User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 4

Ok, so my last attempt at taking a break didn't work, but now I'm REALLY taking a break, honest! (yeah right, who am I fooling?) , and archiving just before. :-) I'm not gone or away or anything so don't dare miss me! I might even still edit a bit. Just I gotta fix RL stuff too eh?

---

New messages here, in case you still need me. (Hopefully not too much :-) )

Help translating a page

I was refered to you by Essjay who said you speak Dutch and English fluently. I was hoping if you had time you could help me by translating the Dutch Wikipedia Oil pastel page which I believe if this can be done will help the English Wikipedia Oil pastel page a lot. If you haev time please leave a message on my user page if you are able to translate this for me. Thank you very much. :) Graxe 03:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Break

Enjoy your break, but do come back. And bring me back something pretty! --fvw* 03:30, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Bring me back something too, LOL! :-) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

You sound fed-up, so this is to let you know that you are appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:21, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least take a couple days off, LOL - you sound like you could use it . Don't leave for too long though... you have to be back in 6 weeks for my RfA!!! (Well, if I'm around in 6 weeks, of course) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

So, who banned you? Enjoy your break! Come back soon, after you charge up your Wikibatteries. --Titoxd 06:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You are my hero, and I offer you a token--something I just discovered. It is chocolate--without sugar--straight chocolate. It is incredible! I started from dark roasted cacao nibs--crunched beans. Then I moved to bars of 99% straight cocoa butter--Theobroma--food of the gods. You are a god, straight up.  :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 03:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Bureaucratship

Hi, Kim. Thank you so much for your support and kind words on my bureaucratship nomination. Unfortunately, it didn't pass, but I intend to run again soon. If you'd like to be informed next time around, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks again! Andre (talk) 05:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Given the conversation, I looked it up and I realised that you are not a b'crat. How not? (Looks like the break isn't going that well? Or is this a break?) Guettarda 03:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I never requested the bureaucrat privileges. People typically have to nominate me kicking and screaming. Since bureaucrat is a self-nom, this is one duty I've managed to avoid so far :-P. Oh you mean wikibreak? Ah um... right. Ok, this is last post (again). I promise! Kim Bruning 11:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Disaster planning

Hi Kim, I liked the conversation on #wikimedia. I found this article: http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/o/nov04/nov04c.html It is written a year ago about a scenario that now unfolded on NO. Some topdogs do claim now it was not foreseen - I would like to have it documented very well - sum of all knowledge is sum of all knowledge - especially disaster planning. Have you any idea where to put this story? Gebruiker:Dedalus 11:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC) (I was wrong about no evacuation order - Ray Nagin called a 'mandatory evacuation' on August 29th)

GNAA FAC

It is going to fail. While I am glad I have kept it from going down to fights like it did last time, there are some things they want me to do that I do not have the ability to, and from what I checked earlier, many of the references have gone away. So, I took it off my watchlist and wait for Raul to remove it. I already closed three of my noms early, so I will let Raul take care of that one. Don't worry, I got some more backlogs to clear anyways. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts

It definately sounds like a good idea to work together on that... I'm not sure how to. Maybe esperenza is a start, although I'd like to see a "Don't bite anybody" rule someday ;). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Overhaul of the Cabal - WP:TINMC

Dear Kim: Just thought I'd drop you a note to let you know that I've done the new version of the medcab that we discussed on IRC, and I would be most grateful if you would review it and offer any changes/criticism/flames as appropriate :-). I've made it a bit more serious, and I am hopeful that if all seems to be well we can set about integrating it into the dispute resolution pages. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull 04:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Come back Kim

Moving this to talk since Darkfred is being trollish.

Rowrl the BARNSTARBEAR has eaten your WIKIBREAK! oH nOes!!!111oneone Come back Kim!

Illinoisian 17:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

BARNSTAR BEAR SAYS YOUR BREAK IS OVER!!!! TIME TO GET BACK TO WORK!!!!

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

hive-wiki

MattisManzel 11:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC): Marvelous bear above btw. Kim, I puzzled a bit on hive-wiki after our chat yesterday.

Thank you so much for supporting me on my RfA!

Dear Kim: Thank you so much for supporting my adminship! I consider the trust that you have placed in me a great honour, both through the trust that you have placed in me as maintainer of the Mediation Cabal and through your support of my adminship, and I do sincerely hope that I meet up to your expectations. Your continued company, advice, and support - especially when I have been going through a somewhat rough time - are irreplaceable, and I am most greatly indebted to you for the help that you have provided to me. I promise to do my very best as an administrator, and to use my newly-bestowed privileges to assist the community as much as I possibly can. I shall see you around on IRC, and on the wiki; I very much look forward to continuing to converse and work with you. Once again, thank you. :) Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 02:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for adminship

I appreciate that you're on a well deserved break, and I don't want to seem like campaigning, but as you nominated me previously, I thought it only right to tell you that I'm now back on requests for adminship. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAD} 09:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Mindmatrix

Hmm, maybe you're right...but...how in the world does he do that? *scratches head* --Phroziac^(talk) 14:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I've decided that I should slow down a bit, especially when servers have a high load. And perhaps I'll get one of those things, what is it called - oh yes, a life :-) Mindmatrix 21:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on my RfA!

Thanks for your support of my adminship!! I was surprised at the turnout and support I got! If you ever have any issues with any of my actions, please notify me on my talk page! Thanks again! Get some rest and come back eventually :) - maybe when you do the servers will actually not be slow, LOL :).Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Like a total idiot ....

I went outside to look for my passport in my car, because I haven't seen it in a few days, but I forgot to take my keychain with me, locking myself out in the process. So I sat outside for three hours until someone came home to let me in. I wasn't ignoring you :) Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 22:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Jolly good show

Thank you for your kind comment on my talk page, Kim; and thank you for having nominated me the first time round, even though it failed. I admit even I was shocked at the superb positive outcome of my latter nomination, but perhaps I misjudged how much of an impact I'd made. All the best, Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 16:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back

Well, I guess you're still only only at "limited activity," but since that's a step up, and I saw your arbcom candidacy, I thought I'd take the time to say welcome back! I'm sure you and your evil :-) were missed by lots of people. I hope you're up to the job (personally I'd rather be a mediator) but that means you're going to have to stick around. Good luck. Happy to see you around again. Now take a deep breath and dive back in! Dmcdevit·t 21:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo's changing the arbcom election procedure, so I'm going to have to wait up with that candidate statement, it looks like. Hello to you too! :) Kim Bruning 21:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Really, where'd he say that? Was it the mailing list? I stopped reading it about a week ago because it's become so unmanageable, so of course he'd make an important announcement now. :) Dmcdevit·t 22:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[1] Here. Kim Bruning 22:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, welcome back :). It has nothing to do with stress - I just don't have much respect for people like that :). Glad to see you back! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo

Sorry, I need to be strict here and warn you: it is your duty as an administrator to uphold arbcom descisions at all times. Do not fail to do so. Kim Bruning 00:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I made a mistake, and was rightfully corrected. I fully support the Arbitration Committee. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You are one of the subjects of an RfC

You have been named as one of the subjects of an RfC at [2] --Silverback 06:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Diff further to our conversation

[3] --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: IRC/IM/Skype

Kim, I don't use IRC/AIM/ICQ, etc. With particular regard to Wikipedia, I feel they are external to the process and place an undue amount of material out of sight of people who do not use IRC, etc. Further, I'm not aware of any log of actions on IRC so there's no reference base to refer to for dispute resolutions. Indeed, this is one of the things that I think has been the basis of the RfC against me; there were things going on outside of Wikipedia that I did not know about and could not respond to. I acted with the information that was available to me, yet I feel that I have been accused in part on a basis of the communications outside of Wikipedia. If there's something you feel you need to discuss with me privately, you can e-mail me. However, in general, I'd prefer to keep any discussion on this transparent though I defer to your judgement since you know of what it is you want to talk. --Durin 19:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• By the way; Happy Wiki-birthday! (if a couple of days late). I just noticed you passed your four year mark on Wikipedia! Bravo! --Durin 05:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

To Angela

Confirming my meta request. Thanks :-) Kim Bruning 01:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

IAR

Dude - my version is totally better than that. :-P Phil Sandifer 21:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Policy vs. essay

Recognizing that WP:5P wasn't policy was an easy call; the instant I looked at it, I knew it isn't official policy. It isn't labeled as such, and had never gotten any serious discussion of its status on its talk page. While the 'pillars' it indicates are certainly generally accepted, I don't think citing accepted policy is enough to automatically make something policy itself. It could be a guideline, but it just doesn't seem to be offering any guidelines; it's more of a general statement of Wikipedia philosophy... and, again, it has never been discussed or accepted as a guideline. A page that attempts to summarize the philosophy behind existing policy and is neither policy nor guideline itself can only be an essay about that philosophy. I do think that it could be policy at some point (there's nothing wrong with a policy that attempts to outline philosophy--much of WP:NOT follows that pattern), but right now, given that it's neither accepted policy nor listed anywhere as proposed policy, I don't see where it could be categorized beyond "essay." --Aquillion 06:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

xd

can we please discuss the momentum we have already gathered under the refinement of WP:XD before you revert my edits? ∴ here…♠ 08:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

my revised xd proposal was experimental. I did not delete any content by listing the 5 prior xd proposals below it. Furthermore, I solicited comment on the project page and on the talk page. You have did not comment in any of those forums before deleting my consolidated XD proposal. I will happily list my addition under XD6 if warrented by discussion on the WP:XD page. ∴ here…♠ 08:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

see Wikipedia_talk:Experimental_Deletion#Refining_XD_to_only_1_option_.28lets_pick_one.29 ∴ here…♠ 08:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 03:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Excuse you

I think your comments about "WTF" and "Keep this guy away from image editors" were very uncalled for. I know my way around Photoshop a hell of a lot better than most people. Everyone makes mistakes, and I fully admit temporarily lost my mind and oversharpened the image, but I didn't deserve that kind of abuse. Take a look at my image gallery, and specifically, my featured pictures gallery. There you will find images that have been sharpened correctly and have proper tonal adjustments. Well, most of the good ones that I cared to fix properly at any rate.

User:PiccoloNamek/Gallery
User:PiccoloNamek/Gallery/Featured Pictures

I didn't get 14 (as soon as the promotion procedures for the two images I have up now are completed) featured pictures because I don't know how to properly edit an image. What you said was extremely insulting, and goes beyond what I would normally consider criticism.PiccoloNamek 01:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. But you can't say that the other images were improperly enhanced. :)PiccoloNamek 02:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You can say for some of them, sure.. For example, People aren't too impressed with your changes to Shepherd. Your photographs are good and I'm thankful you've contributed them. However, you need to get over this ego you're pulling, it wouldn't be fitting for a person whos work really was unique and amazing. Other people's featured picture candidates are not the place to practice your photochop skills. --Gmaxwell 04:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

"Other people's featured picture candidates are not the place to practice your photochop skills." I don't think that's true. I've been on FPC for some months now, and until a few days ago I've never heard a word of complaint about Piccolo's work. You and Kim may think differently, but in my experience people are quite appreciative of the work he does. Raven4x4x 09:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh, that's nice of you to say, but perhaps I don't deserve to be defended. I really did treat these people like crap. I was crude, rude, mean, and made a rather spectacular display of my own ignorance. I behaved in a way totally unbecoming of a Wikipedian. I think my WikiReputation meter just dropped from around 95-98% to 70% or so. And besides, perhaps not all of my edits were of as high a quality as I thought. I just uploaded a new version of the Mexican Beaded Lizard Picture. (Non-downsampled, lol.) Check out the new one and compare it to the original upload: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BeadedLizard-AHPExotics.jpg

Ouch! The original had too much contrast, and was fuzzy and poorly sharpened and heavily oversaturated. And the new one still has some problems that I couldn't fix, especially on the brightly lit scales on his back and head. But I did my best. Perhaps I should go and fix some of my other pictures too.PiccoloNamek 09:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Digital image manipulation and Gmaxwell

But the things is, once I've clicked on the thumbnail, and then clicked on the image again in its image page, it isn't being downsampled by anything anymore. For some reason, you all seem to be hung up on thumbnails though. It's none of my concern anymore, however. I'm done arguing.PiccoloNamek 07:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

