implants.Droliver 13:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

FIRST.This is an example of the personal insults in which Oliver frequently engages. Notability is not at issue here. Moreover, most of the editors who did weigh in on notability were not 'experts in the field.' Rob's comments are again gratuitously insulting. This is not an article on breast implants. It is a biography, or an alleged biography. I have edited on many articles, mostly on legal issues.

SECOND. Inclusion of court cases (plural). Rob did not even mention that it was not I, but Jossi, who included the second point on the federal class action release. Rob doesn't address this at all, but merely deleted it along with the court case he so desperately wants to keep out. Secondly, I did not first add the edit about the court case. Rob continually credits me with it, but it was not I who first wrote it.

THIRD. I believe you have read the case, which is less than 10 years old, and have seen what the court found and did not find. The allegation that Maxwell did not tell his patient that he used silicone implants most certainly was 'tried' - it was the basis for the reversal of the dismissal. That is an important fact. The court futher instructed the lower court (when remanding the case) that the lower court could infer "fraudulent concealment" from the fact that Maxwell did not tell his patient about the use of implants. Other bios include far less 'concrete' allegations of wrongdoing, or ethical violations, when discussing both positive and negative.

FOUTH.It is evident from Oliver's continual inclusions of grandiose claims (many which have been removed) with no reference, and insistance that nothing negative be added, that he is too emotionally invested in this to write an objective biography. Wikipedia is not a vanity press.MollyBloom 14:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

MollyBloom 14:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I get the impression you're both somewhat emotionally invested here. I wonder!

Hmmm, well, just in case I guess I'd best mention that Wikipedia guidelines discourage editing about things you're attached to. The reason is that it's so hard to stay neutral then. Of course, if you can actually pull off getting this article NPOVed, you'll both be able to handle just about anything. How's that for a challenge? :-)

Let's look at some of the cards on the table. Which objective things can we agree on. Would these do?

• We know that the court cases happened
• We know that current consensus is to keep the article, or at least not delete it.

I'd better check though. (preferably before I go put my foot in it ;-)
Do you disagree on either of those, MollyBloom?

Actually, there was 'no consensus', so that translates by default to 'keep'. And yes, the court cases happened. MollyBloom 22:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How about you, Droliver?

Kim Bruning 19:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC) (ps. if you like, you can use the wikipedia email-this-user feature to contact me as well)

We know the court case happened only because it's archived online from one of Google's spider-bots. This is the crux of the argument over relevence. There is no other reference to this on any source anywhere or in any media outlet which would imply that the accustaion is either notable or newsworthy. It in fact is a hanging accusation from an obscure med-mal case in a dispute over informed consent from a surgery performed nearly 20 years ago. The validity of the accusation itself has never been tested & featuring it produces one of those "So, do you still beat your wife?" implications. If this story had been picked up on the newswire and featured in the media, you could then argue that it would be de facto newsworthy. The same can be said of the mention of Dr. Maxwell being released from the breast implant settlement (where he was among dozens of physicians listed who held patents with various manufacturers on devices). It's procedural rubbish picked up by web-bots which in this instance are non-contributory to overview biographies.

I am emotionally invested in the sense that I spent a great deal of time working on an entry on someone I respect personally & professionally. There is complete transparency on my involvement in making this entry better. You can contrast this to the editorial involvement of two others (in particular) who do not seem interested in contributing content on the subject's body of work, but are content to rage a political attack against someone they in fact know nothing about. I'll let you sort out Molly's emotional involvement in this for yourself.Droliver 15:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There are two court cases here.

• 1. We know the court case happened because it is comes up with any googling, and it is freely available on the Tennessee court's web page. There was a factual finding, as anyone can read.
• 2. The second case relates to the federal litigation, in which Maxwell was one of the released parties. I did not add this, by the way. Jossi did, yet Oliver deleted it too.

I think we all know that Maxwell was your teacher.MollyBloom 16:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted back to the version that many editors had worked on. I added back in a couple of the corporate links highlighting Maxwell, which should be okay?

Oliver is, at this point, vandalizing by repeatedly removing a whole section of text that 5 different editors contributed to. Gfwesq worte the paragraph (and no, that is not I. If you have any questions, please email me. We share an IP, but are not the same people.) Among the text that Oliver removed and does not address is an entirely separate sentence about the fed case. Jossi added this. Is he going to accuse me of being Jossi, also?

The validitiy of the accusation in the first court case was tested in the sense that there was a ruling and instructions to the lower court, if Oliver could (or would) read it. And, there is no lack of transparency with me or other editors. Oliver has repeatedly accused me of being Gfwesq, which in fact, is not the case, and has been proven not to be the case. I will not defend myself against Oliver's attacks.MollyBloom 16:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This was copied from the discussion page on Maxwell. And, I can only say repeatedly and emphatically that Gfwesq and I are NOT the same person. We share an IP. We frequently do not agree on things, and do suggest as Oliver did, that we are one person is ridiculous. (You try getting two lawyers in the same household!) If anyone needs 'proof' of this, we can provide it (as Gfwesq did before on this issue).

Point of fact: DrOliver has challenged me, not Molly, because I was the one who read the case, realized its significance in the life of Maxwell, whose only notability, if any at all, is his professional life. Unfortunately (and this is not "not assuming good faith") is that Droliver, the protege, is much too close to his mentor, Dr. Maxwell, to write an objective bio entry and assess the relevance of the case. DrOliver's theory appears to be that only cases where wrong doing was found by the trier of fact should be included. However, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the Wiki article on Clarence Darrow includes allegations of jury tampering and a JURY found on the MERITS that Darrow was innocent of the charge. Under DrOliver's theory, the jury tampering charge shouldn't be mentioned at all, because Darrow was cleared of the charge. I disagree Gfwesq 17:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict with gfwesq) So we've pretty much established that you both agree that the court cases happened, and that wikipedia consensus says that this article won't go away anytime soon. So the article stays, and the court cases are real.

Now what to do with them?

