Jump to content

User talk:Kim Bruning

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kim Bruning (talk | contribs) at 00:33, 10 March 2008 (→MfD: no matter how much fun it is to poke people ... (rmv comment)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.




Hello! Please append your message at the end of the page.

This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III.

Discussion on Jimbos page

I am awake and waiting for your counterarguments. Prandr 11:09 CEST, 14 May 2007

Super datatool!!!

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hauptautoren. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eloquence (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia has a second Carlos admin

Click there to open your card! → → →

Admin Coaching Re-confirmation

Hello, previously you expressed interest in participating in the Wikipedia:Admin coaching project. We are currently conducting a reconfirmation drive to give coaches the opportunity to update their information and capacity to participate in the project. Please visit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to update your status. Also, please remember to update your capacity (5th table variable) in the form of a fraction (eg. 2/3 means you are currently coaching 2 students, and could accept 1 more student). Thank you. MBisanz talk 09:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not retired.

Yeah, I've decided to edit Wikipedia.

But I don't expect to accomplish anything.

See User:Zenwhat/Stay sane.

Also, I'd still like that webspace if you still have it. Not for ranting about Wikipedia, mind you, just for a variety of stuff. For essays on Wikipedia policy (which I think would be difficult to put here, for obvious reasons), for some remarks about Buddhism, for my fictional book about Wikipedia (still working on that), and recently I had an idea to write a book on philosophy on what it means to be human.

It occurred to me that Vulcans are a good role model for ideal human behavior and proper dharma practice. A Theravada monk I spoke with remarked:

I have long thought that Mr. Spock is the best popular icon we have for the Abhidhammic arahant: a person without a self, who, prompted by functional consciousnesses (kriya-citta), responds rationally and disinterestedly, and yet at the same time, virtuously and (when appropriate) compassionately, to all situations.

This inspired me to realize more clearly what it means to be human: Across many cultures, there is the idea of the "superior man." There are some differences between the different conceptions, but also striking similarities.

Specifically, I'm talking about:

With a synthesis of these ideas, it seems to be that what separates humans above animals is rational and disenchanted altruism, which can be achieved through meditation, the same as Vulcans themselves achieved this in Star Trek.

The superstitious, religious elements, are nonsense, though, of course, and likely overlaid upon the histories of "great men," after the fact. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joy. It seems to have actually worked. Someone finally made the change. They finally accomplished getting Template:User transwiki'd.

This: 

*{{User|Jimbo Wales|en}} - English Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|fr}} - French Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|ja}} - Japanese Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|nl}} - Dutch Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|es}} - Spanish Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|sv}} - Swedish Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|pt}} - Portugese Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|it}} - Italian Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|pl}} - Polish Wikipedia
*{{User|Jimbo Wales|de}} - German Wikipedia

Generates this:

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two trolls.

Two trolls I dealt with in the past were apparently indef-blocked not too long ago. I didn't notice, though, because I don't wiki-stalk people I have issues with.

The two people in question:

  • UnclePaco: Pushing some kind of bizarre Caribbean racism or ethnic nationalism
  • User:Sarsaparilla: Pushing Libertarian politics, regularly engaging in particularly contentious editing. He mentions your name in this edit, a typo but a pretty funny one. [1]

My initial complaints about these people were totally ignored. For instance, when Sarsaparilla offered to sell his account in WP:VPM, I complained and people told me, "Oh no, he's probably just joking," and in both cases I was told, "Single-purpose accounts aren't necessarily against the rules!"

It's only been after considerable effort that they've been outed and blocked, and now we have to review their contributions very, very carefully to see all the damage that has been done.

In the case of Sarsaparilla, he was very good at generating POV content forks with long lists of sources which, at this point, are certainly questionable. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Delegable proxy