"When you click on the image on the image page itself, you get access to the original (hopefully undownsampled) image. :-) "

Yeah, but the problem is, I have an old, crappy camera, that takes old, crappy looking pictures, full of severe image noise (even at ISO 64), obviously visible demosaicing artifacts, and general overall fuzziness. Downsampling by half seems to remedy these problems somewhat. But from what I've been told, this is all a big illusion, so if Wikipedia wants full-size images, Wikipedia will get full size images, demosaicing artifacts and all. Sure, they wouldn't be visible in any thumbnail, or even on the image page, but they would in the original. =( PiccoloNamek 08:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:All Official Policies on a Single Page

I'm attempting to write all rules on a single page, which should be easy since we have very few rules in the first place. I'm adding some common misconceptions, such as the idea that all 3RR-violators must be blocked, or that all perceived POV warriors must be deadminned. Your feedback would be appreciated. Radiant_>|< 23:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

BARNSTAR GET

		An Award
		I, grm_wnr, award this old skool barnstar to Kim Bruning for his valiant effort to reintroduce sanity into the Speedy Deletion process. --User:Grm_wnr 01:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

EddieSegoura

Aloha, Kim. I appreciate you getting involved in this matter, as I feel the more Wikipedians that attempt to help Eddie, the better. Perhaps you could help facilitate the CheckUser end of things. You'll find that Eddie is behind the accounts listed in the category. I'm not sure why he's playing these games, but contrary to his vehement protestations, the socks belong to him as many of his edits have already demonstrated. You may also want to check out his website to understand the full scope of this matter. See also: User_talk:NSLE#Eddies_accounts. --Viriditas 10:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

EddieSegoura's reply: all Viriditas talk abouts is "sockspuppets". He/She has nothing else better to do then try to prove I'm a fake. I don't know what viriditas is trying to accomplish here. I do appeciate Your help in trying to end this, though.

What is "CheckUser" and how do I use it? EddieSegoura 7:35 AM, November 25, 2005 (EST)

Kim, WP:NPOV, so I won't make any comment. Eddie must learn NPOV though. And I believe checkuser is only for sysops/bureaucrats? NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 13:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

My two cents: Eddie's becoming a less-contained problem rapidly. Looking at their edits leaves little doubt that the accounts in the sockpuppet category are either Eddie's, or the results of a masterfully-orchestrated smear campaign agaist this new user. I'm not sure CheckUsering is going to do much; he jumps from IP to IP quite a bit. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exicornt is more-or-less the focal point for all this. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

CSD, etc

I wasn't going to respond, but since you insisted...

Because what you were doing counts, at best, as a violation of WP:POINT. CSD's established, all the CSDs had to pass a huge threshold of voting to pass, and you're disrupting WP to make the point that you think CSDs are a bad idea rather than trying to talk people into proposing a vote on the issue, to be held on at least the same threshold as proposing a new CSD (75% IIRC), rather than trying to ramrod through your changes in the dead of night (literally). - SoM 19:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• However, your feedback on the CSD is still appreciated. I still believe consensus supports the recently suggested changes, but there is a vocal minority opposition. Please note that Tony's characterization of the earlier vote is in error, and note that there has been little opposition to the proposals so far other than the allegation that it was previously rejected. In other words everyone's arguing process rather than merit. Any thoughts on how to proceed without having to annoy everyone with a wikiwide poll? Radiant_>|< 01:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

E-mail

E-mail for you, Kim. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Kennisnet and the UK Internet for Learning

Thanks, Kim. I have lobbed your thought at the UK Wikipedians, here. Bishonen | talk 22:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive attitude and helpful comments

Hope to see more of you around. Trollderella 20:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Help Me clean up this mess.

Hi, Kim.
I need Your help in cleaning up a mess of "sock" tags on experimental accounts I created. I would like following User:Hompages redirected to User:EddieSegoura:

• LetsGoYankees
• Mr. Transit
• Third Rail

I've been trying to do this Myself, but user NSLE (and other users as well) persistantly keep restorign the tages. It's frustrating.
Perhaps we can work on merging the accounts altogether before this gets out of hand? -- Eddie 08:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor/Workshop. As you are an advocate for a party you may comment as a party. Fred Bauder 00:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

Just saw this. I knew it was you, even before I checked the history, from the mention of "brownie points". I really am trying to change the way I interact at Wikipedia, and I think this will help. Thanks. Uncle Ed 21:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

RI Crisis

I am very puzzled. On 3 December, I am evidently being attacked for a a vote that I cast in August on an RfA. The vote was a Weak Oppose, based on the fact that he had apparently defined consensus as 100%. There were and are several ongoing content disputes where one disruptive editor is asked to respect consensus, and says that there is no consensus if he does not agree. It appears that RI then restated his position, and I did not watchlist the RfA, and RI did not tell me that he had restated his position. As of 3 December, Gmaxwell posts what I consider a strong personal attack on my talk page, and then you ask me what was my reasoning. My reasoning is simply that the definition of consensus as 100% permits a troll or disruptive editor to exercise a liberum veto. I had had not subsequent interaction with RI or Gmaxwell between August and now. I will have to research the problem further. Thank you for at least asking me a reasoned question rather than slamming me. Robert McClenon 15:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I can summarize what I think has happened. On 28 August 2005, I cast a Weak Oppose vote on an RfA, based on a statement about consensus. The candidate then restated what he said. I probably should have watchlisted the RfA. That is a lesson learned. The RfA was then closed out as No Consensus. I would agree with another comment that that was a bureaucrat error. The bureaucrat should have left the RfA open to allow the Oppose voters to respond to the clarification. In any case, on 4 September, RI took a break from Wikipedia, although several of his supporters encouraged him to resubmit himself for adminship. I don't see anything obvious between 4 September and 3 December. As of 3 December, it appears that Gmaxwell has posted personal attacks on the pages of several (probably all) of the Oppose voters, demanding that they withdraw from non-article pages and possibly from Wikipedia. I think that RI may have overreacted. I don't think that any of us meant to be voting against RI, only not voting for his judgment on closing VfD's. Gmaxwell certainly is overreacting in demanding that 14 Wikipedians all leave Wikipedia, each based on a single vote. I also see a parallel between Gmaxwell and FuelWagon. FuelWagon is now before the ArbCom because he persists against all advice in continuing to rage about alleged wrongs done to him by SlimVirgin and Ed Poor, and then made the mistake of asking the ArbCom to take action against Ed Poor, and now they will probably take action against FuelWagon instead. Gmaxwell is attacking a "mob" of completely unrelated editors, each for a single vote. Robert McClenon 15:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I was not basing my vote on 28 August on a "crisis", so much as I was applying my own judgment of what issues were important at the time. Perhaps I should have followed someone else's judgment of what issues were important. (That is sarcastic.) Robert McClenon 15:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I have not changed my views on consensus in general, but I have changed my views on AfD. However, that is not really the point. Robert McClenon 15:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I do hope that RI comes back. I do hope that Gmaxwell apologizes, but I am not optimistic. Robert McClenon 15:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

If I do leave Wikipedia, which I may, it will not be because I think that my Weak Oppose vote was an unforgivable mistake, but because it has too many flamers and bullies. Robert McClenon 15:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Clarification of closing RfAs.

Kim, I saw your comments on IRC regarding my closing of RfAs. I'm not closing them. I never have, even badly failing RfAs (I've been a staunch opponent of early removal of RfAs). As mindspillage (I think that's who it was) noted, not all bureaucrats close out RfAs properly. I don't "close" the RfAs. I watch for RfAs that close, and if the RfA has not had any of; the proper header/footer attached, the "vote here" link removed, and the ending time updated, I edit the RfA to close out the RfA properly. I'm not closing anything, I'm just closing it out properly. Please give me the benefit of the doubt in the future before blasting me on IRC, ok? :) --Durin 15:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey - IRC

Hey, are you coming on IRC any time soon? Could you ping me when you're next on? :) Talrias (t | e | c) 02:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Three Appeals

Hi Kim,

I am writing to appeal to you to change your course in three separate areas related to discussions of policy. They go from least to most urgent.

• Please reconsider your "shotgun" approach to all recent policies and guidelines as "instruction creep." By "shotgun" approach, I mean that you tend to propose very broad changes to well-established practices, sometimes because they have relatively minor problems or seem extreneous to you. Since you joined Wikipedia so long ago, you don't have the experience of being a new editor arriving when Wikipedia was already extremeley large; I'd like to tell you how things seemed, as someone who joined a mere five months ago, so that maybe you can understand why maintaining the basic outline of current policy is so important to me.

  A starting Wikipedian doesn't know any admins at all. For my first thousand edits, I had no interaction with anyone acting in an administrative capacity. Without knowing what the rules were, Wikipedia would have been a very scary place. Was it ok to revert users for adding psuedoscience to physics articles? How many times? Policies like WP:3RR give an absolute upper bound and advise against edit warring. What can be deleted, and what might be deleted without community discussion or easy recourse? Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion give the answer. WP:NPOV says how to write articles, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL say how to behave with regard to others, and WP:MUSIC makes general suggestions about which articles on songs and bands are broadly accepted as notable.

  Without rules that bind even administrators, it would be hard as a new user to be comfortable on Wikipedia. What's to prevent an admin from using common sense to block me for doing something another admin had said was ok? How can I trust 600 people I don't know if they don't have a code of behavior? Existing policies and guidelines have problems, but they do good things too. They're the product of the agreement of many users on what rules for everyone would make them comfortable. To throw out large sections because of "instruction creep" is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

• Please please reconsider your extensive use of the "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" for policy pages. Policies do not serve their purpose if they change between visits to the page (except in the case of broad community agreement that a change is necessary). Please read Wikipedia:How to create policy for a discussion of how much effort has gone into policies that were enacted recently, and how broad their support was; changing the foundations of community interactions should be done with equal support. Without that support, editing them should be approached with caution. Rapid changes can undermine the functioning of the encyclopedia and don't make proposed reforms go any faster. WP:BOLD doesn't just say "Be bold!" and there's Wikipedia:Be cautious too.
• Please please please do not be contemptuous or rude toward other users. That means don't make cryptic references to views expressed by users that recent editors have never met, that means not calling people idiots in edit summaries, it means not singling out users to make a point on policy, and it certainly means not suggesting people leave the project because of their views.

I've taken some time to write all this down; I hope you will consider it. In acting according to my conscience and understanding of current community consensus, I have opposed you on these issues before; it would genuinely upset me to continue butting heads with you on the same issues. Thank you, SCZenz 21:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Kim, thanks for your reply to my message. It's taken me a little bit to have time to get back to you, mostly because my time on the wiki has been consumed with other silly activities. I suppose I'll go back to bullet points, or maybe even (muahahaha!) a numbered list:

1. The trouble with policy being based in mutable "accepted practices" is that then nobody but the admins knows what they can and can't do. Better to write it down, I think, and change what's written if it needs changing.
2. I know that policy is hard to change as written in the guideline, but I think that's largely because people support much of it as-is. (Everyone has a pet part they want to change, but nobody agrees on which ones.) If policy is changed easily by a few users (even if nobody objects), then nobody knows what policy says anymore; instead of it being an amalgamation stuff people wrote on a whim and got frozen, it's now an amalgamation of stuff people wrote on a whim recently. Policy stops being policy and becomes at best what rules the admins feel like enforcing this week, or at worst just a random jumble. Then it stops doing what I at least think it needs to do. That being said, the page on how to change policy is only a guideline, and you can use the woodpecker method if you prefer; I assume, though, that you won't take offence if often disagree with changes you make, see them first, and revert them. ;-)
3. Two forks of my third point:
   • Regarding Jdforrester, yes I've encountered him now that you mention it, but not often, and it was before I know what ArbCom was. High-level administrators, the ones who have been here forever and everyone defers to, actually don't move in the 6-month-old-but-active circles of AfD and policymaking very much. I don't think we young 'uns can be expected to have run into everything and know years of history, I only think we can be expected to know what's going on now. So maybe we do need a Who's Who of Wikipedia; it's a big place. Failing that, best to link userpages and explain your points directly instead of appealing to authority; otherwise you seem to be dismissing us young 'uns, even the ones who have put a lot of time into the Wiki of late.
   • Regarding singling people out, I do protest your treatment of Hamster Sandwich (which I should mention I only kept track of through last weekend). It seems to me that you suggested punishing him largely for a misunderstanding, and for not using the right buzzwords about "rough consensus" vs. "consensus". Being an administrator is "no big deal," and everything that one does is reversible; they get the job because we don't think they'll misuse the buttons, not because they say the things you expect. I think his views seem to be in line with accepted practice, where we do run on rough consensus and call it consensus. I also approve of admins not taking too much authority to discount views, because it's so easy to abuse by accident, and having some kind of rough numerical standard for AfD helps with that. You might disagree with that practical approach to rough consensus, but it's no reason to desysop Hamster Sandwich (or me, for that matter).