Court cases are well documented. We typically trust a judge to know what (s)he's doing most of the time, just like we trust an assistant professor in the same way. Courts make findings and report on them publically already. This is in parralel to journalism, so we don't need a journalist to be involved here (re:"not in the news"). I'm a bit puzzeled why one would think so, but... nevermind.

Still with me so far? Please say so if you're not.

The way I see it is that we can now concentrate on what to say about the court cases here. I don't think we should remove them, since we just agreed that they exist. The wikipedia guidelines say we should report on them objectively (Our famous NPOV guideline, in fact). We're not here to tell the reader what to think. Let's give them the facts and let them make up their own mind! :-) So what things should be mentioned?

I know Droliver and MollyBloom each have rather different views on things that should be said. MollyBloom will want to mention that the court of appeals did find certain points. Droliver will want to mention that all this happened 20 years ago, and that the case was not persued further.

Let's put those points forward, and let the reader decide.

Could you each tell me which points you absolutely want to have in there? Let's try to focus on just those points. Make sure to try to always blame the procedure, not the person. :-)

Kim Bruning 18:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That is reasonable, Kim. I was content to have it as it is, which is about as short as it can get. What I state below are legally undisputable facts of the case.

I included the year that the surgery occurred, which was 1987:

• In late 1997, Maxwell was sued by a patient for allegedly implanting her in 1987 with silicone breast implants without her consent. The case was initially dismissed by the trial court on a motion for summary judgment. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s ruling, reinstated the case, and remanded it to the lower court. The court concluded that dismissing the case was in error, because "fraudulent concealment" would toll the statute of limitations. The court included instructions that the lower court could infer fraudulent concealment, because Maxwell had a duty to tell his patient he used silicone implants. There were no subsequent published decisions in the case.
• Maxwell is also one of the released parties in an October 1998 proposed settlement in the Federal implant litigation related to silicone gel implant products.

These are the court's exact words:

After thorough review of the record, we find that there is evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on all of the key elements of fraudulent concealment. We hold that the jury could reasonably find that Dr. Maxwell concealed the use of silicone breast implants by leading Ms. Merlo to believe that saline implants were used in her procedures. The jury could also infer concealment from Dr. Maxwell’s failure to disclose the use of the silicone gel implants and the risks and potential complications involved despite a relationship creating a duty to disclose. Through both Dr. Maxwell’s failure to disclose that silicone implants were used and his actions which led Ms. Merlo to believe that saline implants were used in all operations, a jury could reasonably infer that Dr. Maxwell had knowledge of the facts giving rise to the cause of action.

We are also persuaded that Ms. Merlo could have reasonably believed Dr. Maxwell, despite her physical ailments, when he told her that she was receiving saline breasts implants. Furthermore, "[w]hether the plaintiff exercised reasonable care and diligence in discovering the injury or wrong is usually a question of fact for the jury to determine. Shadrick v. Coker 963 S.W.2d 726, 737 (Tenn. 1998) (quoting Wyatt v. A-Best, Co., 910 S.W.2d 851, 854 (Tenn.1995)). Finally, we also find that Ms. Merlo’s Complaint contained sufficient allegations, specifically those relied upon above, to support a claim of fraudulent concealment.

I did not suggest we include the allegation that Maxwell's admitted alcoholism contributed to his poor judgment, or the allegations of cocaine addiction. That also was in the case. "Dr. Maxwell responded to this Interrogatory by stating: "On January 18, 1997, I voluntarily admitted myself to an alcohol rehabilitation/ treatment center for alcohol dependency, and I successfully completed that program. I do not have possession of my ‘complete treatment record.’""

The whole case can, of course, be read at the link provided.MollyBloom 00:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

reply

Convieniently left out of the description of the procedings was the qualifier that their decision was just on the summary judgement aspect of the case rather then any finding of fact per se.

"we hold that more than one conclusion can be drawn from the evidence presented for the reasons stated above.  Therefore, we find that this is not an appropriate case for summary judgment." Again if no outcome is going to be provided on an untested allegation, it is not even appropraite to begin to discuss it's mention.

Again there is still not one argument being made for how this obscure procedural decision is relevent in a bio-sketch! There are no other references to this case in any media. There is no record of sanctions by the TN medical board agaist Dr. Maxwell. Nothing. The parallel Molly makes of allegations against other public figures being included in other entries makes no sense when the event in question is unknown. As such if no context of relevence can be established to the figure in question it is inapproriate for inclusion merely for tabloid value.Droliver 02:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

SHS article

• Who is "we" and what are they looking into?
• I have no idea.
• I have never used irc and I doubt I will have time for anything tomorrow. Adam 00:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Agateller

Hi Kim. Just for you, I made a very careful and thoughtful argument about my opposition to this user being an admin at this time. No doubt you will declare my reasons invalid when you use the RfA as ammo in your current crusade, but I figure I'll ask in advance... why? -- SCZenz 06:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I see relatively few talk, and even fewer project, edits. This user is clearly a solid editor, but I also like to see clear indications of knowing policy and the ability to handle stressful situations—and sufficient time spent to show if any of these things are lacking. If Agateller does lots of well-thought-out useful edits, but doesn't interface much with users and policy, then I have no way of telling if he'll deal with being an admin well or not. I certainly hope so, and I think it's highly likely, but I've seen admins who seemed perfectly good and then started biting newbies once they got a block button—hence my requirements for broad experience and a substantial number of edits. -- SCZenz 17:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question on my page (Kim), I don't have an IRC client installed, for security reasons (and because I don't really have any regular need for IRC). I do read e-mail quite regularly (all day long, if I'm at home). Agateller 04:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Responses to your questions

On IRC, you had said:

[07:51:56] <kim_register> Okay in that case 2 questions for you
[07:52:01] <kim_register> explain the policy trifecta
[07:52:08] <kim_register> and explain the foundation issues
[07:52:14] <kim_register> do you know where to find them?
[07:52:24] <kim_register> (these are my standard questions btw :-) )
[07:52:33] <kimchi_sg> foundation issues: on meta.
[07:52:37] <kim_register> (everyone who asks me to comment on them on irc always gets asked them :-P )
[07:53:05] <kimchi_sg> and trifecta at WP:TRI
[07:53:57] <kimchi_sg> IAR is 1/3 of the trifecta, the other 2/3 being 'don't be a dick' and 'NPOV'
[07:55:33] <kim_register> right... so, why did this due pick those three?
[07:55:40] <kim_register> and do you agree with his choices?