Please consider undoing your closure of the page, per these statements. From [[2]], and I quote: "However, if a proposal is not serious or is disruptive it can be nominated for deletion." and [[3]]. This proposal WAS created to be intentionally disruptive, and as such has no merit. The MFD was perfectly appropriate and should not be closed preemptively as such... Please consider reopening it. Thank you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I don't want to cause any more wiki-drama, but I think there may be a WP:COI consideration regarding the DP essay. Given the evident sock WP:SHENANIGANS that went into creating the page and the fact that MfD prerequisites don't seem to anticipate this type of behavior (i.e. backdoor for promotion of fringe ideas), perhaps the closure was premature? I'm not fussed one way or the other but I thought I should mention it. Ronnotel (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the correct course of action in all cases is to mark as rejected anyway, right? Is there a compelling reason not to mark as rejected, and/or is there a compelling reason why merely rejecting would be insufficient? --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, reject is clearly the consensus. However, there is a concern that the proponents of the proposal have a vested, off-wiki interest in pushing the term Delegatable Proxy for whatever reason. There is also the suspicion that this was an attempt to create a real-world laboratory to try out this idea. I think there is a definite taint of promotion at work here. An article with a similar title would almost certainly be considered for AfD. Ronnotel (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it would be :-) : Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Delegable_proxy --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did check for that before my post, but I used the wrong spelling. Thanks for the pointer. Ronnotel (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I first thought like you, Kim, but I must admit that considering the sockpuppettry involved here, I think the deletion is appropriate. -- lucasbfr talk 13:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, also see [4] where the sockpuppets are the only ones voting keep for teh article on Delegable proxy. The project space essay was created specifically by a sockfarm and specifically to be disruptive. This has no purpose even to exist. Even existing with the rejected label is not what consensus was at the MFD; the consensus was clearly to delete, and the MFD#Prerequisites clearly allows for disuptive essays to be deleted by consensus... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This will all come out in the wash, but... the above claim about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Delegable_proxy is not only false, it's irrelevant. Wikipedia can try something new. We can, and frequently do, coin neologisms for our own use. As to sock puppets, there are none involved in this case, to my knowledge, unless Yellowbeard is a sock (he is an obvious SPA who appears with substantial knowledge in 2006, only nominates and participates in AfDs until I rained on that parade, when he turned himself exclusively to attempts to disrupt processes involving me or someone cooperating with me on projects, in this case Absidy, and is clearly disruptive). There is one user, Absidy, who twice abandoned an account (apparently scrambling the password), was very open about what he was doing, did not vote twice, did not hold a conversation between socks, and the only possible source for a charge of sock puppetry would be that what initially came from one account, with frequent edits, came later from another, with frequent edits. In Talk. If he was inappropriately operating sock puppets, he was not warned about it, and was not blocked for it. There was an attempt made to connect me with him, and checkuser showed no connection. (And, in fact, review of edit histories confirmed that as well.)
Keep votes on the AfD came from Absidy the only active account in this series at the time, openly a continuation of prior accounts, explicitly acknowledged with the account creation, and Jossi (an administrator!). I only commented, being a COI editor in this case. Another user initially voted Delete, but changed to Neutral, and merge and redirect was also suggested (which I'd support if I had a vote). I never claimed that DP was sufficiently notable to warrant an article here. When I originally created Liquid democracy, as a stub, I thought it notable, personally, but had never read notability guidelines and was totally unaware of COI rules. And then I never touched the article again, all work on it was done by others. They, apparently, thought it notable enough to work on, but, as I'm sure you are aware, Kim, the likelihood is high that they aren't even aware of the AfD. In my view, the notability is at this point marginal, there is independent source, for starters. My goal here has been to do what I can to help keep rejection or deletion from being based on false assumptions. Not to prevent rejection or deletion, those are admin decisions, in theory, or, often, in practice, decisions by the participating community.--Abd (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's ironic that the delete supermajority -- that's what it is -- was based on a claim that we don't vote on Wikipedia, rather, it is cogency of argument that prevails. Yet, here, there is a complaint that the administrator applied independent judgment, contrary to "consensus" -- i.e., vote count. The rejected proposal, again and again, stated that vote count was not what it was about, that it involved no policy or procedural change, that proxies would not be voting on behalf of clients, that decisions would remain as they are, the judgement of the one making the decision with the power to implement it, etc. Yet the MfD was a chorus of "No Voting Here!". The unstated part, "Unless We are the Ones Voting!" Enough. This is indeed disruptive, some editors are clearly seriously exercised about this, enough to put, for example, serious effort into trying to exhaustively find sock puppets and connected IP edits, when no disruption is taking place through any such action, and, more darkly, there has appeared some level of threat of blocking for daring to question administrative decisions in a civil manner, and not persisting beyond consent. The only possible exception about my claim of "no disruption" from Absidy being what was quite openly a single user, acting within guidelines - though sometimes at the edge, never far enough to be actually warned, except for his final suicidal actions which took place only on Talk pages (of ArbComm members, a couple of administrators, and very few others). The disruption, at this point, is coming from users who, quite plainly, want to eliminate as much trace of the actual proposal as possible. Yes. Interesting. And not to be discussed extensively at this point outside of specific user Talk pages and dispute resolution process, where, hopefully, the light will outshine the heat.--Abd (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People occasionally make the mistake of trying to delete project pages like this one using MFD. Just because people are all saying 'delete', doesn't suddenly change the laws of physics or the way wikipedia pages are stored. You state that you *explicitly* would like to see this page permanently removed from the public record?
I understand that you are angry now, but by deleting the page, you are creating a catch 22: you might find it hard to find future support for:
  • A permanent ban of the puppetmaster
  • future documentation/ guidelines/ best practices prohibiting such behaviour.
Are you sure that that is what you want? --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, not a huge deal either way. However, this has a taint of fringe promotion about it that is distasteful. I urge you to reconsider but this is the last I feel the need to say on the subject. Ronnotel (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm yeah, I'm getting some really odd vibes off of this, it's not cut-and-dried... I won't be adamant if someone comes with a well reasoned alternate plan. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not angry. The only thing to get angry over is if someone tries to assign emotions to you when the clearly have no right to do so (how's THAT for a catch-22). However, the process page you specifically cited as the reason you preemptively closed the debate says, and I quote, "However, if a proposal is not serious or is disruptive it can be nominated for deletion". This proposal clearly meets that criteria, and is eligible to be deleted. To sum up:
  1. Not angry about the proposal being closed
  2. Am angry that you called be angry for the propsal being closed.
  3. Nomination for deletion was perfectly legal per [5], because, to quote that policy page, "However, if a proposal is not serious or is disruptive it can be nominated for deletion".
That is all. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank goodness you aren't angry :-)... or weren't at least. :-/
It's a bit ironic to state that the MFD was "legal". The proposal was nominated in part due to its excessive legalism. ;-) Also, what one person finds disruptive, another person might find useful, so using that particular exception is a tad iffy. It'd have to be pretty obvious disruption, I reckon, else I could nominate WP:NPOV next time it makes my editing difficult ;-).
I shan't do procedure for procedure's sake of course, but that said, is there any reason to suppose that the page as it stands -with a clear "rejected" tag-, would still cause (further) disruption?
--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kim - I may quibble about your decision to close the MfD without deleting Wikipedia:Delegable proxy, but I have a different issue. I believe that this proposal has been so firmly rejected that the subpages of that proposal [6] do actually need to be deleted. Mangojuicetalk 15:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have copies and have no objection. --Abd (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Actually, they should remain. If there is some reasonable fear that the project will be disrupted if someone actually edits them (some do seem to fear this), they could be protected. The Table currently contains two proxy pages transcluded, and only one is currently visible because one of them has been administratively deleted: mine, without notice to me, which is merely one more little anomaly about this whole affair. That "odd vibes" is a sound intuition. But what it all really means is for the future to determine.--Abd (talk) 01:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Kim. Brilliant. Seriously. You have actually shown what has been argued all along, votes don't count, but cogency of arguments. By existing process and precedent, the proposal -- whatever it was, the MfD was really about something other than the actual proposal -- was rejected, and whether I or Absidy/Ron Duvall/Sarsaparilla (legal account continuations, though odd) don't like that is irrelevant. When I removed your initial rejected tag, it was because the proposal had not been considered, it had not attracted enough attention to merit a rejection tag, and the fact that you anticipated rejection (based on analogy which does actually apply, but not in outward resemblance) was not, in my view, sufficient to allow placement of the tag. In my view, it was still improper when later placed, but moot because of the rapid filing of the MfD. But given the MfD, it becomes totally appropriate. Contrary to the above, there were several votes who suggested closure as you closed, and certainly I did not object to that. Abisdy is a brilliant political strategist, in fact, one who knows Wikipedia like the palm of his hand, even though he's very young, and his goals are very long-term. He's now working off-wiki, and it's not about Wikipedia, and certainly not about disrupting Wikipedia, au contraire; rather, he actually saw that, if this were tested, and then used -- a separate step --, it would solve many tenacious problems here, including some that have manifested in connection with this situation. As to the "odd vibes," your intuition is correct. Very odd, yet very predictable. I'm glad to have had a chance to see some of your work. --Abd (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, you're probably right Kim. Preserving the page, at least as an example for what NOT to do at Wikipedia, is for the best. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably the least disruptive closure. A true delete closure would possibly have triggered dispute resolution (in this case deletion review) from me, simply putting a rejected tag on it leaves me with nothing to contest. It's blatantly true that, by current standards, this proposal was rejected. I may think that what was rejected wasn't what was proposed, but that is not strong enough to warrant any further fuss about the MfD itself, nor about the project page. There are other aspects of this, such as all the charges of sock puppetry (actually false), all the WP:ABF claims, the indef block of the proposer, Absidy (last active name) for what would have been a minor offense (24 hour block if that), arguably done improperly in violation of block policy, that may lead to further wikifuss, but this particular piece of it is closed off by this decision. However, it could still be disruptive, if users continue to contend with it, which is improbable. I hope. At least I can't be blamed for that! --Abd (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are saying is that its a good thing that Kim decided to do it "your" way, because if she didn't you were going to do your best to be disruptive. Well, THAT'S a productive attitude to have. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is above. AGF, please. --Abd (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, about your questions here:

Is there a compelling reason not to mark as rejected, and/or is there a compelling reason why merely rejecting would be insufficient?

is there any reason to suppose that the page as it stands -with a clear "rejected" tag-, would still cause (further) disruption?

Please see WP:V:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

The statements at the policy you cited contradict that. Policy proposals, essays, etc., even if they are not going to be disruptive in the future, should still be deleted.

Technically, if I made a page containing blatantly attacking Jimbo, at some point in the distant future it will be "old news" and cease to be disruptive, but that is an absurd argument for keeping such an article because it's the fact that it's created in bad-faith that matters. Particular bureaucratic policies and guidelines don't trump the quality of the encyclopedia or the intentions of the editors.

On second thought, though, yes, I guess it would be good to document, in case this puppeteer returns (and they always do). ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I am continuously amazed by your ability to do so, but you missed the link to the actual relevant documentation on the very MFD page itself. :-)[7] . Your reference to Jimbo is completely out of thin air. Your "on second thought" is the only relevant thought you had. Would you please consider thinking your statements through in future? At least those you make to me? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it contradicts the MFD text. And I'm saying that I think WP:V's lead > some obscure section of WP:MfD. That was my original argument, but yes, on second thought I think you're right. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Do you see? Verifiability and Misc for deletion refer to different namespaces. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get this one for the life of me. As pointed out above, disruptive proposals can be deleted. This thing is still being pushed on the talk page, so there's obviously an obvious reason for deleting it - namely to stop people from pushing a patently bad idea. There was an overwhelming consensus to delete and the reasoning was that the proposal was disruptive (a procedurally correct reason to delete a proposal). An early close and a close against consensus is inappropriate. I have requested that this action be overturned at deletion review. --B (talk) 05:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WIKIDRAMA Thespian Seagull (talk) 17:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

DRV was closed, MFD re-opened, and finally terminated as "rejected". See resolved tag in next section for more detail --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refusal to be open for review

I'm extremely troubled by this, Kim. Your interpretation of MfD policy is that this proposal cannot be deleted. However, there is certainly wording in the policy people have pointed to that make deletion appropriate. Feel free to endorse your own closure and explain yourself; the community may agree with you or they may not. But closing down the DRV of your own action is inappropriate: at the very least, you should let someone else call the DRV inappropriate, but I really don't think it is inappropriate to review your decision. Mangojuicetalk 15:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and as per WP:DRV: After five days, an administrator will determine if a consensus exists. You didn't wait five days, and you're not an administrator. Added to the fact that you closed the original MfD, I think this was done out of process. Ronnotel (talk) 16:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per GRBerry, I understand you are a former admin and should be regarded as one with respect to review closings. Ronnotel (talk) 19:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kim, I've generally agreed with you on this issue - and pretty much everything else - but I really think you shouldn't have closed the DRV when you were the closer on the MfD; I think you should re-open it to allow someone else to close it so there's no appearance of conflict of interest.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is highly irregular. No user should be able to use policy to circumvent process. The MfD close may have been wrong, the DRV one was worse.--WaltCip (talk) 16:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's not right. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. People don't get to pick and choose which policies are most convenient (or those which cause the most wikidrama when combined ;-) ). But that said, I believe I've followed process fairly closely, see also below where I explain how. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


*scratching head*. I'm a bit confused as to why people are confused. I've been completely consistent in this, afaict.
MFD does not allow deletion of proposal pages. All "delete" opinions are typically counted as "reject" in such a case. (note that you are actually not allowed to reject a page per MFD either, but there have been exceptions, and my interpreting as "reject" is actually just me being nice!)
Technically on DRV, your options are "endorse", "relist" and "overturn" ("list" does not count here). In this case "endorse" would leave the page as rejected, "relist" would relist it on mfd, and "overturn" would unreject the page.
As B wants the page rejected anyway (or so I assume), going to DRV is a little strange.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to hand over the DRV portion to GRBerry, who appears to be an experienced DRV-er. Better to leave things in the hands of an expert. :-) I could probably handle the DRV either way (including relisting), but I also need to do some coding sometime this weekend ^^;;. I hope that this conclusively shows that I actually *am* open for review. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC) I just wish people could discuss more nicely, and not immediately start bureaucratic procedures all over the place. Often people don't realize that cleaning up bureaucracy costs a lot of time that many people simply don't have.[reply]

I was writing this when, damn, I realized you were actually right:

Kim, you were right about the odd feeling you were having. My opinion is that it was incorrect for you to close the DRV -- I haven't even looked at it, so what I'm saying is pure process consideration. Whether or not you are an administrator is irrelevant, the tools can't be used to promote one view or other, but only in service of consensus and policy. You can be right as rain, right as the sun shining, but a user may not close a process where they have a conflict of interest, and when there is a deletion review based on an allegedly incorrect decision to close, the one whose decision is being appealed may not close it. There are indeed severe process issues involved in all this, but there is WP:DR to follow over all of it. It will happen anyway, I believe, but you should withdraw your closure of the DRV. It was incorrect, not matter how totally correct you were in closing the MfD.