Anyway, thanks for reading. -- SCZenz 19:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Eh?

You wrote on Jimbo's page "I'm a bit worried about editing a page history, that just seems ... wrong ... to me, like alexandria library wrong. When will we stop doing this?" Could I ask what this means? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:Editing page histories is a tad... brrr

I completly agree with you. Even before I read your statement I wrote to Jimbo at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Newspeak_warning stating my views on this. History pages should be untouchable - or we will lose much credibility.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

In case you are still interested in this issue, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Removal_of_libel_from_edit_history.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Kim

Hey there Mr. Bruning,

I've been away for a good bit, and just decided to pop in and see what was new. I would give you a response to the Rl thing, but it appears to have blown over already. At any rate, Mr. Maxwell is being a bit rude to total strangers, and I would ask that you don't encourage him anymore. I'm not holding my breath, though. :)

Anyway, I'll have more time to edit and have loud disagreements with you on IRC in January. Talk to you more later, Kim. Fernando Rizo 23:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hill-climbing algorithm?

Can you explain what you meant by that at Talk:Unguided evolution? Guettarda 22:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I was looking for hill climbing. Kim Bruning 22:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Wright's shifting balance? Guettarda 02:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

No, more like evolution is a hillclimber, where unguided evolution would be a climber that does not actually climb. :-P But it's a moot point, because apparently it's not a scientific term. (I should have guessed that) :-/ Kim Bruning 19:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Hill-climbing in the context of evolution made me think of Wright's shifting balance, and I was hoping you might be thinking of something along those lines... Guettarda 19:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, that article is a red link. Would you care to fill it in? <innocent look> Maybe I can comment more there. :) Kim Bruning 19:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...just what I need, another reason to avoid grading projects, coming up with final exams, getting some manuscripts finished, and getting more job applications out.  :) Guettarda 20:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Questioning Adminship

I am not sure from your comments on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) whether you are talking about the same trend I have seen, but I think too many people are saying that adminship is "no big deal" and then turning around and voting not to give people the tools based on factors they have in their minds as to what an admin should be. That implies that adminship is a post of honor (or at least duty) rather than simply being given access to some tools that newcomers might misuse, either intentionally or from a lack of understanding. See my comments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Awolf002, for example. A couple of the people voting "oppose" on that RFA were up for adminship themselves and I was tempted to question them publicly on their own RFA's about their positions on what adminship means, but I decided that would just create more negativity. I don't like what I am seeing; I think it is destructive and ends up needlessly alienating good editors who are forced to forego the use of the tools when there is virtually zero chance that they will misuse them.. -- DS1953 18:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• The way I read Kim's statement, it's not so much just about RfA as about the general fact that instead of being simply the users who won't abuse the tools, now it's a sort of official position where admins are the policemen of the wiki. Administrators are called upon to undertake mediation, policy enforcement (see Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights) etc. that don't simply follow from being a trusted user. The responsibilities have increased and also the scrutiny to which admin powers are subjected has been increased, which is why RfA has gotten tougher. I think a good way to express this is that in the adminship context, "trusted user" used to mean "trusted not to destroy the encyclopedia with his new buttons" and now means "trusted to enforce specifically the 'rules' set up by policy and guidelines." Or at least this is how I interpret Kim's point. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

re: Hamster sandwich

Kim, I hold you in high regards as far as your contributions to Wikipedia...I have no reservations about your judgement. I will have to look over the discussion again to see what exactly is going on, but I would prefer to not have HamsterSandwichs RfA go through another nomination process. My attitude is that if he does close AfD's incorrectly now that he is an admin, then that would be the time to go to arbitration. Is the risk so great that he will screw up to justify a recall? I am not sure, but if you feel that way, then I respect that. I also apologize if I made your comments seem unimportant. I just saw a sort of witch hunt manifesting and that worried me. We are just human and we are going to make mistakes.--MONGO 04:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was worried about the de-adminning thing as I know it will result in some really bad sentiments. I don't completely disagree with you and I won't be chiming in there uninvited...probably not even if I am invited I won't add or subtract. You must do what you think is best for Wikipedia, but I do not see that Hamster Sandwich is going to end up being a threat...heck, there are a few admins that raise my eyebrows and I say to myself..how the heck did you get to be an admin...but I imagine there are plenty of folks that feel the same way about me!--MONGO 04:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm interested in the way you are so sure that Hamster Sandwich needs de-adminning, when he hasn't actually done anything wrong as far as I know. He hasn't had much time to do much abuse of admin privileges, and his comment on RI's RFA is just one incident based on what seems to be a poor choice of words from RI, a misinterpretation from Hamster Sandwich or both. This whole thing just seems like an honest mistake as to the closing date, and I don't feel anything different should be made of it. Raven4x4x 07:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I had that in mind when I approached him on irc. Having talked with him there, I have the impression his actions might well have been calculated and deliberate all along.

So on the one hand there's this major red flag of him having participated in driving off a known good user. On the other hand people say he does good work and seems like such a nice guy.

*sigh* What am I to do? Kim Bruning 14:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

What's going on?

Kim, way back when you first found out about the Rl thing I told you that I'd support RFA reform 100%, but turing this into a witchhunt would be counterproductive. You even agreed with me. So tell me, what do you have in mind? Back when you were still fuming about Hamster Sandwich on IRC, I asked you to actually get to know the guy. A vote and a question on an RFA in August have little or no bearing on his qualifications to be an admin. I'm dismayed that, rather than get to know him, you've taken the witchhunt route. Hamster Sandwich is friendly and helpful, experienced in the article namespace, shows good judgment, and I know personally he has no problems with asking for help or other opinions. He is qualified to be an admin, and your actions are increasingly iritating me. He's a warm person [4], [5], [6]. In fact, Hamster Sandwich is not the kind of admin I'd expect to block RN in a personal dispute out of policy, or to delete the conlangs vote or the vote bar template unilaterally, or to block Mel Etitis for a trifle of a misunderstanding. Kim, it looks to me, and I'm sure others, like you are trying to prove something here, and the disruption is serious. You can disagree with HS all you want, publicly and vehemently even, but this is simple harassment. It's no clerical error your upset about, but Hammster Sandwich's adminship itself. If it's just a bureaucrat mistake we're talking about, I'm sure we can get it sorted out between the bureaucrat and HS without arbcom. The fact is, Hamster Sandwich's adminship represents nothing adverse for the Wikipedia community. But this RFAr, the harassment, I'm sure you know, people have left for less than this. There will be admins you will disagree with. Go ahead and disagree with them. Almost nothing they do is irreversible anyway. There's supposed to be an encyclopedia somewhere around here, and even though it looks like you (and I) haven't touched it in weeks, the irony is that Hamster Sandwich is working on it. I know this is a rant, and actually I planned on it being a rant, but I've been quiet too long, and I know you have better things to do than this. Dmcdevit·t 05:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hamster Sandwich is a warm person until you question him :-( . I tried talking with him on IRC, and that didn't turn out too good. He hasn't changed his position one whit in all those months, and isn't prepared to discuss it either. Kim Bruning 05:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Surely that's not how it happens. He's a warm person until you question him. Truth is, I haven't seen you questioning him much, but mostly just telling him off. Go look at HS's talk page and you'll see he was questioned by Mindspillage (during the RFA I might add) and answered graciously. So what if he hasn't changed his mind even? I have legitimate ideological beefs with plenty of admins, and I still respect them and would like to see them stay admins. But how does any of that explain your actions? Simply put, you can't be hoping to accomplish anything for our encyclopedia with these antics. Yes, look at how he's abused those admin tools so far [7]. His adminship is a terrible blow to our encyclopedia I see. I'm sorry he was mean to you on IRC, but this is an encyclopedia after all, not a playground. This just looks like personal spite and you're inventing a political battle where none exists. I'm telling you, Hamster Sandwich was the least-controversial, lowest-profile guy around until you made him controversial instead of talking to him directly and calmly. I would appreciate a much more thoughtful response than that. Dmcdevit·t 06:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried talking with him politely on irc. He refused to discuss his position. His position *is* at odds with adminship as I see it. You have to remember that since I'm a fairly old user, my adminship requirements aren't very extreme: 0 Edits, 0 Months, 0 AFDs, 0 FAs. Just an understanding of consensus, an ability to survive conflict and pressure, and knowledge of WP:TRI. So far I've seen him fail at least 2 out of 3. :-/ Kim Bruning 06:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Kim, with all due respect, so far I've seen you fail all three right here. Consensus hasn't got a thing to do with votes, and I'm shocked to here that kind of stuff from you. I'm sorry you missed the vote but, truthfully, have you seen a single one of the supporters express opposition now, after you've had time to have your say. There's seriously much better ways to do this than being a m:DICK, and your continued insinuations spread across the Wikipedia space just seem downright rude. You say that you think he'll make a bad admin, but have refused to simply wait and see. I can think of two current admins who I opposed strongly but were promoted anyway. They had to do with basic misinterpretations of consensus, civility, and deletion. But that does not warrant an arbitration, but a gracious congrats and an attempt to live and work with them. You of all people I would expect to see the seven day vote as the arbitrary, meaningless limit that it is, just like the entire vote system. You sure you fully understand consensus yourself? 45 people expressed their opinons there, and you say it's not consensus because it wasn't there for a full 7 days, because you couldn't vote? And that warrants deadminship? Give me a break. You really need to back down and think about what you're saying. Dmcdevit·t 06:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, well you argue that I should have stated my opinion inside 6 days instead of 7, and then you argue that I should know that this number is arbitrary. Well, I do, that's why I'm asking for this to be reviewed. Kim Bruning 07:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, you're seeking it to be reviewed because the arbitrary number wasn't upheld? Or because you recognize it's arbitrary, so you should have been able to vote nevertheless? Your responses here have been underwhelming to say the least. I don't like how you respond to very little of what I'm saying (and none of the spirit of it). This moment right now is about the most disheartened with Wikpedia I've been in a long time. It doesn't help that I'm under real world stress right now as well, but then again, it's a good thing we have certain people around who are thoughtful. I'm sorry but you have yet to demonstrate a single good thing that will come out of this attempted persecution (and my strong in arbcom means that I know it will stay at attempted). It won't bring Rl back, and it certainly won't write us an encyclopedia. Dmcdevit·t 07:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just answering one part at a time. Basically Hamster Sandwich did a very similar thing to Rl, and like I said, I talked with him on irc, and he still doesn't regret it one bit. I mean, that's terrible! If he had changed his mind even a little, or provided marginally good reasons for his position, I might have talked and left it there. But he didn't! Even so, you argue I should let it go? Alright, I guess I can listen at least. How would not pursuing Hamster Sandwich be better than pursuing him? Kim Bruning 07:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

(Back to left.) Simple: there's nothing to be gained by going after him. First of all, you have to realize that deadminship is not going to happen anyway, and pursuing this is just furthering ill will. But also, even if you do disagree with him on the issue ideologically, and he is unrepentent (i.e., he disagrees back) that does not preclude him from being a good admin. If he had been an established admin for months right now, would you be asking for his deadminship? I don't know if you read Hamster Sandwich's RFA, but one of his main goals as an admin will be to mediate. I also think he will be an asset at admin cleanup pages, and generally a useful voice at WP:AN. This discussion kind of reminds me: I fundamentally disagreed with your way of thinking when yo were an admin, and thought you were much too prone to expediency rather than reasoned discussion and explanation. I didn't want your deadminship, I discussed it with you! The amount of harm one misguided admin, or even one otherwise inclined than you, can do is next to nothing compared to the harm of not having them, and especially the harm of scaring them away, and even more the harm to the community this kind of ill will creates. Let's say you back off graciously. We'll take him under our wing together. I assure you if Hamster Sandwich had been gently addressed about this, and not berated (and even told to basically go away by Gmaxwell), he would indeed have interacted much more to your liking. Why don't we try some community-building? Back off now and we'll talk to him without the threat of arbitration, or feeling that no interpretation other than yours is allowed, and engage in genuine discussion. The kind where we seriously and respectfully consider each other's positions with an open mind and especially willing to agree to disagree. I really respect Evilphoenix and Radiant! for example, even though my opposition to polls is one of my strongest principles, which they fundamentally disagree with. My two (I'll call it four now) cents. Oh, and I guess this may have disrupted my study time tonight. I'll see your rsponse in the morning :-) Dmcdevit·t 08:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Truffled turkey

Talk:Truffle#Truffled_turkey. Cheers, Sam Spade 17:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You have been blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, pending the production of a full final draft of your dissertation. When that is done, you will be immediately unblocked upon request to me or PZFUN. Please do NOT ask anybody else to unblock you! You have also been softbanned from IRC. Please restrict chatting on #wikipedia and related channels to not more than one hour a day. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 10:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC).