Below are my answers to your questions.

The policy trifecta has three components: Mind NPOV, Don't be a dick, and Ignore all rules. As Wikipedia:Policy trifecta explains, these are necessary rules for writing an encyclopedia by a community based on the wiki system.

"Mind NPOV" is the attitude we must have when writing articles. It ensures all views are fairly represented and that there is no bias. It follows from this policy that we must list our sources of information, and that we cannot write our own unpublished work into articles. This is the only way our work can be considered "encyclopedic". Hence, I concur with Seth Ilys' choice of this rule with respect to article content.

"Don't be a dick" is our necessary attitude when interacting with other editors. It ensures that the community does not break up through expressions of personal attacks and incivility. As with "Mind NPOV", it is a critical rule, but in personal interactions instead of article content.

"Ignore all rules" is the suggested attitude we should bear in mind as individual editors. It encourages newbies to be bold, and to make changes to the article as they deem necessary to improve it. (By "newbie", I do not mean only those who are new to the 'pedia; as editors, we are bound sooner or later to edit an article in a subject area we are unfamiliar with - for example I haven't edited any mathematics, zoology, or religion articles in a long time! In that case, I'd call myself a newbie to those articles.) However, I disagree with Seth's choice here, and would have used "Use common sense" instead - too many editors nowadays are ignoring rules against common sense, to the detriment of the wiki and against the purpose of writing an encyclopedia. We should teach people to be bold, for sure, but also to make do sensible things, and that is what "Use common sense" embodies.

The foundation issues are: NPOV as the guiding editorial principle, Ability of anyone to edit articles without registering, The "wiki process" as the final authority on content, Copyleft licensing of content; in practice, GFDL, and Jimbo Wales as ultimate authority on any matter. These are long-standing core principles that the Wikimedia projects have adopted. I believe that these are also what keeps Wikipedia editing a bearable experience.

As has been explained earlier, "NPOV" is the ultimate way we keep our articles encyclopedic. Allowing "anyone to edit articles without registering" is great, because anonymous editing is a convenient way to introduce newcomers to the wiki style of editing. Having "the "wiki process" as the final authority in content" ensures that no one censors our content the way other encyclopedias, such as Baidupedia, do. "Copyleft licensing of content" ensures that our content can be freely copied, used, and forked, so what we have written will still be useful even if Wikipedia were to shut down some day. "Jimbo as the ultimate authority" emphasises the role that Jimbo plays as president of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Hope I have satisfactorily answered your questions!

P.S. After reading my answers, you are still under no obligation to comment or vote on my RfA.

Regards, Kimchi.sg 13:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

mediation case

I would like to take on the case 2006-06-20 Crimean war but I think one of the participants may have a bad impression of me. I spoke with Cowman who recommended I speak with you about "an experimental guerilla mediation". Would you be willing to do this? (you can reply here I'll watchlist you) Ideogram 17:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, someone else has taken the case. Ideogram 00:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP ON G PATRICK MAXWELL page

Rob simply ignored everything you wrote, and I wrote, and deleted the lawsuits. Please help with this.MollyBloom 03:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Again there is still not one argument being made for how this obscure procedural decision is relevent in a bio-sketch! There are no other references to this case in any media. There is no record of sanctions by the TN medical board agaist Dr. Maxwell. Nothing. The parallel Molly makes of allegations against other public figures being included in other entries makes no sense when the event in question is unknown. As such if no context of relevence can be established to the figure in question it is inapproriate for inclusion merely for tabloid value.

This is being officially mediated elsewhere here and until then it's not going to stay as it is an inflamatory charge left hanging. Molly is concerned with this beyond rational comprehension

Droliver 02:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So you both disagree on the interpretation of the documents. That's fine, because it's fortunately not relevant.

Wikipedia guidelines state that we are not to interpret. We do have court documents, and it is not our duty (today at least) to decide whether they are relevant or not.

We've been told to keep the article, and the guidelines say that we must report neutrally on what we know. Omission bias is still a bias.

So we've drifted off topic. Coming back to writing an encyclopedia, I'd like to hear from both of you what should be mentioned about the cases. This time, please contact me by e-mail. (use the E-mail this user option to send mail per wikipedia email)

Kim Bruning 20:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I emailed you. Can you state these things on the article's discussion page, please? MollyBloom 01:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Can I just thank you for your friendliness on IRC. The truth can be annoying, but it's better than lies. I appreciate your feedback. Have a barnstar, if you accept them. Computerjoe's talk 21:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

elections

I am sorry that you consider elections to be a threat against the coordinator. I'm sorry I do not accept your authority as "the last word on organisation" [3] and I do not consider that political difference to be justification for your actions. I consider elections a vehicle for legitimacy. I certainly had no intention of threatening anyone when I called for elections and you will note I nominated Cowman109 to remain as coordinator. I am deeply disappointed that you chosen to go the route of bans, threats, and defamation on talk pages rather than bring this to dispute resolution. I find it very troubling that people who claim to head dispute resolution services refuse to make use of wikipedia's dispute resolution. I hope at some point you become willing to engage the mediation committee or arbitration committee regarding your status. jbolden1517^Talk 23:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You made some very unwise statements per email. Calling an election while failing to try to reach consensus first is a separate matter entirely. I could certainly have ALSO called you to task on that, and many other things, but I now no longer need to address those matters. Come back in 6 months or so.