And why have I now concluded that you were right? Your closure is an ordinary editorial decision. They may revert it if they like, but they cannot demand that you revert it or withdraw your opinion. I assume you will not edit war, but, if you care, pursue dispute resolution. Being correct -- as I believe you are, though I have not reviewed your actual decision here, so I could be wrong about that -- is no reason to edit war. Let them edit war if they like. If I look at the case and decide to intervene, by, say, reverting a reversion of your closure, it will be as a totally independent decision, and, under current conditions, I'd say that we are under 1RR conditions. Maybe tighter than that.

I've been waiting for the smoke to clear before addressing the myriads of issues that have arisen here, one at a time, in an orderly fashion. While I could say, "it's beyond me why they want to make so much fuss," it actually isn't. I do understand it, and it does not require ABF. Rather, it requires understanding that there are unwritten rules, and violation of the unwritten rules is punishable by deletion and blocking. There is, in fact, oblique reference to this in the written rules. "Thou shalt not mention that the emperor has no clothes, it may cause a riot," isn't there, but "disruption" and "trolling" are prohibited, and trolling, quite specifically, is defined to cover violation of unwritten rules. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 17:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And just one more thing: I'd like you to take the time to learn the Wikipedia mantra: "Kim is always right. I will listen to Kim. I will not ignore Kim's recommendations. Kim is God. And, if this ever happens again, Kim will personally rip your lungs out!" ... Have a nice day! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC) With apologies to God... and Ivanova, of course. People could save themselves a lot of pain if they listened to me earlier :-/ [reply]
Well, never felt better in my life.... which is saying a lot. Thanks for the thoughts and the reference, it certainly distracted me from the drama here for a couple of hours, laying on a bed with my daughters who like company when they go to sleep, and a Palm with WiFi access, reading it. I wasn't aware that you made a recommendation; rather you placed, immediately upon the creation of WP:PRX a rejected tag. However, this proposal had not been rejected yet. In spite of quite a few claims to the contrary, this was not WP:Esperanza or WP:AMA, nor was it, as many have claimed, contrary to WP:NOTAVOTE, it wasn't about voting at all. I'll address what it was elsewhere, but, given that what is being rejected is clearly described in the MfD and now as a proposed summary in the DRV, I'll feel free to make the real proposal in the future, or somebody else will. That proposed summary is remarkable. WP:PRX is so hot, so disruptive in its mere expression, that it cannot be left for people to read; instead, an official summary is to replace it, something on the order of "A ludicrous proposal was made under this name to destroy all that is good and sacred about Wikipedia by allowing representatives to vote for them, and, besides, they were sock puppets and trolls and blocked (banned?) so don't even think about making any proposal like this in the future, it will be considered disruptive and don't say we didn't warn you." And, since no blind voting, as this has been called, was suggested or imagined in the proposal, and it wasn't about voting at all, the opponents of the idea will have created all this fuss to accomplish nothing. This is typical with Rule 0 violations. Now, Kim, if you have any actual recommendations, I'm all ears. Or eyes, or whatever. Perhaps I'd have inquired more deeply if you had presented your credentials at the outset, instead of waiting until now.
I'm in, however, the same situation as User:Absidy was, only I'm over twice his age. He apparently needed to see for himself what would happen if this was proposed. Contrary to all the wild accusations about alleged bad faith and deliberate disruption, he actually thought that (1) this was not merely a good idea, it was an essential idea, addressing the growing problems of scale and the inefficiency of the status quo (situations which will kill the project if not addressed; the collapse will come far more rapidly than imagined possible for something so successful, it's like a pyramid scheme, it can look really good until shortly before the end, when it is too late to restructure), and he thought that (2) more would recognize it than actually have. He's very new to the ideas, I think his first contact would be a couple of months ago. I've seen such bursts of enthusiasm before in "early adopters." It took me about five years of almost full-time trawling (not trolling) for those who might understand these ideas before *one* person got it sufficiently to be able to restate it and explain it to others. Elements of the concept, yes, they have been picked up and spread about; for example, delegable proxy can be used as a voting method. This is not the application I recommend and study; but it is considered by some of the best-known election experts in the world as the ideal voting method. Totally impractical, of course. Why? Because it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being adopted politically; it would shift the system toward almost total equity, and those who don't want that to happen will quite successfully resist it, unless something else changes first. But for them to state this as the reason for opposing it would be a Rule 0 violation, so plenty of other reasons will be invented, and there are many handy, mostly all the old bugaboos about democracy.
When Absidy -- who is, from my understanding, a four-year veteran of Wikipedia, with, I'd guess, about 10,000 edits, much of which I've verified -- saw the vehemence of the rejection, coupled with the total unfairness of it (what was being rejected wasn't what was being proposed, the gap was drastic; plus there was continual assumption of bad faith, often coming from users who really should know better, administrators), he decided that the ideas were more important than Wikipedia, so he would leave to work on them off-wiki. But he also knew that he's a wikipediaholic. So he made it hard for himself to come back. He committed wikisuicide by admin, was blocked as he could have predicted, and he has not requested that it be lifted. He has urged me to also leave, to avoid being distracted by the drama here. However, it is not over until the paperwork is done. My judgment that this project is very important, overall, for humanity stands. If this project does not do the work that is needed, it will be replaced by something more efficient *and* deeper. But that will introduce delay, and delay costs lives. There remains a possibility, in my view, that a more correctly framed proposal or action will be accepted here, and, until rejection of such is explicit, I continue to have an obligation to present it, though I'm not obligated to tenaciously argue, only to be clear. Further, it seems that, in any population, at this time, there is a small number of people ready to see beyond the limitations of the status quo. Those who read these discussions (even in wikiprojects and proposals) are a very small number, so, indeed, it might not be worth the effort, not worth the fuss it triggers, but I don't know that for sure. My project is to serve humanity, not the project specifically, but it happens that I believe that the project can serve humanity and its own stated goals far better if, at least, the ideas that I developed over the last twenty years (and which have been developed in parallel by a number of different people and groups around the world, at around the same time), are considered and either implemented or something better comes out of that consideration.
As I mentioned, those ideas are not about voting. My proposal for consideration consists of two wings (in general, not just on Wikipedia.) The first wing is what I call the Free Association concept. FAs are organizations which follow certain principles; the model FA is Alcoholics Anonymous, but Wikipedia, as I began to read the policies and guidelines and essays turns out to be almost pure FA in concept. In practice, it's sometimes quite different. Among the concepts: in an FA, decisions are made by community consensus, not by vote; but even more to the point, decisions, even by consensus, don't bind members, who cannot be coerced into any action. Actual execution of decisions is by individuals, either as such, or as "trusted servants." These servants are not bound by any vote; they may, in fact, disregard even a unanimous vote, if they don't accept the arguments given as controlling. However, they may wish to be advised by the community, and, as part of that, to have an idea of what the actual community consensus is. In small FAs, this is trivial. Generally most of the community may participate, and they might be polled, on occasion, though often decisions are obvious from discussion, as opposition fades away when compromises are proposed, or cogent arguments are accepted by dissenters. The goal is consensus, but there is no specific rule; nevertheless, these organizations will expend quite a bit of effort to find *total* consensus. They know that if they neglect even a single member, that member may literally die from the resentment. Here, editors don't usually die, literally, but they may indeed commit wikisuicide, or simply go away angry and frustrated.