Thief

[8] :) --Durin 16:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory mediation request

Hello there Kim: Some time ago, way back in ancient history (well, in 'net time at least) you made a request at the Mediation Cabal for a mediator to have a look at the Conspiracy theory argument involving Zen master et al. I have just finished the new version of the medcab process - each case now has an individual page, and just a link from the medcab page rather than a whole bunch of template-added requests. I am wading through the cases one by one - I know this is laughably late, but I have left a message on the article talk page for people to comment on the mediation page if there is any way that a mediator might be able to help out. If you think this case is still required, I would be grateful if you would let me know, either on the talk page or at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/30 November 2005/Conspiracy theory. Thanks, and all the best with your dissertation, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

I'd like to thank you, first and foremost; if you're receiving this message, it's because I think you were one of the people I adopted as a personal mentor, and who helped to make the whole Wikipedia experience more enjoyable.

The fact is, I've got no choice but to leave. The recent sordid affair with User:Deeceevoice and my appalling conduct in that showed me that I have not the calibre required to maintain good relations with users on the wiki. Worse still, I violated almost all of the principles I swore to uphold when I first arrived.

I've now been desysopped, and I plan on devoting a little more time to what I am good at, which is developing. I don't fit in on this side of the servers, but perhaps I can still be of use to the project.

Thank you. Rob Church ^Talk 20:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

When you make it back

...which I know will not be for a while, could you please drop me a line? I'd like to discuss the possibility of renominating User:Tznkai for admin. Many thanks. BYT 16:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Oneliners

This guy is adding one-line summaries to all policy pages. I would like to hear your opinion on that. Radiant_>|< 22:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Cabalists Unite!

Okay, I'm back, trying to get back up to speed, looking forward to catching up with you. Hey, I got removed as a cabalist!! What the heck!!

--Wgfinley 06:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously a Clever Ruse by The Cabal

Maybe they thought you were at Cross Purposes http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/The_Ghetto_Gospel_of_Intelligent_Design http://double00.blogspot.com/

Merry Christmas and Happy Kwaanzaa! 1000 Candles of Light to you! -Chris B.

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reachead a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor case. Raul654 18:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Where did I first run into you?

Originally, here, and with a bit more vociferousness, leading to my one and only [albeit short-lived] block, here. You wanted to know, so there it is.  :-p Tomer^talk 09:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Boston meetups!

Hola, Kim! Too bad you're entrenched in your dissertation as you should be. There's another Boston meetup Monday, possibly followed by contradancing. info Get that thing finished so you can have some fun, eh. j 18:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, no luck. I'm f;ying out of the country next day :-( I'll do my dangdest to come back and dance with you SOME time though. :-) Kim Bruning 11:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Howdy

Jus so you know...I think User:Noitall is gone. Hasn't made an edit since early October...but you probably already knew that.--MONGO 03:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, oops. :-( Kim Bruning 03:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Admin critera

Hey! You're back! Does this mean your dissertation is done? How did it go? Revisions? If so, how bad? Oh wait...nevermind (just looked at the block log)...you're visiting somewhere and the unblock is temporary :/ Bummer! As to your questions; yes I think asking an admin's interpretation of WP:IAR would be a good idea as a 4th question. As for reviewing your criteria, my wife is expecting me to get off the computer right now so I gotta run :) I'll get you some feedback over the weekend. --Durin 03:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm alive!

Just a quick message to let you know I haven't been eaten by evil savages, I'm alive and well. I haven't been able to reply to your text messages because for soem reason my phone won't let me send SMses overseas and I misplaced my American SIM card. I am so sorry I am not there to be with you for your last few days in the US, but know that you're in my thoughts and that I hope you can come back ASAP! User:PZFUN/signature 18:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My vote

Hi there,

The area I felt you failed to address was my second question-part (regarding administrative action.) Your re-reading addressed this to some degree, but I guess I'm still confused. See, I believe there is a great distinction between an editor (admin or no) following IAR in editing (which is a good way to relieve stress), and an admin justifying a deletion on those grounds (which can be an arbitrary action, difficult for normal users to reverse.) Make sense? I'll happily revise my vote if warranted once we clear this up. Xoloz 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

My vote

Hi, Kim! Sorry if my comment sounded a bit harsh, but it was intended to :) I'd love to ask each candidate questions that bother me, but, with 50+ candidates, it took me four straight hours just to read through all the statements/answers to the questions, trying to figure out whom to support and whom not to. As you can imagine, in such circumstances candidate statements are really important, and yours just looked as if you didn't really care. Since I know you can do much better than that, I left a comment that probably was not too pleasant-sounding. As far as my recommendation to fleshing your statement, I would recommend to scrap it altogether and write it a-new (yes, I think it's that bad, sorry).

I'll think over the questions I have for you and ask them later, when my eyes stop hurting from the four-hour session of intense staring into the screen :) Meanwhile, take care and best of luck to you with your ArbComm run!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Kim. This new statement is a lot better and answers all the questions I had.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Rje's vote

Hi Kim, I've just noticed you have changed your statement (I wanted to read everyone's statements before I voted and I read yours before you made the changes). Having read the alterations I am now satisfied that you have the necessary commitment to the ArbCom, I will change my vote accordingly. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Rje 17:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Your return

Does this mean that the draft is completed? If so, congrats! If not - take this as a kind nag to get back to work (from someone who took three years longer to finish than they should have because they let themselves get distracted by stuff) - the elections will take care of themselves. Guettarda 17:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom

Your statement now looks good. Vote changed. Good luck! Dr. Cash 01:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom candidate userbox

Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.

{{User arbcom nom}}

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Process!

(copied from my user talk page. DES ^(talk) 02:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC))

Hmmm, we may not have always seen eye to eye, but process does appear something that's quite under-represented on wikipedia. Due to our history, I'm slightly skeptical if you might be promoting nomic over encyclopedia, but I'm going to hold my breath and see what happens :-) Kim Bruning 01:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that is an accurate description of my views or actions. (I have played Nomic in person and enjoyed it, but wikipedia is not the place for that, and i have never knowingly done so here.) I honestly belive that adherence to process, and I mostly mean existing written process, is for the benefit of the encyclopedia, and that out of process actions (often supported by WP:IAR citaions) ultimately harm the project. I know you have not agreed with this view in the past, at least not on various specific occasions. i suspect that your view of "process" and mine are not identical. But I am convinced that you intend only what you think is for the good of the project. So do I. We may disagree about what that is, but I hope we can disscus the matter openly and in a spirit of good faith and intended cooperation. DES ^(talk) 02:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No doubt our experiences do differ. My first experince of it was when you cited it to me, and i honesltly thought it must be a joke at first. I presume that your experiencs go back to a time when wikipedia was a much smaller project. I do think tha devleoping policy/process by the "experimental method" that you seem to be supporting here is often a poor idea. i will expand on that if your are intersted, but not tonight. But I remain convinced of your good faith, evne when i strongly disagree with some of your actions. i hope you will feel the same of me, and have good reason to do so. I'm now going off-line for the night. See you around the project, i hope. DES ^(talk) 02:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Graph articles/users

Kim, I can generate the graph that you need. I keep track of a number of figures, including number of articles and users. Just let me know what you specifically need, and I can do it for you. --Durin 13:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I need a histogram of how many pages in total have been edited by how many users (ie, how many articles have been written by just 1 user, how many by 2, how many by 3, etc. ).

Also, using such histograms, I'm interested in what happens if you count talk pages along with their articles, and what differences there are between the article namespace and the other namespaces. Kim Bruning 14:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, can't help you. I don't have direct access to the database for SQL queries. I do keep track on a daily basis the number of admins, users, articles, pages, and total edits to date. I thought you were looking for just articles per user, which I can tell you. That number has been steadily declining from the beginning of the data set (March 21, 2005) through today. The rate of decline has remained essentially constant. It was 2.33 articles/user in the beginning, and is now 1.15 articles/user. If there's any information you want from the data I collect, let me know. I'd be happy to provide. --Durin 15:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to have such database access? Kim Bruning 15:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Like? Yes. Time for? No. My wiki-time right now is pretty strapped. Not "I've got a dissertation to write" strapped :) but it's strapped. I've got a significant backlog already. --Durin 16:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Polls and numbers

It's a matter of context... a select few users (Snowy and Tony in particular) insist that there is violent opposition to the recreation of any article deleted with a narrow consensus, but have been unwilling to substantiate this statement with evidence. It is my opinion (and confirmed by DRV) that if an article is deleted for being crappy or unverified, then you can create a worthwhile article on the same subject and nobody much will object. The "2/3" in that statement is me citing either of them on a definition of "narrow consensus".

On the consensus page, that's a different matter. Newbies often ask, what does it take to get an article deleted. Or not deleted, of course. If the answer is "consensus", then they will generally either wrongly assume it means "unanimity", or ask what we mean by that. Then they see their favorite article deleted with 75% support (or not deleted with 55% support), and they yell "hey, that's not consensus!"

So the page Wikipedia:Consensus is there to point that out. It should be obvious that 67% is not the definition of consensus, but the reality of the matter is that on WP:AFD, unless either side has substantially better argumentation, 67%-75% support for deletion is considered indicative of consensus.

Radiant_>|< 15:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

AfD controversy

Unfortunately, I've been on Wikibreak for two months; so while my memory of the impression is clear, the facts are hazy. Sometime around the Ed Poor flap there was an issue on AfD (or TfD?) in which you adjudicated as deletion, and there was much controversy. I recall this as rising to an RfC, but I can't find it; it was one of the inspirations for making Undeletion into Deletion Review, IIRC. I have a vivid memory of considering your actions unreasonable and protesting; but not why. In other matters, I recall being impressed by your conduct; so I was so struck partly by surprise. Septentrionalis 20:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I certainly carry no grudge, and for many other positions (and indeed next time there's an arbcom vacancy) I will happily support you. But that speedying did seem a tad heavy-handed, and that counts more on ArbCom. (It may well be that others are worse; but I must vote on what I have seen.) Do you find the vote close? Septentrionalis

You also pushed several people's buttons by speedying, which many non-admins are cautious of because it's not really reviewable. But I'm glad it worked out. Remind me; what template was it? Septentrionalis 21:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Voting is evil

Cut/paste job, but thought you might like to know. Radiant_>|< 01:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate statement

Hi Kim, thanks for your note. I plan to review all my votes later this weekend after I've had more time to check them over, in case I was too harsh. I'm open to reconsider. Good luck. HGB 00:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance

Thank you Kim for your assistance in working on Electroconvuslive Therapy article. IMHO, we have a breach of the 3RR here, but I can't do that much closer to squat diddly, as I am not an admin. I hope we can prevent an edit war on this article if possible. Regards, and thanks. Thor Malmjursson 04:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC) Talk to Thor

WP:WOTTA

WTF? OMG LOL!!!