I have made no ban, no threat, and truth is an absolute defence against defamation. I have simply stated that I tried trusting you and found you to be unreliable.

The mediation committee and arbitration committee are well aware of the status of the mediation cabal, and are watching it carefully. I can't use loose cannons in such circumstances. Kim Bruning 09:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You have issued a ban on mediation cabal. Even a page ban requires an arb committee ruling. Again I find it disappointing you refuse to follow dispute resolution procedures that are wikipedia policy rather than creating your own. jbolden1517^Talk 11:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You misread. Kim Bruning 13:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm glad we at least agree on the wikipedia rules regarding page bans. I would ask you to inform Cowman109 that you have not issued such a page ban. He believes you have and sees himself as enforcing it. 14:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the specific issue? I don't think I've seen a specific communication on-wiki relating to a ban on editing any particular page? Can you explain? Kim Bruning 16:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Friendly

According to this, New York is the friendliest city in the world. And I believe it! Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 09:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

<scratches head> Well, perhaps other american cities could still be politer? NYC was the only .us city tested, apparently. Americans all seem very polite. Kim Bruning 09:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA

Hi, I wanted to submit my RfA, but can't figure out how to do it!

could you help me please!

--Joshuarooney2006 12:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Then you are not ready. Kim Bruning 13:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

July is stocked with tips. Could you look them over please?

I've filled July with a selection of tips from the tip authoring page, revisions of previously posted tips, some brand new ones, and some combinations. If you would be so kind as to look them over before they hit the mainstream Wikipedian audience, I'd really appreciate it. --Go for it! 17:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Read more: Tip of the day

wikiBBQ

ik dacht dat jij oop uitgenodigd wou worden op O&G's :), 16 juli in Eindhoven nl:Wikipedia:Ontmoeten Henna 18:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Counter-Strike maps AFD

Hi Kim! The rationale for deletion is Wikipedia is not a game strategy guide. Proto///type 17:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, no "wrong"s here. I think I maybe have some kind of mental block. How can an article about a map used in a game ever be encyclopedic? At least all the warcraft location articles have got plot stuff, history, mythology etc. These bad boys have none of that, nor could they. Proto///type 18:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Avillia/Wikimania_CVBR

Enjoy. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 01:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Syracuse

Thanks for looking into our little Syracuse melodrama. As I look at all that has been written in that discussion page I can only think of all the wonderful articles all that thought could have created. Good luck clearing this up so that everyone involved can get back to work!--Niro5 15:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

IRC discussion...Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith

Hello Kim Bruning. ; - ) This is a follow up to our private IRC chat. You asked for specific examples that showed my concern. I'll send you several emails this week. You can look for the first one sometime in the next 24 hours. Since we are busy people, unable to set large blocks of time aside, our discussion will take the form of multiple short emails over the next few weeks, okay?

To dispel alarm about my first email, I offer you this preview of coming attractions...I write:

"Assume good faith is the bedrock of our Wikipedia community. Without this vital policy, our community is doomed. Kim, the same holds true for our discussion. Our encounter will be a lost opportunity, a waste of our valuable time; unless we acknowledge the other's good intentions..."

I'll be in touch soon, Take care, FloNight ^talk 01:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Just give me the bottom line thanks. Kim Bruning 02:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Your RFA protection challenge

I don't know if you noticed my reply to your challenge. I admin to failing it, but I'd still love to hear your 5 reasons :) Petros471 13:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA. The final vote was 68/21/3 and resulted in me becoming an admin!

For those of you who supported my RfA, I highly appreciate your kind words and your trust in me. For those who opposed - many of you expressed valid concerns regarding my activity here; I will make an effort in addressing them as time goes on while at the same time using my admin tools appropriately. So, salamat, gracias, merci, ありがとう, спасибо, धन्यवाद, 多謝, agyamanak unay, شكرًا, cảm ơn, 감사합니다, mahalo, ขอบคุณครับ, go raibh maith agat, dziękuję, ευχαριστώ, Danke, תודה, mulţumesc, გმადლობთ, etc.! If you need any help, feel free to contact me.

PS: I took the company car (pictured left) out for a spin, and well... it's not quite how I pictured it. --Chris S. 23:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Me too!

		Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
		To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 20:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Kim! Do you see the Invisible pink unicorn yet? ~Kylu (u|t) 20:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Jimbo makes mistakes

Attack pages are attack pages, no matter what namespace they're even, and even if they attack is on Jimbo. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the content. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason Jimbo Wales has the final say in all decisions on Wikipedia is because his office chair is within reaching distance of the power strip supplying electricity to the Wikipedia servers. It is not because he is especially smart or has made particularly good decisions in the past.

When Jimbo is simply discussing something and does not specifically state that he is making policy, there is no reason to assume that his opinion is the right one.

Even when he is making a decree, no decision of Jimbo's has a Golden Bull attached. If you believe something he said is wrong, you are free to discuss it. If you disagree with a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia, such as the neutral point of view, you are free to fork the database and work on your own version.

Template:Afdf

Please comment on its TfD if you don't mind it. I'm having a bad-hair day, and your clever persuasion and charm may well convince me to withdrawn my nomination. :) Kimchi.sg 13:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you already have. :> Kimchi.sg 13:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikimania!!!!!!

When you get to the Boston area, try to find me. jkbaumga 22:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You rang?