The second wing is delegable proxy, which creates, from the bottom up, without central control or compromise, a network of members based on some level of mutual trust, or at least some attempt to test that. These networks may be used to estimate consensus, based on assumptions about the relationship between true consensus and that project from analysis of the participation of a few members by proxy connections, but the real work is in the formation of consensus. And exactly how that works is known in theory, but only a little in practice (very little. It worked in Demoex in Sweden, but that trial, as regards delegable proxy -- known there as "delegated voting," was very short. That was a political experiment and it was actual voting, and my criticism of the Demoex project is precisely that. They'd have been more successful if they had stayed away from voting, in my opinion, as well as from control. The application of delegable proxy in Free Associations is little-tried; there are numerous startup efforts, but none of major size. And a Wikipedia trial might be similarly small. Or not. I certainly do not know. What I do know is that the costs are very low. Creating a proxy assignment and adding it to a proxy table is very fast, and the rest of the effort is simply direct communication between editors, something that we should, in fact, generally encourage. None of it is wasted, and it's fail-safe, because of the nonbinding nature (in an FA).
Given this background, what was proposed here? Only that a file format be presented for use by those who wished to use it, to name "proxies." No specific function was created for proxies to fill, and it was specifically stated that no policies were being changed. Nothing that is prohibited now would become permitted, and meat puppetry and vote-stacking are prohibited. (Though I wonder why, if votes don't count.) No present procedure exists for one voter to vote for another, and this would not create one. It was explicit that no obligation to consider information from proxy expansion of poll results (as one possible way of using the proxy table) would arise. A thousand sock puppets being listed in the table as giving proxies to a user would not only accomplish nothing, since it would be ignored by *everyone*, but, in addition, it might be considered sock puppetry intended to exaggerate support for some position, and would be nothing but, itself, wikisuicide. Absidy named me as his proxy, and I him. This was only provisional, to be sure, the loop would not have remained, but what was the result, even though nothing was ever claimed using this information? Checkuser for him and I. It was pretty weird to see a checkuser request to verify that Absidy was Ron Duvall, given that the Absidy creation summary stated that Absidy was a continuation of Ron Duvall, but some sense existed for checking me, though it would have been the most devious sock puppetry scheme to date. But Rule 0 violations can put people who don't understand what is going on into a panic, and some very foolish things can be done. Admins, here, have taken actions that could, if precedent is followed and they continue to insist that what they did was proper, result in loss of the admin bit. Right now, they think that preposterous, because they are surrounded by others, particularly other administrators, agreeing with them, and two members of ArbComm have confirmed the blocks. Based on the false information fed them, as far as I can tell.
Rather, this was an experiment -- the project was labeled "experiment," and Absidy created a template and an essay specially for that -- and it did not propose anything that violated rules and policy; indeed, what it suggested doing could be done, any day, by any user. The community has never prohibited it. If nobody uses it, the only loss is that of the user's time and a trivial amount of disk space. However, the defacto "cabal" (there is no formal cabal, that's not how it operates) is not stupid, at least not in one sense. They know that the experiment might succeed, that it might start to have effects, and this indeed raises fears that Bad Things Would Happen. The question that remains, for me, unanswered, is how far they will go, how much they will destroy, to prevent the possible formation of spontaneous voluntary organizational structure, nonbinding, noncoercive, creating no bureaucracy, no vested power, nothing but the expression of some level of mutual trust between users, allowing efficient communication like a classic phone tree, that has all the possible implications detailed at beyondpolitics.org/wiki and elsewhere. Which are huge. But none of this would happen from the creation of a proxy table and proxy assignments, by themselves. It would only happen if the community, or some significant segment of the community, started to use the tools. This is the core of what has been happening here. A core segment of users, those who are comfortable with the status quo, believing that there is no problem, are attempting to prevent wider consensus from forming. FA/DP seeks wide consensus, whereas Wikipedia currently operates on narrow consensus. Very narrow. And those who are part of the narrow consensus, who know the mechanisms and levers and procedures and language, are very much afraid that masses of ignorant users will wreck everything. They won't, but they don't know that. And they want to make sure that the possibility could never arise.
However, what they do not realize (and similar groups throughout history in a similar position have generally failed to realize) is that if it does not happen openly, here, it will happen elsewhere, outside the control of the oligarchy, and the power structures generated might return here in a disruptive way, given the reservoirs of resentment and bad feeling that have been generated through years of process like that which Absidy used to commit wikisuicide. In some places, to give a police officer the finger would be suicidal, the officer might literally beat you to death. But I and most people don't want to live in a place where that would happen. Here in the U.S., if you give a police officer the finger, and he, without independent cause, arrests you, he's probably lost his job. What will happen here? If I knew the result, I would not need to find out, would I? Will the community follow its own policies and procedures? What will happen in RfC and Mediation and Arbitration, if this affair is not settled at each previous level? What I see is that an opportunity has been created to examine Rule 0. In my view, Rule 0 must become explicit, or must be explicitly abandoned; in either case it ceases to be Rule 0. Rule 1 should prevail, not Rule 0, which, in general, through history, has ended in destroying, ultimately, the communities that enforce it. It can take quite a bit of time, but not when conditions are rapidly changing. Here, I'd predict, a few years at most.
I hate to see waste, but the project under present conditions is hugely wasting human effort. For a time, there is little or no problem in this, that is, during exploratory phases, and Wikipedia is only beginning to come out of that stage. But for sustained operation, it must become efficient, it must stop "spending" ten hours of editor time for what would take a traditional encyclopedia an hour of labor. Because this labor is broadly distributed, it seems like it's not a problem. but that is due to lack of competition for that labor; it's considered recreation by most. However, as editors realize that there are other places where they could accomplish the same thing, except that it won't disappear down the AfD rabbithole, and article quality will only improve, and only rarely devolve, the balance will shift. AfD, in general, is a huge waste of effort, turning what is really an ordinary editorial decision about where to place information, in a hierarchy of notability, into battles between camps of users over an absolute and extreme decision. (Notability is intrinsically subjective or arbitrary, beyond a very basic definition which is far below the level that Wikipedia currently attempts to maintain). But that's merely my opinion. I really do wonder what would happen if true consensus was ever found. I have no particular belief that it would agree with me. But I can tell you, I'd certainly respect it! My respect for local consensus is provisional and sometimes grudging.
Thanks again, Kim. How about instead of a barnstar, I give you a real one? I don't have any, but I have a friend who does, and I could ask. --Abd (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved

DRV responsibility handed off to another admin to prevent COI perception. DRV speedy resolved as "MFD re-opened" at this discussion, I disagreed with Xoloz's close reason, but I had handed off, so I can't actually criticize :-P . MFD discussion terminated as Keep rejected. Which was the the predicted outcome half a month earlier. ("Q.E.D.") --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC) (is adding Q.E.D. to a post a symptom of arrogant Adminitis? I may need to cut back ^^;;)[reply]

advice on RS requirements

Dear Kim,

I am in a prolonged dispute with admin User:Haemo. I want to add information to an article. The information is sourced. The information is not misleading. (It might ofcourse be wrong, as any info, but it is not suggesting anything that it should not suggest (SYNTH).) He now says it would violate SYNTH as well as neutrality (UNDUE) to include it, while there is no RS that says it is important. (He sometimes even claims it is not relevant, but that is completely intenable.) But the RS are not saying it is important (in fact they ignore it), because they are holding viewpoint A, whereas this info is stipulated by holders of viewpoint B. Viewpoint B is acknowledged to exist by RS, and has many prominent adherents. Can you give me advice whether Haemo is correct !?? PS I will ask one other admin these questions.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh

I really hate doing this, but would you be willing to open an RfC with me on User:Newbyguesses? He won't stop with the personal attacks, and it's to the point now where he's actively harming the IAR talk page. - Chardish (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about leaving the page alone for 24 hours and see what happens first? Sometimes people just get steamed up, and all it takes is to give them some time to blow it off again. If everyone is still steamed after 24-48 hours, we'll see what to do then. Sound like a plan? :-)--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC) As to which of you is steamed up ... hmm, perhaps both of you? ;-)[reply]
Perhaps. I don't really think I'm steamed up at all. It does irritate me considerably that I'm the target of personal attacks like this. I don't see how productive discussion can be reached in the face of incivility. - Chardish (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It can't. But first, let's see if things cool down automagically. They often do, you know! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allright, I'm taking the 24-hour break. You did see this, right? - Chardish (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it looks like this has all blown over. Thanks for keeping cool , KB, as i didn't really, Newbyguesses - Talk 05:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think anyone will have a prob with this?

I thought it would be cool to start using Template:Prob immediately. The community will prob'ly be okay with that, right? Unfortunately, I am such a die-hard inclusionist that I couldn't find anything on new page patrol that seemed worthy of even being blanked. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty die-hard. :-P
I'm not sure why it's only "proposed blanking" though, that's an odd dynamic. See also WP:XD, which already had several blanking versions, IIRC. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, it's a complete system, duplicating the deletion system? Why did you choose to do that? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well it can develop in parallel to the existing deletion system, and eventually deletion as we know it will "wither away," much as Lenin predicted the parasitic state would. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Isn't Lenin very very "industrial age"?
At any rate, make sure you provide a rationale on the PROB talk page, or your proposed process won't last very long.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admiral Ackbar also said that at that range, the Rebel fleet wouldn't last long against those star destroyers, but that didn't stop them from winning the Battle of Endor. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Star Wars. I think you have had an ample demonstration of my ability to predict and advise (see the delegable proxy situation). Else also talk with Abd. I don't want to see a repetition of moves. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely we are more likely to be successful with God Kim Bruning on our side. I'd be careful about getting bogged down in details. I'm not sure that a new tweak on the AfD process is the most important item to be addressed. No harm trying, I suppose, just don't get caught in contention over it.--Abd (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is "repetition of moves" a reference to a way in which chess games can automatically draw? Well, I held the prob template's purpose to be (like some truths) self-evident, but I guess not. Yeah, I better be sure to put a rationale, as I don't want this to end up at MfD. I have no choice. My cruisers can't repel firepower of that magnitude.

By the way, maybe CSD would be a better place to start. Instead of CSD, we would have CSB. I haven't had one of my articles speedied in awhile, but it sure is annoying when it happens. If I could have undone the blank, it would've been much better. Why don't we have a hybrid system, in which two editors can immediately blank an article that meets the criteria for speedy blanking, and after five days, it can be deleted permanently? That sounds like a reasonable compromise. Losing an AfD is frustrating, but at least the article has a chance to get a fair hearing before it goes. With CSD, it can get deleted so quickly you don't have time to react. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you thinking of Pure Wiki Deletion ? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda, but this would be temporary PWD. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BAG and MEDCAB

A few weeks back, you mentioned something interesting at User:Thedagomar's page. Since he's now shown up at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group#Helping_out could you let me in on the secret of what was interesting and if it applies to non-DR things like BAG? MBisanz talk 02:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically he said he had grown up, and he says that he is now acting responsibly. I don't know how true that is (yet). We shall have to see, time will tell! :-) Up to you to decide what to do, I'm afraid. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning about 'Ignore All Rules'

So far, I have reservations about the current version. I do not support any speedy or radical changes in the policy, and I would be more comfortable if we sought a broader consensus - reflecting a greater depth of experience than I can bring - if we came to a point where we were considering a change in the page that would reflect a definite change in the policy. In the immediate term, if there is an articulation of the policy which can be more explicit as to what is and is not meant by that twelve word sentence, that would address some of my reservations. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC) [as posted to Ignore all rules at the cited time.]

You feel that my position is self-contradictory [phrase bolding revenge time! :D ], which is possible, and I am curious as to why. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"user69.49.44.11 said: <have reservations> <not support speedy or radical changes> <seek broader consensus> <if> had to bold something <there is an articulation ...more explicit> <would address some of my concerns> ". [see above]. There that is what is self-contradictory! "You" had reservations, then they became concerns! How do you expect us all to follow when you change your mind so often. HahA--Newbyguesses - Talk 19:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IAR in other languages.