Thank you for that page! I really enjoyed reading it (and it is so true!) I hope I will remember WP:NOT to overuse these acronyms. Kusma (討論) 01:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Regent Parrot

I realize parrots are hardly at the center of your universe of interests...I did my best to translate the article nl:Bergparkiet into English as Regent Parrot. I would appreciate any touch up you could do ... notice I left a few words/phrases in dutch in the English article (albeit commented out). Thanks for your help! Tomer^talk 08:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If you looked in on the article, thanks for your time...my questions have been answered. :-) Tomer^talk 20:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Oppose

My vote took into consideration the original candidate statement, the revised statement, and the questions and answers. Some things that I noticed were the extremely brief original statement, a lack of a strong principle on how you viewed Arbitration in the revised statement, and some responses to the questions I felt were unsatisfactory. As I said, please don't take my vote personally, as Arbitration may not be for everyone, and I voted with an extremely high standard (the number of people I supported can be counted on my fingers). I hope that answers your questions. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Mad scientist

Sorry, I thought he might find it funny. --—Viriditas | Talk 03:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, but he's away atm, so he can't comment :-) Kim Bruning 03:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Gmaxwell

Hi, he has said he does want the image here. Cheers Arniep 13:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Policy/guideline/etc

You keep pointing out that there are things wrong with the division (though generally pointing at details rather than the structure as a whole). I was wondering what you would propose to solve it. Radiant_>|< 22:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It's often very difficult to explain things that seem obvious. See Newton and his apple. Everyone knew that "Stuff falls", so explaining it was rather tricky. ;-) So like give me some time to think about it. But the recent proposal we saw - that maybe perhaps wikipedia might be an encyclopedia - was a bit strange, right? ;-) Kim Bruning 23:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Esperanza/Programs

Hello. We have not talked before so this is by way of an introduction. I saw that you are one of my pending coaches and I want to thank you. Whenever you have time would be fine as I know you are busy. Thank you again for the opportunity.--Dakota ~ ε 00:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been going on too long

As you know, I disagree, and a quick check through his contributions confirms my view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not fighting with him now, just very surprised along with many others. I left him a note a few days ago [9] suggesting he get in touch to discuss it, but he didn't, so it's not clear what else there is to do. Sorry about your knees. ;-( SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Reminder

I hereby promise to stay on for a year if I get it. Hit me!

Oh, some really good reasons why:

• I'm already an admin on commons
• Working helpdesk-l is damn near impossible without it, and I'm a listadmin, which is another position of trust

Um, that's it. Alphax ^τεχ 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, here is the one that didn't work. Alphax ^τεχ 15:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A couple of other things - in January (and October) I was the third most active user of Wikien-l, and I'm actually a bureaucrat (albeit a very inactive one) on the Stargate Wikicity... not that it's really relevant, but anyway... Alphax ^τεχ 15:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply to your messages

Hi. I think that in all aspects you are performing above and beyond all expectations.

Our last discussion on IRC gave a different impression, because I am an idiot. My apologies. Please *PLEASE* continue your work here.

Kim Bruning 23:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologise, it is not a modern wikipedia custom to remove other people's comments. I have not done it in over a year I believe. However, in this case I feel it is warrented to temporarily revert you , while we discuss this, if you feel like it.

If you truely insist, I shall reinstate your comment immediately, but please contact me before doing so.

Kim Bruning 00:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kim: I have re-added my comments on the talk page, because I stand by them and consider they were perfectly reasonable; I am neither hurt nor offended in the slightest by the proceedings, and I'm being perfectly pragmatic in this matter. I am remaining as a mediator, just I think that the initiative needs a new coordinator, that is all. My presence on the initiative should, surely, be my own decision after all, not yours; please leave my comments alone.

Kim, you are not an idiot, and our discussion did nothing but highlight what was plainly the case, and what I had suspected for a long time before our meeting. I have brought the medcab in the wrong direction - towards one of formality, and getting wrapped up in process is always a mistake for any initiative, especially one which is meant to be informal. I just think that perhaps someone else might be able to take the medcab more towards what you intended it to be, and to move away from that process infatuation. That is why I decided to resign as coordinator, not because I was offended - I am not, and never shall be - but because I recognise a need for change. I would be grateful if you would please respect that, because you were perfectly right in every respect. This is not a new train of thought in my mind, because I've considered it for some time before we spoke, so please don't feel that you were at fault. Many thanks, and best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

medcabal

Hey Kim -- I am punting a case to you. Take the ball, Kim! Run with it!

Here is Cabal/Cases/24 January_2006/Democratic_peace_theory the case. Here was my attempt to resolve the dispute: [10] (which was rejected by one of the parties.)

Good luck! I've found it's better just to go to the talk page, instead of having people fill out the "mediation questionnaire" as they go along.

Sdedeo (tips) 23:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

I didn't revert your revert - I mixed my version (with merge tag) and your version (wihout one) to come up with the current version (which reads "mergedisputed"). If you discuss the merging of two pages on a third uninvolved page, you can pretty much expect people not to find your remark. And I have no idea what you mean by kervanishing; I've been marking some old policy proposals as rejected or historical, why do you have a problem with that? Radiant_>|< 13:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, I speed-read too much and just saw the boxes were back.

As to the other point, I saw you do redirect on some older policy summary pages.

In fact, the 3 pages are directly related, as they are part of the same project. I merely pointed you at the central discussion page. If you scroll up on that page, you'll see older versions of the trifecta, for instance. Kim Bruning 13:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• I would be happy to discuss redirect on some older policy summary pages, but I can't seem to find what you're talking about in my contribs log. A link please? Radiant_>|< 13:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[11] -- Kim Bruning 14:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, that one. That's hardly an "older policy summary page" (although I'm flattered that you'd call it that) since it was started by yours truly about two months ago. It was superseded by Stevage's good work on the newer page. Radiant_>|< 14:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair deal. :-) Kim Bruning 14:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Condolences

Sorry to hear about your hand; a hand accident was part of what kept me away for two months - although there were larger reasons, one of which you may be able to guess.

I hope we entertain you in the meantime. Septentrionalis 02:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

:-P My hands are ok. Just after abusing them for several hours typing on irc and wikipedia, they do tend to start to ache a bit :-P (The trick is to stop while they're hurting. Some people actually keep working past that and actually injure themselves). Kim Bruning 18:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ow.

I would appreciate it if you could take a look at Talk:Democratic peace theory. Ultramarine's objections seem to be all set forth. Ultramarine is now demanding sources for George Washington's being unopposed in standing for President, and similar well-known assertions. If you would comment, it might reduce the issues from their present couple dozen to a more manageable number. It will save me from using unhelpful words like frivolous and bad faith. (And a few of his objections I find genuinely incomprensible.) Septentrionalis 18:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

IRC

What's up? I'm on IRC a bit at the moment, but my hours are fairly unpredictable, as I don't have internet access at home anymore, so I'm only on whenever I can be bothered walking somewhere that does. Ambi 02:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Damnit. I responded, and wondered why you hadn't answered, until I realised that I wasn't identified, by which time you'd gone. Damned Freenode. Ambi 03:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Houston, we have a problem

As a result of (1) people who want numbers off the WP:CON page, and (2) the obvious fact that those numbers are in use, there is now a movement of people who created the "supermajority" page and seem to think that several places in WP (e.g. RFA/AFD) work by supermajority rather than consensus. Looks like the previous plan backfired; any suggestions on how to fix that? Radiant_>|< 07:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• What part of "guidelines are descriptive" don't you understand? Radiant_>|< 11:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Writing guidelines might be descriptive, but getting people to behave sanely is an act in um, something. See also below Kim Bruning 12:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Your comment at Wikipedia talk:Supermajority

So I'm guessing you agree with what I said? -- Samuel Wantman 11:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sort of torn on the issue. I'm wondering what the best method is to get people to tell things apart... I'm trying something. Kim Bruning 11:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

See here, please check if this looks sane. User:Kim Bruning/voting, Kim Bruning 14:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that what you have written and what has been written at Wikipedia:Supermajority is covered at Wikipedia:Consensus. Anyone looking vore voting or supermajority should be redirect to consensus for a complete discussion of the decision making process at Wikipedia. -- Samuel Wantman 20:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Alkivar/Rant

OK, I read it. Is it time to discuss? Sounds like Alkivar doesn't want to work on a collaborative, neutrally-written encyclopedia, is what it sounds like to me. I think he'd rather work on collaborative Alkivar-style content. (One with lots of dodgy copyrighted works, defended via personal attack.) It's also quite interesting when people proclaim Wikipedia is a failure. Will fail, that we can have a discussion about, but is a failure? It takes a narrow definition of "success" to make that case; far too narrow for me.

I think my two points have something to do with each other. Intelligent people who don't enjoy what Wikipedia actually is eventually get fed up with it and leave, a self-reinforcement cycle that actually ends up making Wikipedia more successful, perhaps? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Alkivars rant is interesting, because it's one of those many warning signs you need to look out for when people start getting fed up with things. When people get fed up with things they tend to start to put painful truths out in the open, which is why his page might be interesting. I'm curious what lessons might be gleaned!

Another warning sign that someone is starting to tire of things is when they begin to get snippy at people, because they're fed up with being polite (see your diff). Of course he might have been snippy all along, I admit I haven't checked his entire edit history, so I don't know that. ;-)

I agree that intelligent people who don't like what Wikipedia is eventually get fed up with it and leave, and that this is a self reinforcing cycle. (as you say). The thing you need to be eternally vigilant for is where wikipedia were to end up to actually not be what we want it to be, and people start leaving in a vicious spiral.

So even if we think wikipedia is working perfectly fine right now, it's still important to listen to people who come forward with (potential) problems, in case we missed something.

And hence my link to alkivars rant. :-)

Kim Bruning 18:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

?

Don't be cryptic please. Radiant_>|< 18:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Gmaxwell

We differ over Gmaxwell, but I usually find you to be a good sort, with a good way of seeing through the bullshit. But I'd like to know who you think pursued a crusade against him? Not Slim, I hope. He was horrible to her. He makes no allowance whatsoever for the person he is brusquely making demands of not understanding why he is making the demands. It's not cause for incivility that someone else doesn't have as clear a view of "the right thing" as you do; it's cause for explaining it carefully. When I stepped in to ask for specific instances, because a/ I'm more understanding of his concerns and b/ better able to describe them to Slim, he was rude to me and refused to. I didn't leave that exchange thinking what a great crusader for the wikiright he is. I left thinking what a bully, pushing around other editors, with bugger all substance when one stood up to him.