Hello Kim : - ) Heard that you were asking for me on IRC. The best way to reach me is on my talk page or by email. Look for an email from me later today. Take care, FloNight ^talk 23:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Your note

I understand what you are saying and you have explained your comments to my satisfaction. Reading them with the body of other Support and especially on top of other veiled remarks I found it all quite disenheartening. And even though yours were not the worst, I just felt it was time to challenge someone about the issue. I'm glad you were able to take it so calmly and discuss it with me. I realize it is natural to dismiss people who disagree with you, especially about something like this. However I think you can understand how important it is that people are comfortable sharing their true opinions on RfA without feeling as if they will be discredited for going against the popular opinion in the "respectable" crowd. The fact is I considered ignoring this RfA, because I knew that I must oppose. That I felt uneasy about it made me aware there is a real problem with the current proccess. I get a very storng feeling people are approaching RfA as "what must we do/say to make sure Foo passes/fails," rather looking at it as a process to share their experiences regarding Foo and discover what other peoples experiences have been. There are many problems with RfA at en.WP but I think remarks to discredit or dismiss people of the opposite opinion as a whole are the most damaging. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA/Che Nuevara

I am writing to say, I find your behavior unacceptable, and am not planning to respond on the RfA page. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What you're doing - aggressively questioning oppose voters - amounts to borderline harassment. People are entitled to their votes, even if they're based squarely on editcountitis, and I believe you ought to severely curtail the exercise of your free speech privilege. Regards, - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read what you wrote on Crz's talk page, about investigating the process. Unfortunately it is a very partial investigation, as you have not subjected supporters to any scrutiny as to their motivations, so it comes across as advocacy, does, if I am to be honest, prove irritating, and does the candidate a disservice as it reflects on them. Tyrenius 23:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim, I have been watching this and thought I would comment. It does look bad when you address each and every oppose vote directly with basically the same question. It would be much less threatening if you simply commented under your own vote, "I do not believe that edit-counts should be a factor and invite those who do to justify their views." This would contain your concerns in one place and avoid the appearance of challenging every oppose vote. (watchlisted you) --Ideogram 23:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Some people are not necessarily using edit count as a particular criterion anyway. If people are, then you've said the answer yourself - the standard is going up. I suggest in the interest of the candidate you remove your questions with a note as to why you asked and why you are now removing. If you're doing a survey, then do it on the users' talk pages after the close of the RfA. If you're being an advocate, then be judicious and restrained - it comes across much better. Tyrenius 01:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would revert, but it wouldn't look very good, so we'll have to move straight to discussion and you can do the reverting yourself! You make good points, but surely the best place is on the RfA talk page. Besides which, people do ask questions anyway. But asking so many and similar ones looks like browbeating. You have to see how it reads to others, and, as I said, it doesn't reflect well on the candidate by association. Tyrenius 01:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suggest you ask them individually on their talk page. Someone's RfA isn't the place. As I've said, it really doesn't come across well. Tyrenius 02:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's just social courtesy, sensitivity to others, appropriateness, etc, nothing else ... Tyrenius 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Translate it into a room full of people, and going up to half the room who hold a certain opinion and asking them the same question one after the other in full view and hearing of everyone else. It would seem a bit obsessive and unnatural to say the least. Tyrenius 02:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss my opinions on the RfA page. I am happy to improve my criteria as well as my opinion in the light of evidence. I am also happy for others to see the discussion, which may help them make an informed decision. In fact, I see keeping RfA from being a simple vote is a positive thing. I don't see having a strong supporter question the thoughts behind opposers as negative. In fact, the more information there is in this regard, the easier it will be for the candidate to improve before his next RfA. Stephen B Streater 08:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Im just curious Kim, why do you question everyone who opposes CheNuevara? I didn't notice you carrying on with the same passion in other RFAs. Anyway, I supported CheNuevara because many say he is fair and he says he is interested in helping with disputes. To me this user is more important to have as an admin than another user who is more concerned about RC patrolling and vandalism. --HResearcher 13:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kim, I was gonna come and put in a friendly note but then I saw everyone else already had, anyway.. I figure on what you doing at the RFA and I agree people who vote purely on the basis of edit counts are wrong, but the point is thats their opinion. You might get them to change their mind but only if you are really really nice about it - and to be honest you got a little bit errrr, not nice (you know what I mean). Probably having the discussion on their talkpages would have been more discreet and drawn less mass and negative attention to what you did :D. Anyway I guess thats what all the others have been saying too, on the other hand good luck with your quest and I hope you succeed in changing some minds! --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 21:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Since many people are commenting on what I'm doing, I'd best put this here as well:

Copied from User_talk:Tyrenius#You_may_have_a_point

I have 3 objectives which I'm trying to reach by this approach

• Stress that it is permitted to ask questions at an RFA. By simply doing this and showing that I don't get shouted down by bureaucrats (they won't!) I hope other people will emulate my behaviour. This is important if we wish to retain the current RFA. If it gets turned into a vote, things will be messy for a while.
• Publicly draw attention to the fact that people are using very high edit count criteria for adminship.
• Get into discussions with new people and discover who is currently watching RFA, as per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

Kim Bruning 01:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Spot check

Thanks for your response! And your answer is fair enough. Are you involved with mediation? If you are then you would have my support whether or not you are an admin. --HResearcher 13:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Antivandals vs. mediators

Too many people are mostly only concerned with anti-vandalism when it comes to ambitions to become an admin. It seems to me some people think they can revert vandalism and PRESTO they have thousands of edits and can become an admin, meanwhile they turn out to be jerks and can't treat newcomers properly. It's a faulty criteria IMHO. Those who demonstrate the ability to fairly and competently mediate are much better admin candidates. Don't get me wrong, I know know antivandalism is important, but those edits don't demonstrate anything but the willingness to CONSTANTLY REVERT! --HResearcher 13:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am almost totally unaware of the hierarchy here in Wikipedia, but I left a message to CheNuevara on his talk page. --HResearcher 14:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:CheNuevara#Mediation

I responded to your comment on my talk page :) - CheNuevara 16:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

RFA reform

Kim - I'd just like to comment because I saw your questions on an RFA that I'm watching. I rarely vote on RFA, though I watch it regularly. I think there are a series of problems, which has created a self-sustaning badprocess. I suspect you may be reaching the same conclusion. This is the timeline of actions, as I see it.

In the long-long ago, we started polling on adminship. It was "trustworthy?" and check the box. This became a more standardized process over time, but retained it's "trustworthy?" check the box nature. One way to gauge trustworthy is edit count and tenure - if someone had edit count and tenure, you could evaluate trustworthy. However, without edit count and tenure they could be gaming the system, so a bunch of people started requiring edit count and tenure. Makes sense.