A while back, you mentioned privately that Dutch Wikipedia was being "crushed under bureaucracy."

Well, I just noticed something.

Take a look at their version of IAR:

Look similar? Yes, it's just like the silly English version.

I like the German version:

And the French version:

Both are far more clear than the IAR stubs in English and Dutch Wikipedia. Possibly an overall trend? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[8] ... a start, at least... :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Though that was long ago![reply]

Ack, no! AN EDIT !!

I can still read enough French to like the French version. I think we should have a page on other versions of IAR (with translations from other languages). I'd do it if I had time... --Abd (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REVERT NOW ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fun idea.

One main reason I don't edit the mainspace much -- I admit -- is because I'm really lazy.

I had a fun idea just now, though.

I think I'm going to categorize essays by content, in order to help people find essays for certain issues (since there are so many essays) and to avoid redundancy, since there are likely some duplicates with different names. I'll start in my sandbox, then dump what I create at WP:Essays. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that the following may seem like a total spinout; it's not. I'm riffing on the idea of categorization, an essential encyclopedic task.--Abd (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that AfD is generally silly (other than for copyright or libel violations or blatant, uncontested nonsense); what we need to be doing is categorizing articles. Categorization, the organization of knowledge into hierarchies, is a classic encyclopedic task, one which Wikipedia currently does not do very well, with the flat article space. There really should be a hierarchy of articles, starting with a brief summary that is at the top level and which should be uncontestably NPOV and clearly not only notable, but of primary notability, essential knowledge. This layer would always be protected, edits may be proposed (perhaps in a working version of the article), but would require admin approval. Under that would be more detailed explorations, leading to possibly many subarticles, under that would be a wild and wooly territory. But still categorized, and often still of interest. One of my laments is that, in the name of rigorous adherence to WP:RS, and fuzzy concepts of notability guaranteed to create dissension, lots of verifiable information is being lost, either through AfD, or, even more seriously, with notable subjects, a dumbing down of the text, which becomes pap. WP:RS is appropriate for the top layer, or the top two layers, in a hierarchy. Below that, WP:V should reign, in a realm where, for example, you can write anything that is uncontestably true if properly framed. I.e., "According to So-and-so, a math PhD from Rah University, simulations of the proposed method show significant improvement in social utility over standard methods." Sourced from his personal self-published pages. Yes, this layer would allow Original Research, of a kind. Verifiable. And So-and-so still could not, because of WP:COI create that. Indeed, a very basic rule I'd establish is that such marginalia require, if any objection appears, at least two Wikipedia editors (preferably in a trusted class, a whole other can of worms) to sign off on its appropriateness for inclusion.
Notability is not a matter for vote, for human knowledge is a fractal, with an access hierarchy, and one branch of the fractal may have no knowledge of what is important to another. We have articles on subjects that, because they were published in some journal that might be read by a few hundred readers, if that, can survive AfD; but there can be other subjects where the material is known to millions of readers, but nothing exists in RS. Which doesn't mean that it's not verifiable; in fact, I just saw an extensive article, with 260 edits from many different editors, bite the dust because almost every source was a blog or another wiki or some webcomic review site, none of it clearly RS and clearly showing notability. I found one mention in a newspaper. Because the subject was a webcomic, every fact in the article was rigorously sourced and was thus verifiable. A few hundred specialists establishes notability, hundreds of thousands, or more, readers, that's "fancruft." We need a clear definition of "sum" and of "human knowledge," because our advertising is, given current practices, misleading. Most people read that and think that what they and their friends know is "human knowledge," and they imagine that "sum" means "all."
Instead, our practice is that "sum" means "summary according to our POV of what is notable," and "human knowledge" means "reported by academics and reliable media." So then "that anyone can edit" becomes highly specified: you can edit it if you don't report from your own experience or primary source. At law, this is not the standard: basic principle of common law and often incorporated in statute under the Rules of Evidence or Procedure: testimony is presumed true unless controverted. This is somewhat found here as WP:AGF. We should, in fact, assume that an article is accurate unless there is evidence to the contrary. (However, raw alleged fact must be still be verifiable, which attribution does, i.e., the fact stated is that "according to...." and, if you look at this, it requires that two people be involved. "Human knowledge," quite reasonably, can be glossed as "shared human knowledge." However, this standard can be creative: I.e., someone can ask a primary source to verify or confirm, and then we have two.).
It is impossible, in my view, to retain the status quo, it is far too inefficient, unless some very basic principles are compromised. The pressure from those who think that if they and their friends know it, it is "human knowledge," will be far too great, the work of cleanup is just as difficult as categorization, and more difficult when there is any disagreement, will continue to increase. Instead, a reframe: not cleanup (i.e., tossing it all in one big trash bin), but categorize and sort for recycling and appropriate access. What isn't notable today may well be notable tomorrow, meanwhile, the article is gone, someone will probably recreate it unless they know to ask for undeletion, duplicating labor.
There are compromise solutions involving working with other wikis; in this vision, "deletion" really means "move it to MonsterKitchenSinkWiki." Hopefully into proper categories there. However, that's actually quite inefficient. For one thing, the disk space requirements almost double. Somewhere here I saw the reference to MeatBall, with the vision of one place for everything. I don't agree with that, because that's not secure; brains don't store information in one place, neither should we as a society. Still, if content is deposited here, the standards for what is kept should be such as to be uncontroversial among our community. That's not the case now, and this is a problem that will only get worse.
Anyway, the task Zenwhat has suggested he will do is an excellent undertaking. An essay index. One would think we'd already have that.... apparently not.--Abd (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does make sense to categorize them. Perhaps we could start a wikiproject to do that. If we each categorize a few essays a week, we'll have them all done pretty soon. Of course, many essays would properly belong to more than one category. A good way to start might be to go to certain policy pages, e.g. WP:N, and click on "What links here". Many of the pages that link there will likely be notability-related essays. Once we have them all categorized, it will be easier for others to avoid reinventing the wheel when they think of a cool thought they want to write an essay about. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I created a new wikiproject. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Essay Categorization and/or Classification. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XD templates

I have undeleted all of the XD templates I deleted I think. If I missed one just point it out! James086Talk | Email 07:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a great idea!