Now, look, no one's suing WP for using copyrighted images inappropriately, and no one is likely to in a hurry. If we had a demand to take an image down, I'd understand more urgency. It's a concern and I agree it should be fixed but it's not so urgent that it must be fixed yesterday. The problem's been noticed and we're making good-faith attempts to fix it. Where's the need of hurting decent editors in the process and why defend that? Grace Note 04:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:ESP/AC

Hey! Thanks for signing up in Wikipedia:Esperanza's Admin coaching program. Since you've volunteered to help train a user, I've assigned DakotaKahn to you and to your partner, Aranda56. Please make sure to be kind and helpful to your coachee. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks again! Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I got yours and Titoxds message this am. I would like to send you an email about what I would like to use admin abilities for rather than post it here, if that would be acceptable. Thank you.--Dakota ~ ε 19:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop making threats

Please do not leave false information on my user talk page. Please do not make threats on my user talk page. -- 68.50.103.212 21:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Demi concurred with me and blocked you. Kim Bruning 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You had the option of discussing the matter with me, you had the option of arbitration. Your tone was not appropriate and you were very rude. You are not an administrator for Wikipedia and are in no position to give orders to other users. Please read Wikipedia:Civility -- 68.50.103.212 10:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I added more information to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress. I will not stop contributing despite your baseless demands. I have added a significant part of all of these articles and am not going to stop adding much needed information. -- 68.50.103.212 11:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Please continue editing articles, that's excellent.  :-) Kim Bruning 11:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Your tone was not appropriate and you were very rude. You did not simply warn, you made inappropriate demands. Please take up my suggestion and read Wikipedia:Civility. -- 68.50.103.212 11:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to take you up on your offer and warn you that civility is official policy on the English Wikipedia. Please do not violate this policy. (Please see that you can warn someone without making threats or being rude. -- 68.50.103.212 11:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC) (As a final note: On Wikipedia:List of Administrators, you are listed under Former Administrators described as "The following users had sysop rights at one time but for various reasons are no longer admins." Why are you no longer an admin? ;-) )

• I tried to an edit that seems to be more to everyone's liking. What do you think? [12] -- 68.50.103.212 12:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Greylist and chatbots etc

I'm "nach0king" from IRC, wondering about the greylist system. We seemed to think it was automated but you said you'd check it out. I know you're busy so please don't rush yourself over it. Nach0king 23:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:-) and :) templates not working

This two templates doesn't work for me. Instead of the smiley, some huge block of text is displayed. Try using {{:-)}} or {{:)}} on a page and wou'll see. I'm telling this to you only because you are their creator. --giandrea 03:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Splitting

I certainly allow quoting of everything I have written in comments by others. However, the original comment by me should be presented in the complete and original form before the comments by others. The comments on this by others and the quoting may of course split the original text. As every writer, I wish to preserve a record of my original argument to avoid distortion. I find it necessary to state this plainly due to may past experience on this article, where my comments have been distorted by selectively splitting and moving them relative to later comments by others, often to create an incomprehensible travesty of what I stated originally. Ultramarine 18:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this.[13] Pmanderson made a comment, I made a reply. In response, Pmanderson changed his original comment, making my reply seem very strange. Things like this makes me very anxious to preserve my comments in their original form.Ultramarine 18:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the problem. Pmanderson may quote and split my text however much he wants in his replies. I think that preserving the original text in another place will only help the clarity. Ultramarine 18:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not Sure What Barn Star To Give

Thanks man, i'm certainly glad not everybody on here has devolved into the Wikipedia=Free Beer crowd :-) I normally give the bear in this instance, but I see that he ate your wikivacation already. Karmafist 20:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Nah, You Still Deserve It

For making sense!

In regards to the Democratic Userbox, let's think rationally here...

1. The Democratic Party basically exists as little more than a non-profit organization with the purpose of having people like it through association(thus enabling them to enact political policies at various levels in the US)
2. People on here say they associate with this group, thus fufilling that goal...

What I don't understand is how the Wikimedia Foundation can get from Step 2 to a Step 3 of...

• The Democratic Party responds to these people by suing the non-profit organization they're involved with, which is not only a huge PR faux pas(name the last time suing a non-profit organization resulted in good press, other than perhaps with the Roman Catholic Church), but also alienates those who fufilled that goal in the first place.

Hell, sometimes I feel like i'm on the verge of leaving the party sometimes myself, since they often think in non sequitur like Step 2 to Step 3 on other issues.

Karmafist 20:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In Regards To The GOP

No, they'd be justified in doing that already (and they, as well as many cartoonists already do) since satire/criticism is an integral tenet of fair use. Hell, the goddamn donkey came from a unflattering cartoon in the 1880s from Thomas Nast. I wish they'd get rid of it. Karmafist 20:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In Regards To Corn Flakes

1. The manufacturers of Corn Flakes(or whatever) think "pandering to Democrats will equal more profits for us."
2. They do earn more profits from doing so, and thus putting a feather in their cap(they can say to companies "associating with us helps you, so you should!", thus fufilling their ultimate goal above.)

Then again, they may not earn more profits from doing so, and then would just stop using the image.

Look, with the Red Sox, I understand. They make money off that icon. The Democrats though, that's just cutting off a nose to spite a face. Karmafist 21:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Only Real Reason Against This, Which Also Could Be Avoided

Let's say for example, that instead of Corn Flakes, the Ku Klux Klan uses the Democratic image in order to hurt the Democrats(the KKK is generally unpopular, and the Democrats generally hold viewpoints that are contrary to theirs). That's probably the only legitimate reason not to allow permission in regards to the logo, but ultimately it isn't...

Because... If the Democratic Party was doing WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO, that would instantly not work because anyone seeing the KKK doing this would say "That's just a baseless ploy, I automatically know that the KKK has views contrary to the Democratic Party through external influences."

That's the only reason I could think of for them not to allow use of their logo, and if they used that reason, I couldn't in good conscience associate with them on anything anymore other than a superficial nature or when our goals are the same, thus making it pragmatic to work with them. Karmafist 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In Regards To Truth

You'll just have to give me some time, remind me to call Gaetan again, and remember that I've been on the inside with this and I know what i'm talking about. And if you don't believe me, I have some proof here on WP. Check out 2004 New Hampshire General Court Election, then Hillsborough 19, and then the only blue link there... ;-) If my career solidifies, I hope to be there at 2006 New Hampshire General Court Election. Karmafist 21:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's Talk About This More At A Later Time

I assume it's you that said something on my talk page, I just took a shower, and I need to go to work, but this stems to something deeper. Oh, what the hell, I might be able to boil part of it down right now.

In the past i've had problems with blurring "roles". We all have multiple roles that we play: for example, you're Kim Bruning the person, Kim Bruning the Wikipedian, Kim Bruning the "X", Kim Bruning the "Y", etc. Often these roles are conflicting and contradictory, but even this is ok if we are forthright about it and understand the meanings of those roles and their boundaries.

In the past, I have not, particularly in regards to Democratic Party politics in this area, and my anger at their recent political cowardice in the past few years plus my Asperger's Syndrome induced paranoia and my inability to clearly define the roles I play, as stated above, has caused me harm and turned into a minor martyr complex deal some of the time, well with the Party(who has been a political network and a social network for me, but the lines were often blurred, which is bad, as per my theorem above), as well as other groups.

Politics has been my preoccupation for the past 2 years, but I honestly don't know where I stand in it anymore. my town's Democratic Party sees me as a loose cannon, and I see them as a joke since they do nothing and we're outnumbered by 10%(in 2004, we lost every single race in town). My county's Democratic Party likely sees me as a sometimes useful ally, but also maybe a loose cannon because, quite frankly, I am honest when I shouldn't be because that is my nature. Beacon Street (the New Hampshire Democratic Party[14]) probably has me somewhere between a useful eccentricity and a naive pest(it'd be interesting if you asked them, my name is Andy Sylvia, in case I never said that before), and the National Party doesn't give a shit about me except for money, excluding the DNC members that I know.

I'm less cynical about Wikipedia, but i'm still cynical. The roles here are often not clear. Who "respects" me, who "likes" me, who "tolerates" me, and above all WHY.... That has been the burning question of my life regardless of where i've been, as long as i've lived. Understanding that.

This icon thing is pretty damn deep and layered. It's not just free speech or a WP:POINT thing, and there's probably more layers to it with me, but I'm glad I could share the surface with you here. Karmafist 21:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wtf?

My, aren't you the snippy one these days. >Radiant< 22:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Pull yourself together, we can certainly do anything in any manner we like. Don't limit yourself or think you aren't strong enough. It's unbecoming of the blazing Radiant fellow I know and supported at his RFA. :-) Kim Bruning 22:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, I'm still feeling shiny, no problem. I just disagree with your stringent opposition to any kind of voting. The only way RFA can be not a vote is if some authorized party makes the decision - and there isn't such a party that has community trust and won't get accused of cabalism. >Radiant< 01:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That's semantics really. For all practical purposes, a RFA poll is a RFA vote. >Radiant< 01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • No, seriously. It's a formalised discussion. If no one is so inclined, it'll work almost exactly like a vote, true. However, if people are inclined to discuss, interesting&fun things happen. I even applied similar principles to my RFARV recently, boosting my position by 10% (it was too big to make it a real discussion :-( But, still ). Eequors last RFA went from landslide loss to narrow loss. (Couldn't quite pull it up to a pass, but that was so close :-) ). You can certainly negotiate and obtain consensus on things like RFA polls. Kim Bruning 01:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• WP:WOTTA. What on earth is a RFARV? A reversion of a request for adminship? >Radiant< 02:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  Arbitration Committee election ;-) Kim Bruning 19:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Investigative journalism

Scooped? Make mine vanilla, please. Thanks for pointing it out, I'm looking over the thread now. By the way, the savaging that I warned you of has been unearthed! Now you don't have to go looking through diffs to see me saying mean things about you. I'll have to as some stage learn that trick of your: pepper the most outrageous comments with smily faces. ^_^
brenneman^(t)(c) 23:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

IRC

Sorry, no. Sceptre had to take his CGIIRC client down because it violated his host's TOS, and the alternative he pointed out isn't working. Ambi 01:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. I can install software, but the university network blocks all non-HTTP connections, and thus regular IRC doesn't work. Ambi 01:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't - I can install the program, but it won't connect. Ambi 02:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've still got mIRC installed from when I tried to see if it would work in the first place. If you could help me get it working, I'd be eternally grateful. :) Ambi 02:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Any luck? Ambi 02:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Still no luck. Not connecting. Ambi 02:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

... and again. :( Ambi 02:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's just not connecting, and timing out. It seems my browser does connect with a proxy. Ambi 03:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't seem to be able to work out how to set proxy settings in mIRC. :( Ambi 03:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. I've had enough for today (I'm going to head home soon, but waiting for some downloads to finish), but I'll give that a try tomorrow and see if I can get it working. Ambi 03:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar

Wow! Thanks :) That really made my day — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine again

I regret having to say this, and disturbing you; but Ultramarine has found the revert button again, and is spreading lies about the deleted subarticles. Please see WP:ANI#Democratic peace theory. Septentrionalis 06:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please return. His lies about me to ANI, and his misrepresentation of the sources, leave me little other remedy but to return to Arbitration, which I am reluctant to do; unless you can suggest one. Septentrionalis 19:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I trust it has been archived, however? Septentrionalis 20:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Hey Kim, where's my warning? I'm feeling really left out here (especially since I started it by reverting Talrias yesterday). I'm so sick of all that crap - disgusted and shocked by it all. I looked at it when it first came up and I said - user boxes and paedophile - no chance I was going to touch that. But hey, if you are plugged in to the beast socially, you can't avoid what flies off of the fan. Guettarda 22:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh, warning? Huh? *blink* OH! Okay, consider yourself duly warned. If you do it again, please tell me, and I'll warn you again! :) Kim Bruning 22:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert-warring on El_C's user page. All the cool kids got one of these [15] from you. Guettarda 22:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh I just spammed that where I saw everyone was looking. (Which I guess you were :-) ). Plenty more where that came from! Would you like one too? Kim Bruning 22:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, after asking I had to go and look, which meant that I managed to get annoyed with Talrias again. I need to quit for a while. I think what I am feeling is grief. You know you're too attached when a person's departure and a conflict the rips across the community evoke's a feeling like grief. Oh well. Guettarda 22:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Poor you! I'm sure it'll be ok. Kim Bruning 22:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Nation

The issue of what article should be at this title has been placed on Wikipedia:Requested moves. You can offer your vote and comment here: Talk:The Nation#Article title. JamesMLane t c 06:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The next set of substantive issues

Two choices:

• Ultramarine insists on loading the section on Democratic peace theoryspecific historic examples with statements of why Rummel & co. are right on all of them.
• Ultramarine has dredged up the statement: "even after controlling for a large number of factors...democracy's conflict-reducing effect remains strong" and insists on calling this causation although his source expressly remarks that correlation isn't causation.

Take your pick. Septentrionalis 21:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You're getting the hang of it... let's try the 2nd one Kim Bruning 21:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The eternal question of who leads? I was expecting you to pick one out of the mass of Ultramarine's complaints, and you were waiting for us.

Ultramarine has been uncharacteristically quiet this morning, and I find that User:Ultramarine/sandbox3 is the beginning of a massive rewrite, which will reestablish his full PoV, and already contains several exact phrases from the edit he wants to revert to.