Newer users without a sense of history show up and see this edit count and tenure requirement and start saying "hey, RFA requires edit count and tenure." So they make that the requirement - they don't know shit from trustworthy but that guy has been here six months and has 1000 edits so go him! If you nominated me for adminship right now, as long as no one who has interacted with me were to find it, I would get a few "24 months + 12371023 edits, promote!" votes. I would be a terrible admin - lack trustworthy.

Tacked onto this process was also the non-scalability. Half of the people going through RFA I don't know from a hole in the wall. So I don't vote - a lot of people, I think, were doing the same thing - "Don't know from hole in wall, no vote." Eventually, and I suspect this was aided by the thanks templates, people realized that to get known by the people who watch RFA, all they had to do was vote a lot. And, beyond this, since you don't make enemies voting Extreme Promote on every RFA (as long as the majority agrees!) you have a lot of pile on voters after the first few have shown the right vote.

This leads to our current proccess, where to be an admin you have to do nothing of consequence that would lead the sheeple to think you might fail RFA, edit for six months, have 1000 edits and vote yes on a lot of other random RFAs. I'm happy to conduct the experiment for/with you, if you're thinking about it, but I think we'd need blessing from on high to do it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Filed

I have asked for abrbitration involving User:Nscheffey. See here. Please post any comments you desire to add. Ste4k 08:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kim. I just saw your message on the request filed. I notified you because some of things mentioned in the evidence refer to conversation that you had. I don't feel it is proper for me to speak about conversations of others without letting them know. Ste4k 16:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

process?

Hi Kim, I think we overran each other at Wikipedia:Process is important - did you mean to reinstate the entire quote after I deleted it? If so, why? It seems to go against the grain of the entire essay, and I was just in the process of asking the original editor what their rationale was when I noticed your edit. Any enlightenment would be helpful, thanks. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me; I'm somewhere solidly between "fuck process" and "process wonk" (call me a radical centrist, maybe). I just didn't know whether you were actually disagreeing with my edit of the essay, or not. I think the quote belongs on the talk page, if anywhere, and not trying to subvert the essay itself (gods know there's enough tit-for-tat between WP:PI and WP:SNOW right now). -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, hell, Process is Important(tm) is plenty controversial. So is IAR, and SNOW, and a bunch of other things, but the former (at least) doesn't try to debate it within the context of the essay itself. We could take this to the essay's talk page and see if other people want to weigh in. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Already added to the essay's talk page; Cerejota came to the same conclusion independently. See you there! -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Analysis

By the time I've had a look, all current RfAs will be over. You seem open to analysis, so I'll look at your edits next ;-) Stephen B Streater 20:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA

I'm terribly sorry if I misinterpreted your comments..it's just that sarcasm runs rampant on Wikipedia, especially among those who disagree, and words like "enlighten" really turn on my sarcasm-detector. But in any event, I think you're right that the wrong types of admins are passing through RfA.

I look for people that are intelligent, civil, hard-working, knowledgeable in the realm of policy, and almost emotionless when it comes to matters of business. Of course, being able to turn off the academic diction and spirit of argumentation is certainly OK, and even desirable, especially in the interest of propagating WikiLove. I have this model of an ideal admin in my head, somewhere between CrazyRussian, Will Beback, Geogre and Centrx (and maybe you, if I knew you a bit better), and I look for this spirit in all candidates. Luckily, experience, participation in meta-wiki dealings, and Rationality can be found in both my ideal candidate and in edit counts with a study of user contributions.

I agree with you that we need more admins apt to dealing with disputes, as the title of "admin" does carry some weight with it in a discussion. I believe we may be able to solve that. I have only been here for a few months, and yet I think that time on Wikipedia is imperative, and we need higher adminship standards. Here's why: I realize that most Wikipedians cringe when they hear about "hierarchies", and in RfA everyone is quick to spout the "Adminship is not a reward" line, but for the ultimate benefit of Wikipedia, hard work should certainly come into play. I've been doing a lot of thinking about the psychology of the Wikipedian, and it has occured to me that, on some level, Wikipedians make contributions in order to earn some sort of recognition. We all do it. I'm sure barnstars have had an enormous impact on productivity. The same rule applies to me--I'm sure that as an IP my contributions were severly lower and less involved than they are now. Just look at how some people (myself included) flaunt their accomplishments on their userpage. Everyone does it (no offense, Geogre). As Sir Walter Ralegh said, "Tell them that brave it most, they beg for more by spending, Who, in their greatest cost, seek nothing but commending."

So, once we make adminship a position for the experienced and the hardworking, it will be the natural response for anyone who wants to be a sysop to get to work and try to impress, whether it be by writing a featured article or making 20,000 edits. The result? Thousands and thousands of hard-working Wikipedians striving for adminship, actively learning policy, and leaving only the cream of the crop at RfA, and improving Wikipedia exponentially.

I don't dare voice this opinion publically, because, well, I know it would be harshly crushed by those under the impression that all efforts of the Wikipedian are altruistic, and no one but myself seeks commendation. I also share your sentiments as for the need for active discussion on RfAs, and I look forward to seeing you around : ) AdamBiswanger1 20:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry - no one can crush an opinion on Wikipedia. And I'm sure you'll make Admin, even if someone asks you to explain this diff: [4]. Stephen B Streater 06:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia contact address

Hi Kim...I am trying to delete my talk pages and you wrote at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7 applied to user talk pages that I could request this by writing an email to the 'wikipedia contact address'. Where can I find this address? PhotoBox 05:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

See the bar to the left? It contains a link: "Contact wikipedia" ;-)

See also [[5]], or use the mail address] if you have other questions. Kim Bruning 08:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers Kim! I had found the "Contact Wikipedia" link earlier but got lost in all the links. PhotoBox 10:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