Since I became aware that God Kim Bruning has an account and is actually a very experienced Wikipedia editor, many things have become even more clear. For starters, I just realized that I can take WP:IAR off my watch list, getting rid of a huge amount of noise. WP:SILENCE is actually very useful. Sure, if I don't speak up, my opinion might be presumed not to exist. But I can speak up later. After all the noise quiets down. There is a danger, but that danger exists only because we often disregard policy and guidelines, and I can confront that if the occasion arises. Simple. Do nothing. Let it happen. Then see and, if appropriate, act. --Abd (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kinda confused here. At first, what you say sounds like sarcasm because you call him God, then cross it out. But the last part seems totally correct:

Simple. Do nothing. Let it happen. Then see and, if appropriate, act.

See Taoism and Zen. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lectures (great idea!)

Great idea, I'd love to sit in and see if I learn anything. I saw someone asking if they needed any special software, and it occurred to me that providing a web-IRC client like this might be handy. I can set that up if you like (the linked one is mine, I can add the relevant server/channel you want to use to the lists there).

--tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 18:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since we've got 6 people listed so far, I think we may need to start planning. :-) I was pondering starting on a weekend 1 or 2 weeks from now. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have time to give lectures? Waerth (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFTER I'm done being sick, doing Martin's (Gerard's) stuff , and after your stuff, of course. This is one of the too many promises I'd already made quite a while ago. (hence my moratorium on making ANY new ones :-p ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC) in short: No. But I promised ^^;;[reply]
I set up a completely independent client at [9] instead, as discussed. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 15:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grey Knight++ --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested changes in the WMF privacy policy

Hello,

I posted some suggestions for changes in the WMF privacy policy at the WMF site: [10]. The gist of the suggestions is to institute a requirement for notifying those registered users whose identifying info is being sought by subpoenas in third-party lawsuits. These suggestions are motivated in large part by a discussion that took place in January 2008 at the Village Pump (Policy) page [11] in relation to an incident where identifying IP data of sixteen Wikipedia users was released in response to such a subpoena. I also left a note about these proposal at Village Pump, WP:Village_pump_(policy)#Suggestions_for_changes_in_the_WMF_privacy_policy. Since you have participated in the January Village Pump discussion, I hope that you will contribute to the discussion of the current suggestions at the WMF website, [12]. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

I am fine with that, well, I would like an explanation. A) Who says private communication is "essential"? I never use it. Lots never use it. I think it subverts to some degree the GFDL, transparency and centralized discussion.

As well, it allows for a secret channel for "meat-puppeting" in some instances.

I am a newby, wolud you care to try to inform me, so that I come to a more enlightened place. I do value your thoughts, though I have difficulty overcoming my perpetual confusion. I was only guessing, you see. But at this time, I find private comms, (even e-mail) to be potentially disruptive. How have I mis-understood? (Not a complaint at all, just, if you can help me out, if it's not too much trouble, Thanks --Newbyguesses - Talk 21:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both private and public communications are used extensively by everyone on wikipedia and at wikimedia in general (note also that systems like IRC are public too!). It is also very very useful. The wikipedia-en-l (mailing list) is still officially a source of policy (though i doubt anyone still uses it for that ;-) ). I did just post my reasoning on the talk page at WT:BRD by the way. Take a look and see if you agree! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
+ In general, you can never have too many ways to communicate with each other. Good communication eliminates misunderstandings and ensures that everyone can get along with each other that much better.
In the case of talking about the wiki, all on-wiki action must also be documented on-wiki, so if you do discuss something on irc or per e-mail or what have you, summarize it on the wiki as well, so that other people can see your reasoning. :-)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for replying so promptly. (I also posted to talk:BRD.) Q- how does a private comm. get documented on-wiki as you say it should? A summary, which may be inaccurate, or disputed, or simply neglected and not missed?
Also, if many, many editors do "not" use private comms, how is that then "essential", and what are they missing out on?
Could it be that the "plodders" actually set the best pace? (just thinkin' out lard.)
Also, see the confusion (if you interested) caused by the mere possibility that private comms. (600emails) are being taken into account, in secret, by some arbitrators, at Rfa/Mantanmoreland. For instance, a question I posed in my#evidence at /Evidence (section 13), over a fortnight ago, has not been answered, and many other Users have clamoured for such an answer to no avail. waiting to be enlightened--Newbyguesses - Talk 21:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those are complex questions. I've answered the general case first, at WT:BRD. If that goes in the right direction, I'll answer some more specific cases once we have that covered. Especially the arbcom case looks rather tricky and may require some research which I'd have to make time for. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are those IRC conversations logged and the transcripts put somewhere public? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. Some of those channels ban public logging. Which is silly. ^^; --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Kim, thanks. I do not have the technical expertise to explore these issues on my own, just yet. Also, still rather busy. May we take this up again at a later date? I Will continue to watch 2 pages for any, and other replies. See ya at talk:IAR. (and Thanks to ALL.) --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as a general comment on wikipedia-en-l, yes, it does discuss policy, among other things, but in general from a perspective not related to specific proposals. I find it a good place for a meta-discussion about how the community is proceeding on something or the general orientation of the project DGG (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Kim, this was what I was thinking, too— "sure, it's faster to discuss matters between a limited group of people. What it does, though, is exclude the rest of the community. -per: DGG (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)—But, I am still thinking this out—
PS I am learning the Wiki Mantra! --Newbyguesses - Talk 19:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's why it's a cycle, right? You start with a limited group of people, and then you go back and talk with one more, and one more, and one more, until nobody else steps forward. That way, you are much more likely to talk with those people who want and need to be heard, and you are much more likely to find all of them. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC) ps. I should never have quoted Ivanova. OMG what have I started!?[reply]

Wikipedia:IP block exemption

You seem to be running the show here so I'll just ask you rather than reading a stack of talk pages...

Basically, how's progress on this? Has the usergroup been implemented? Is it possible to request an ip-block-exempt yet? dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 05:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. I'm taking it slow, since we've had some issues with previous proposals like this. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skype comments?

Did you talk on the phone with someone, and are giving me some transcripts or a summary? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Used skype chat. You have the chat log over a brief period where I was making a sequence of comments about Zenwhat's post. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MfD

Thanks, I commented there. My suggested resolution is for you to self-revert your close; it will be simpler than to go to Deletion Review. I do not use skype of chat, and would prefer discussion of this to be on-wiki. DGG (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is "there"? Oh well, I'll check your user contribs and find it. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kim_Bruning&oldid=197122365"