If he imposes this on the article without discussion, would that violate the Arbcom ruling, as you read it? (And if the answer is "maybe", what would it depend on?)Septentrionalis 19:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Help translating a page

I was refered to you by Essjay who said you speak Dutch and English fluently. I was hoping if you had time you could help me by translating the Dutch Wikipedia Oil pastel page which I believe if this can be done will help the English Wikipedia Oil pastel page a lot. If you haev time please leave a message on my user page if you are able to translate this for me. Thank you very much. :) Graxe 03:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion review

I just noticed your Oh, and I thought you were reasonable, and wanted to discuss with me. comment at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review and have responded belatedly. Apologies, I missed your reply to me, and to make my response easier to find I provide the diff. I have to admit, I've found your language obtuse and hard to understand, it frustrated me and I probably let that show. It could be I am entirely misunderstanding you. Still, the only way you stort these things out is by talking. Steve block talk 09:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Adminitis

Heh, from the sounds of that page, it seems like Jimbo's caught it. Anywho, thanks for your support during this tough period. I've been knocked down like this before, but only I can knock me out, and that hasn't happened yet. Karmafist 14:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

^ Heh, I'd agree that Jimbo's "caught it". Same thing with poor Ed Poor, as you said. Anyway, what "early symptoms" of adminitis would you say I have? I guess I could take some constructive criticism. Coffee 17:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I see... Hey, you make a lot of sense, is there some reason you're not an admin yourself? You've been on Wikipedia for a heck of a long time, and I seem to recall seeing your name around quite a lot. Coffee 18:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hows it going?

Hello, I've seen your name around wikiepdia quite a bit, and I just wanted to say hello. Very nice to meet you, and well...hi! ~-Zero^Talk 15:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome

Even if a little impromptu. :-)

I jumped on #wikimedia today and generated some more interest in the Penn State Wiki. MartinMai was interested in classroom wikis with Wikiversity, and Sj was interested in doing the same sort of thing at Harvard. Gchriss 23:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic edits at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)

Just to give you a heads up, I've had some problems with User:Netoholic at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). I wasn't aware until recently of his ban in wikipedia namespace and he has reverted my changes several time. Keep up the faith. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 11:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

vandalfighter

hoe zit het daarmee? (heb source en licentie gevonden ondertussen :))

Henna 13:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Apology

I'm extending an apology because I don't quite extend good faith all the time and I reckon I probably didn't at Wikipedia talk@Deletion review. I think I'm going to leave off watching and commenting at policy pages, I've got too sidetracked into that. I think I'm coming round to the idea that too much stuff is being written down, which creates a lot of wikilawyering. I'm thinking now that I should just keep close to AGF and the trinity of Verifiability, NPOV and NOR and I'll be fine. I remember you starting some discussion regarding policy and guidelines at the pump a while back, it'd be nice if they got better delineated and there was less time worrying over the ins and outs of rulecruft. Still, apologies. Steve block talk 20:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Response, and Hopeful Explanation

Hey Kim, I know it seems like we have too many rules, and I agree for the most part -- we have too many rules that don't work. I just want a baseline of rules so we can avoid another incident like Tony's umpteen early deletions at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia. I'm thinking of modifying the manifesto a bit, please let me know if there's any way I can improve it as well.Karmafist 22:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You Just Made My Day

Ah, "Huge Numbers"... It's good to know the last 2 years of political activism in the real world haven't gone to waste. However, if you think the numbers now are big, just wait... :-) I'd love to hear how you disagree with it and how to fix that, by the way. Your opinion is important to me, but I think we both agree that something has to be done with the way things are going lately. Karmafist 00:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No Flame Problem

No worries, my apologies if I pissed you off. That's not my intention, I just want to send some ideas over to fix the project. Karmafist 00:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Your E-mail

I'm not getting it, you might want to just try karmafist@aol.com Karmafist 01:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

70 Years

I assume you're talking about a certain Central European country who had a certain demogogue who used the tools of his broken government to take it over and now is a cliche for evil in the US. That's not my intention. I don't give a damn about power, I just want to make sure Wikipedia takes the shape of all Jimbo's platitudes (a free source of information for everybody, etc. etc.), and make sure it doesn't devolve into USENET or yet another information spigot controlled by a media mogul. Karmafist 01:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternatives

I know that you're afraid of that happening(another cult to replace the current cult), which is why i'm asking for you to add some alternatives rather than just say "Stop!" It's just because I'm not going to stop, even if I saw a need to. You know as well as I do that this place is broken, and we need to do something. Maybe it could be a Radiant's admin poll style impliment, maybe you could give your own addendums, maybe people could just sign in agreement with certain parts of it, I don't know. All i'm saying is that while caution is important, it shouldn't lead to out and out fear. We're Wikipedians, we're used to sociocracy in afds and rfas and blank f blanks all the time. We don't just vote, we vote and think at the same time, and that's dying out with the groupthink that's overwhelming this place lately. Please, please, please, let me know what to do if you disagree with all or a part of what I said, and we'll see what we can do to fix it. Otherwise, i'm sorry, but this will have to be the end of our conversation tonight. Karmafist 01:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't Worry, We'll Get There

And I apologize, that's just my nature, i'm a bit binary, and very pragmatic -- I have an innate need to fix social constructs it seems. Hell, I even invented a system of Parliamentary Procedure a year ago... ;-)

Don't worry though, as long as we keep talking, we'll get there. However, I have a favor to ask you -- could you move your thread to the talk page? I'm not saying that because I view it as inferior, quite the contrary, it just seems to fit better on the talk page. That's another thing that people often misunderstand in my opinion -- I see the two as part of a greater whole to make something unique, almost like a toolbox of communication, a hammer and a screwdriver if you would. However, if you used a screwdriver to drive in a nail, that wouldn't be as effective as the hammer, and if you used a hammer to screw in a screw, you'd be very frustrated.... Talk Pages work best when the meta talk is there, and Main pages work best when the content that the subject is about is there. At least, that's the way I see it. Karmafist 01:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I Responded To That One Too

Let me know what you think, the hopeful answer(like I said, that's how I think -- in answers)is pretty raw. Hell, the entire document is pretty raw. It's ok, this is a wiki. Wikis are always a work in progress. Karmafist 01:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Graph?

Yep, I saw it while welcoming(should hit 2400 tonight). Just curious though, what graph do you mean? Anyway, despite our disagreements, I hope we can stay friendly in any case, I always appreciate your perspective on things. Karmafist 02:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

One Idea

Ditto buddy. I'm particularly proud of myself right now. I just saw on RC that Tony Sidaway has an rfar on him, and I was very tempted to say something there until I said to myself --- "wait, at worst, he's going to get a slap on the wrist, as a whole, the arbcom is a joke now anyway, why even bother looking at it?" and went back to welcoming. Man, if real life could as cathartic as that, i'd be in paradise. Unfortunately, my real life sucks right now... Karmafist 02:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding the Nazi Thing

Rick Block gave me this idea when he said he only agreed with part 5 -- letting people agree with only parts of it, kind of looking like this...

Agreement Towards Sections of Karmafist's Manifesto

User	1	2	3	4	5
Rick Block					x
Karmafist	x	x	x	x	x
Whoever	x		x	x

And so on...

People can put in footnotes in the squares where they have ideas to revise it. This would be just above or below the full signers part. What do you think?Karmafist 20:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC, We're Getting There

That might work, although to be honest, i'd prefer if the core of it was kept. So instead, let's try the RFC model with a few tweaks

• No "Disagrees" (I'd prefer if they made an alternative rather than just say "I don't agree with this approach, negativity here wouldn't be productive IMO)
• The Alternative Views
• The "Partial Agrees", like that graph above, if people agree with part of it.

Sorry if it seems like i'm trying to reinvent the wheel, but I guess i'm trying to shed a bit of the old Wikipedia in this, and RFCs, especially article RFCs, rarely worked well before excluding a few exceptions(Radiant's poll comes to mind.) Karmafist 03:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Frustration

Kim, I normally archive around every 30 comments or so.

• Of course it's biased, it's subjective because it's my ideas. I've asked you about 10 times now to give me ideas to change it(the content), but so far all i've heard is that i'm Hitler, and we should have an old style rfc(which usually doesn't work).
• I asked you awhile ago to move those comments onto the talk page, because that's what talk pages are for--comments on the content on the main page. It's not something personal.
• I'm still wondering what you think of the compromise in the previous section on this talk page. I think that might work.

Ok. If you're tired, step back. I don't want to lose you as a friend over this. We're just having miscommunication on this, and we'll get through it. Karmafist 16:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

irc

eeps,

kan je mij eens poken op irc? ik lees precies elke keer over jouw. Henna 17:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Then please provide an alternative suggestion with respect to dispute resolution. Guettarda 15:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No Kim. You are the one who insisted that the RFC must be deleted. I was following the advice of other editors who said to escalate if she continues to edit the article, which she has done. In addition, if you would, please help me to understand how it is that I am supposed to achieve an outcome with someone who posts false statements about me which she refuses to retract, who then calls my statements false accusations, and then deletes my further attempts to resolve the issue as "trolling". Guettarda 16:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Foundation Privacy Policy and Apapetos_angel

Hi Kim,

I noticed that you posted a request for emergency arbitration here. In your statement, you mentioned that users posting information that they had found about User:Agapetos_angel were violating the Foundation Privacy Policy. Upon reading the page, I saw no condemnation of any kind for the type of actions you describe. If I'm just dense and missing something, could you point it out?

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 04:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The policy is positively phrased, not negatively phrased. (It says "you should" as opposed to "you should not"). Expectation is that using a user name gives you some measure of privacy. Kim Bruning 04:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're reading in the policy that it says anyone "should" do. It seemed to me that the page you referred to is talking about the actions of the Foundation, not users, especially as the examples it refers to are things that most users (minus developers) do not have acces to, e.g. ips, email addresses, personal information, etc. I notive that Matthew Brown and Theresa Knott have already stated my concerns better than I could have on the RfAr. Personally, I don't see any logical reason why the Wikipedia privacy policy would prevent users from pointing out publicly available information that is relevant to an author being disingenuous about their biases in writing an article. Then again, I admit my familiarity with this case is only surface deep; there may be more to it than I know. Thanks for responding. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 11:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

When people start spamming that information across the wiki, and talk about looking at employers and schools and whatnot... I start worrying just a little. ::: They also state they have no other choice, while a mediator is available and ready to jump in right away. They've ignored her. Finally, arbitration as an option is open to all. They could have done all these things, but chose to do this instead. :-/ Kim Bruning 13:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Kim,

Regarding the following two comments: 1). “While an informal mediator had volunteered to assist, several of the parties opened an RFC instead, trying to pull more attention.” and, 2.) “I tire of playing whack-a-mole”.

You are completely incorrect about the first assertion, as the RfC was in process of being written before SlimVirgin tried to intervene. If you would kindly take the time to go through the record, you would find that I supported SV’s efforts. The assertion that we were “trying to pull more attention” is equally incorrect, and you are essentially ascribing motives without the benefit of fact.

As it is, the facts are clearly stated in the RfC, one of the most prominent being that when Guettarda tried to resolve a dispute with Agapetos_angel regarding her inappropriate use of his user name on a phony straw poll by contacting her on her user page, she deleted his message as trolling. He tried several more times, but with the same result, thus rendering futile any attempt on his part to resolve the dispute.

The second comment, I take as a personal attack. You seem to be, once again, ascribing motives, and the clear implication of your comment is that those of us involved are harassing Agapetos_angel, which is not true. Once again, I ask you to go through the record carefully – I think you will find that your assumptions may have been a bit premature.

The information that you have labeled as “personal” is personal, but not private. The initial information came from public records. Follow-up information was obtained legally and has exposed illegal activity on the part of Agapetos_angel and DennisF. Surely, that should be a primary concern of Wikipedia, as such behaviour, and allowing it to be swept under the rug, can only tarnish Wikipedia’s reputation further. (Let’s be honest, we’ve taken a number of hits over the past year, and our stock is down).

Finally, one wonders if your interest in this case isn’t driven, in part, by the animosity between yourself and FeloniousMonk. Who is to blame for that animosity, I do not know, nor do I care; I simply hope that that has had no bearing on your involvement in this matter.

Sincerely,

Jim62sch 14:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, initially, I left FM out of the RFAr for that reason, just to be sure I wasn't doing that. One of the other parties insisted on adding him :-/ . It's good to know the RFC was started in good faith, I'll modify my statement. I disagree on the personal information point, which is what I'm asking the injunction on. Kim Bruning 19:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It's Whac-A-Mole

Hi, Kim!