MedCab

I had a response typed to your last comments at MedCab, but my computer locked up and dumped them off. I was proud of them too. Anyways, what I said stems from a conversation that Kylu, Cowman, and I had on IRC in which at least I felt that if MedCab is going to adopt an advocacy role, that fact needs to be stated on the main MedCab page before someone gets their feelings hurt when we beat them over the head with a policy stick and take sides with the other user. You created a very excellent process for dealing with mediation as an informal process, and now it's starting to pull in a lot of people from the fact that every other form of dispute resolution is backed up. I'd hate to see MedCab descend into the latest Wikipedia group punchline after all of the hard work you and everyone else put into it over the last year, and that's where I'm coming from. Basically, what I was trying to say is that MedCab will help you to the closest resolution possible, but if the dispute descends into edit wars and personal attacks, we're going to WP:IAR and work Wikipedia policy to the full extent, even if that means taking things to RfC or AN/I against one party. Make sense? I don't want to see your work go down the tubes, because your vision is obviously working... CQJ 15:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok well, watch out for the safety-limits.

I think it's ok to informally hand off people to other processes. It's also ok to supervise the handoff and handhold each step of the way. Just that's about as far as you can safely go. Mediation requires neutrality, so when we can't maintain that, we have to let it go to some other process.

Have you tried talking about this with Sannse ? She might have some useful insights. Also, will you be at wikimania? We might be able to talk then as well! :-)

Kim Bruning 15:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope - too expensive for the trip to Cambridge. Perhaps next time they can have it in Chi-town, it's a bit closer? Or maybe Indianapolis could host it..you know we have Gen Con, so I'd be surprised if we couldn't get a Wikimania bid :-) CQJ 17:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland!

Beste,

Er wordt een Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland georganiseerd. Er is al een voorlopig programma met lezingen van Jimbo Wales, Kurt Jansson en vele anderen, workshops en discussies over bijvoorbeeld de Easy Timeline, pywikipediabot en de toekomst van wiki[p/m]edia. Het zou me leuk lijken als je ook kon komen! Meld je snel aan op de inschrijfpagina, want we moeten snel weten hoeveel mensen er ongeveer komen! Stuur deze uitnodiging vooral ook door naar anderen die geïnteresseerd zouden kunnen zijn door {{subst:user:Effeietsanders/wcn}}~~~~ op hun overlegpagina's te plakken. Hoe meer zielen, hoe meer vreugd. Met vriendelijke groet,
effeietsanders 22:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

trifecta and fundation issues

In response to your questioning of my "oppose" vote (#4) in CheNuevara's AfD:

Beats me

--A. B. 02:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

They're Policy Trifecta, and Foundation issues. Kim Bruning 08:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

my RfA

I wanted to drop you a thanks, for everything we talked about on irc that day and for all the discussion you participated in on my RfA. As you're probably already aware, it didn't pass, but I'm very grateful for everything you said about me. I'm going on vacation for a couple weeks, but when I come back I may take you up on the suggestion that I try and join the MedCab.

I'm sure I'll be talking to you. Peace, and take care! - CheNuevara 17:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The word "confusing"

As you know, I'm a strong supporter of WP:IAR. An important element, however, is that someone should understand why a rule exists before ignoring it. Advising users to ignore rules that confuse them actively discourages them from gaining a better understanding and making an informed decision. ("If the rules are confusing, instead of asking someone to explain them to you and attempting to understand what they mean, you should ignore them.") —David Levy 16:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Tigers

Yeah, baby, I've got your tiger right here. Let the game begin.

jkbaumga 19:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Get in contact with me?

Hey Kim,

I am looking to add you to an IM service instead of contacting you through IRC. Are you on ICQ, MSN, or AIM? Hell, you can have my SMS if you want. :)

Colin Keigher 23:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject on Adminship

Thought you might be interested. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Very good to meet you -- I know you'll be in touch! BCorr|Брайен 19:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

specialist admins in short supply and under promoted

Hi, I share your concern. Can you give me a concise set of criteria to add to my stndards so that I don't exclude such potential admins with my current standards? Thanks.  :) Dlohcierekim 17:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Simple questions often have complex answers :-P

The shortest answer is that I support someone if they "won't blow up the wiki".

So how do I figure that one out? Well, usually I question a candidate about their understanding of policy trifecta (harder than it looks! can you explain why those rules are the trifecta, and not some other set? Do you agree with them?) , and I require that they have seen and agree to uphold the m:foundation issues.

That's the basics.

I'll strongly support if the candidate has assisted on a featured article, has mediated a dispute, or has a strong understanding of wikipedia guidelines.

Finally I always feel tempted to whack people over the head when they oppose a candidate who already *is* demonstrably a mediator, featured article writer, or policy expert, as apparently someone is asleep at the wheel then ;-)

Kim Bruning 04:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

specialist admins

Hi Kim, I'd like to hear more about your opinions on the need for specialist/non-vandalwhacker administrators. Here or my talk page is fine, if you get the chance. -- nae'blis 23:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

warning for removing warnings

Have a look at this Thats where i got it from. Feedyourfeet 07:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah There is a double standard in this place, If you have a look at my archive, It shows that i cant remove them but she can. Feedyourfeet 07:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks mate, Are you an Admin? Feedyourfeet 07:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you please stop trying to console this guy? He's somehow gotten fixated on me because of my votes on his own AfDs, and made bogus nominations of two articles I've edited recently (including my current FAC project) for deletion. He's also spent the best part of the day repeatedly slapping bogus vandalism warnings on my talk page. He's really asking for a block for disruption, and you egging him on is manifestly not helping things. Rebecca 07:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The number of policys/guidelines/things you must and must not do is huge. Why cant they cut it down. Feedyourfeet 08:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What about this one? WP:IAR You are being told to Ignore all rules but when you do you get in trouble for it. Feedyourfeet 08:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

IAR means "use common sense, policy should not keep you from doing the right thing", not "do the wrong thing". --Interiot 08:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that but when you do that you still get into trouble. Also what should be done about double standards? Feedyourfeet 09:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

IAR does not mean "do what you think is common sense, even when 95% of the community is likely to think it's a bad idea". For example, suggesting that Rebecca could be blocked for removing a notice that she forgot to sign a comment (something experienced users do every once in a while)... that's probably not most people's idea of common sense. --Interiot 10:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rmrfstar (second nomination)

I have no issue with people discussing things. However, there is a difference between discussion and inquisition. People should not feel threatened or bullied for their opinion, regardless of what it is.

Also, I do not understand what your comment on transparency not carrying over to talk pages. Are talk pages not transparent somehow? Attic Owl 15:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Rmrfstar's RfA (again)

Hey, I want to say thanks for all of the support. I really appreciate the effort you put in on my RfA page; that was put in your own support and your discussions with everyone else. Thanks! -- Rmrfstar 02:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Opinion sought

Also, if you have a little time, I'd appreciate you looking at this page and giving me your opinion. No rush, though if you can reply by the 17th that would be nicely symbolic. -- nae'blis 03:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I've had some thoughts on your Five Pillars/Policy trifecta question, but I'm not sure how you usually ask them... -- nae'blis 04:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching update

As far as I can see you are not currently assigned as a coach to anyone. Are OK to receive a new trainee? Petros471 22:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll try and sort out assignments tomorrow once I've got a few more replies. No, that hasn't yet been tried. Good idea though- any ideas as to how to organise it? I think the best thing might be to ask everyone to join a special IRC session at a particular time/place as advertised somewhere public (i.e. more visible than the admin coaching subpage). Petros471 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Folajimi is your new trainee, and your fellow coach is Academic Challenger. Was there anything else I'm suppost to cover here... (I seem to be waffling a lot less than last one I assigned!) Petros471 16:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there!

Per what I mentioned on the CfD that we are currently collaborating on, I'd like to remain as on-topic as possible there and continue any conversation pertaining to either of us as users off the CfD if that's OK. Thanks and I'll try to respond to any comments or questions as quick as possible. Also, I'm currently on IRC (user name is hoopydink) if you'd like to chat there instead of here. Cheers hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 00:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Indeed

But you're the one saying you're rejecting consensus :). Or do you deny stating that you were refusing to negotiate? It's in page history: [6]

Does this mean you're refusing to discuss the topic with me? Technically, based on that diff I should be able to have you blocked for edit-warring, hands down. ;-) <scratches head> Probably not the most diplomatic move though. :-P

In any case, as per Bold revert discuss, could you please explain the reason for your edit?

Kim Bruning 16:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, try to get me blocked... this is really lame. Go edit some articles. I am discussing this on both talk pages anyway... so I don't see what I'm doing wrong. --W.marsh 16:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your user talk. Not trying to get you blocked :-) Kim Bruning 16:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You're not making much sense to me. I never said I wouldn't discuss. --W.marsh 16:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate it 8-) -- Avi 22:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

maru

Can you clarify your "perhaps we could think about desysopping someone else" comment for me? Were you talking about I@n or me or someone else? On what basis? Snottygobble 02:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. One side or the other is being silly, and I can't quite figure which side is which yet (sorry! :-/) . Zscout is watching carefully, and I'll leave it in his capable hands. If maru misbehaves, we'll soon find out, and I'd certainly support a community ban if he does. :-) Kim Bruning 02:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't desysop people for "being silly". Only one side is guilty of concrete and specific policy violations that we don't expect from our admins. And cryptic threats like that just stifle debate.

See you round the 'pedia. Snottygobble 02:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Kim, the same question is bothering me also. If you are questioning mine or anyone other than Maru's judgement, please say so. -- I@n 03:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ouw, yeah. I guess I should have "built up the picture" better, before I let my initial impressions get the better of me. Apologies. Kim Bruning 08:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Accepted. Thanks and regards -- I@n 08:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As an explanation (but not an excuse), it was 4 am local time, and I was very sleepy. I did do the right thing and handed off to Zscout370 pretty quickly, but I should have done so even sooner, which is what I'll do in future. Kim Bruning 08:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA

I posted a short reply regarding with your comments in my RfA. Hope that addresses some of your concerns. Thank You! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 22:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

RE:Hmm, would you be able to come on irc?

Well, thank you for the notification of your presence on IRC. I will consider your request in due time. At the moment, I am very busy with other issues on Wikipedia. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 01:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

One way to trace users ...

I really haven't said Hello to you here before? Jkbaum 04:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kpjas

Hey Kim,

Thanks for your note on the RfA talk page. I think it's a bit inflammatory, but I guess it was sort of meant to be so. With these huge backlogs we're getting, there's just no reason to be as picky as some of these folks are being. Volunteers who want to help and who have no dings aren't getting the promotions they (and we) deserve. Kpjas' RFA was a huge flub-up from the beginning, and I think you're right: some of the people who voted clearly didn't even check the guy's userpage. :(

Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks for your note, although I'm sure it will raise a few eyebrows. Happy editing! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 09:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NBD language

Perhaps the problem is that we're not quite speaking the same language, even though we both *appear* to be using english.

Yes Kim, you really do talk your own language sometimes [7]. But believe me I'm still a fan. You restore my faith in this place. 192.75.48.150 16:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In the linked example you give, most of the premises and reasoning were ok, but the way I wrote it out really sucked. I'm being more careful again now. :-) Kim Bruning 16:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of WP:IAR, I wonder what prompted this? It seems to come just after Wikimania. I wonder, did someone at Wikimania call Fearless Leader's attention to it? I don't know, maybe someone involved in the IAR page recently was at Wikimania? I don't suppose you can think of someone? 192.75.48.150 16:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nicolas de Gunzburg and User:D C McJonathan

Long time no see (been about 18 months), hope all is well.

Would you consider hopping in on this...I've referred it to RfC. RFC is here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/D C McJonathan —ExplorerCDT 16:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen

[8] That was a good edit you made. Haukur 20:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)