For future reference, since it's SUCH an IMPORTANT matter <g>, it's Whac-A-Mole, not Whack-a-Mole. (The reason I know that is I'm a lawyer and I've been writing a brief in a $1 million+ federal court lawsuit involving denial of health plan benefits and . . . believe it or not . . . I managed to work the term Whac-a-Mole into the brief.)

And, being anal-retentive I suppose, I checked to find the correct spelling! (For the life of me, I can't understand why people say I get too caught up in minutia . . .)

And, yes, I found the detailed history of Whac-a-Mole on Wikipedia!

Have a great day!

RickReinckens 06:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Image

I like the Kiwi in clogs, from your userpage :) Brian | (Talk) 09:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

WTF

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Req._Emergency_injunction_on_posting_personal_info.

Don't you even have the basic courtesy to inform people of something like this any more? I'm still waiting for your suggestion regarding alternative means of dispute resolution. I find your underhandedness to be offensive. Guettarda 14:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Deleting the RFC, our earnest attempt to let the community resolve this through proper channels, was beyond the pale. I'm very disappointed in you Kim. FeloniousMonk 17:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It's at RFAr now. Kim Bruning 18:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

1. So you only bothered to inform be because you got caught?

   No. I informed you once I was sure there was a real case and I wanted to go through with it. Kim Bruning 19:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

2. At the time I put the RFC together Agapetos angel had ignored SV's attempts and was still editing the page.

   Fair dinkum. Kim Bruning 19:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

3. As I said before, how do you propose I see dispute resolution with a person who deletes all my communications as "trolling"?

   This was not the situation as I encountered it yesterday, however. Some communication was starting. There was also no need to out the other party. Kim Bruning 19:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

4. Again, I am deeply disappointed in your underhanded actions. Why do you defend disruptive users and attack people with good records? I thought better of you. I definitely thought better of you. Guettarda 18:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

   Because AAs actions only harmed a couple of articles. On the other side, perhaps not your personal actions, but the actions of several people taken together were harming the wiki as a whole. Kim Bruning 19:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

   That's merely opinion, not fact. Given my past experiences with you I for one am not going to blindly accept the good faith of your motive for your intense involvement in this matter. Both I and others recall your long-running bullying of me and that you've gone out of your way to badger me since I arrived at Wikipedia. It's no great leap to wonder whether you view Agapetos angel as a convenient platform from which to again renew your long-running bullying of me, making your role in guiding this RFAr and undermining our legitimate attempt at DR (RFC) an act of questionable faith in my opinion. FeloniousMonk 19:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

   *Blink* I thought we resolved this a year ago? Even at the time your claims of me bullying you were somewhat ironic, seeing as to my concerns. I thought you'd grown? Kim Bruning 13:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately my right honorable opponents have chosen to create a wide and general rambeling case. Good to know that you think of us as your enemies. Here I was thinking that we were all on the same side. Stupid me. But then, makes sense, if you're having fun [16]. Ha ha. Very funny. Gotta chalk this one up as one of my bigger mistakes when it comes to reading people. I'm really disappointed. Guettarda 23:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Gone insane is the highest wikistress level I could find. I'm not a happy camper here :-( I've explained the british english phrase above on your user talk. Sorry. :-( Kim Bruning 05:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

From what I've read, I disagree entirely with the request for an injunction to begin with, but citing that dif as "evidence" against Kim's good faith is patently ridiculous and, in my opinion, borderline trolling. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 13:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, Guettarda and Feloniousmonk: I know for myself that I'm doing everything I can think of to act in good faith, even if both of you think I am not. If there's anything I could do better to improve, I would gladly hear it.

At the same time, it occurs to me that if you're having trouble judging my level of good faith, and having trouble working constructively with me (as you are reporting here), perhaps you're also misjudging others, or perhaps reacting to them in ways that could be done in a (more) constructive fashion? Please think about that.

If your first instinct is to read the above as a bad faith attack. Stop and think some more. If you read the above, think for yourself, and conclude that hmm, kim may or may not have a point somewhere, but happens to be wrong in this case... well that's always plausible, let's talk about it.

Kim Bruning 14:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Bummer

Incidently, well done in bringing that injunction to ArbCom. I can't believe that I read two admins did that! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Mathbot and RfA

I've made a comment about Mathbot's leaving statistics on RfA's at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Mathbot. As I believe this concerns or would be of interest to you, I'm inviting you to participate in discussion. Thanks. Rob Church (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

optional questions on RFA

Here's a new one:

7. You're patrolling new pages (again) and you notice that someone created a new article about a current minor celebrity (again). The article is clearly not a stub: it's is long, detailed, wikified to a reasonable extent, properly formatted. There is no sign that it is a copyvio. The article also asserts that the person is notable. The article is distinctly unflattering, but still descriptive, so it does not qualify as an attack page. The article is completely new, not a recreation of anything that was previously deleted, or a fork of an existing article. You conclude that none of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion apply. (a) Under what conditions, if any, would you speedy delete the article? (b) Another admin speedy deletes the article. What do you do?

I've saved them for future reference at User:MarkSweep/RFA questions. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Jesus Page Suggestion

Dear Kim: I hadn't seen that one before. Thanks! It kinda the way I normally like to operate, but...

This one is a high emotion page. (bet you couldn't guess) When I've tried to isolate an issue to take up, taking it to the talk page, a half dozen others come up. What we've tried here is to hash out a paragraph almost everyone can agree on. A handful of issues remained with it. Since I want to be sure all sides were taken into account, the text was fully documented and most of the arguments made, I set it up to vote on the remaining issues one by one. I warned everyone that I would post it a day later and let them talk it out in the mean time. I then went to post it, even with two or so loose ends out there.

I put down a marker. I will simply revert any undiscussed, non-consensus changes, two times a day if needed. Others have said the same, informally garenteeing that all changes will be discussed first.

So far it seems like it just might work. Wish us luck or pray for us if that's your style... 8-) --CTSWyneken 21:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

the Olympic Flag

I promise you, I'm not spamming for votes...only yours, Kim.

There's a debate going on at deletion requests about the Olympic Flag and I most definitely value your opinion on the matter. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 15:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello! :-)

It still says "now I'm REALLY taking a break" on the top of this page. :-P — Kimchi.sg | Talk 18:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Stepping out"

Nice. --Steve Summit (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Who is...

Thanks! The feeling is mutual! —Kirill Lokshin 19:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

patrolled & such

User_talk:CryptoDerk/CDVF#what_would_be_really_cool

Henna 22:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dmcdevit·t 06:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop

I have just done a massive refactoring of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, in order to

• remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
• make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as at its previous size of 183KB, it was not.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop (Again)

I have just readded three proposed remedies to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, which had been removed. I have also refactored these comments to

• remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
• make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as Minspillage recently has done.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Respectfully yours, InkSplotch^(talk) 14:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

my RfA

Hi Kim,

Thanks you for your comments regarding my RfA. I must be honest - I only partially understood what you were talking about!

It is particularly frustrating to know that I was one hour away from outright adminship, but now appear doomed to fail. But anyway, it has been an interesting experience and taught me a valuable lesson - the clearer your mind is about what you believe, the more hostility you will receive. On this basis, I am giving up on self-nominated adminship indefinitely. It seems pointless wasting precious hours listening to people squabble of userboxes or over the use of the word "stupid" when the real purpose here is create an encyclopedia.

Sorry for the length of this response, and all the best! DJR (Talk) 18:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

VWN en WCN

Beste allemaal Al enige tijd is er een Nederlandstalig chapter in oprichting, te vinden op http://nl.wikimedia.org . Dit wordt de Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland (VWN). Je kunt je interesse om lid te worden van deze vereniging hier aangeven.

Deze vereniging gaat eind augustus/begin september een Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland (WCN) houden, volgend op Wikimania in Boston, gedeeltelijk erop inspelend middels een aantal discussiegroepen. Om iets dergelijks te organiseren is imput erg gewenst. Dus als je wilt meehelpen, of als je interesse hebt om bij een dergelijk evenement aanwezig te zijn, geef dat dan aan op nl.wikimedia. Ik hoop daar snel je imput tegemoet te zien! Met vriendelijke groet, effeietsanders 16:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

A note from the Admin Coaching coordinator

Hello, coaches. As you can see, there is a significant backlog at the Esperanza Admin Coaching program. Since we do not want users to have to wait forever to get assigned, I'm asking all of you for a status report. If you feel that you are done, that your coachee is not active enough, or that you could handle the extra load from another coachee, please tell me in my talk page as soon as possible. Thanks! Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?=

Ultramarine has been commenting out large portions of a talk page. Is this vandalism?

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#Personal_attack_and_original_research_accusations_against_living_prominent_professor_and_researcher for details. Sorry to mention this mud-wrestling again, but I do want advice. Septentrionalis 20:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for supporting my successful request for adminship. I'll try to put the admin tools to good and responsible use. If I do anything wrong you know where to find me. Raven4x4x 07:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What, a law review really cited this?!

Wikipedia really is rather awful. I just hope I made one small part of it slightly better today. [Irrelevantly:] All the best with your dissertation. -- Hoary 11:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Bot star

You asked me about a bot barnstar a while back (for someone confused with a bot), and I found this Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/Bot_Barnstar that might be useful. I'm still working on a design, but I thought you might find one of those useful. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 06:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Community assent

Thanks for your vote on Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Community_assent. Hopefully, this effort makes a step towards validation of pages. — Dzonatas 23:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Advocate Cabal

Dear Kim: I've recently started Wikipedia:Advocate Cabal, which I think you might find of some interest. Feedback, flames, &c. are greatly welcome. Incidentally, you'll notice I'm back on Wikipedia; my miserable state of mind has abated to a certain degree, although I'm not sure whether to return as coordinator of the medcab as I may otherwise let you down again when the bubble bursts, as it will inevitably do. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Adminitis

What a hoot. Thanks for starting this article. --Beth Wellington 19:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC) (Not an admin, just a humble scribe.)

Suggestions re: Ok, the nomic is over

Three suggestions about what you raised on the policy pump. Feel free to use some, all or none of this; I do welcome your feedback, in any case.

1. As a starting point, a list of five to seven of the most egregious policy points (these need to be specific) that should get changed. That will help 'relieve' some of the immediate 'pressure'.

2. Fundamentally, this seems to be about the complexity and interwoven nature of the policies currently in operation (stop me if I'm wrong). Getting beyond this means going back to the basics of what is good policy, which means reviewing things like simplified ruleset and how to create policy. Good policy (IMO, of course) is:

• Policy that can be boiled down to a paragraph or short list, while still retaining its' meaning.
• Policy that explains why it is in place and what it is designed to achieve.
• Policy that can be easily related to real-world examples, where it is obvious how it should be applied.
• Policy that "feels good"; in other words, policy that always remains in the 'back of the mind' but does not 'come forward' to dampen creative excitement.
• Policy that has straightforward processes to follow, which are all sourced from a single point.
• Policy that requires few to no exclusions, because it is well-formulated.
• Policy that does not overlap with other policies, yet is holistic.
• Policy that can be easily related to the stated goals of the project.

3. Avoid full-scale overhauling; I don't know of a situation where thats' ever worked.

Being a relatively new _contributor_, I don't know that much about policy issues at Wikipedia, since I'm seeing the policies as a cohesive whole. This is also why I don't intend to get directly involved at this stage. However, as someone who has dealt with similar issues elsewhere - and although I am by no means an expert - I can sympathise, and do want to offer what advice and (perhaps later) assistance may be warranted. — digitaleon • talk @ 14:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

(Now updated with the missing third suggestion. Oops! — digitaleon • talk @ 15:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

• Saw your post about nomic and calvinball. Personally I thought we were playing The Glass Bead Game! (sorry couldn't resist). --Salix alba (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

<Looks very confused>

Kim, I'm not sure what you're confused about, but I'm guessing I must not have explained something well. Rainbowpainter is not a meatpuppet of mine, just my spouse. If you think I didn't clarify something well enough, I'd be interested in your opinion. Jim62sch 15:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Nah, you're not insane...I just didn't do a good job explaining. I added an addendum that should clear it up...have you seen it? I'm just really irritated because she royally pissed off my wife (and when she gets pissed off......) Thanks for your input, I appreciate it. Jim62sch 16:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist's welcomes

Karmafirst welcomed about 50 new accounts this morning with his welcome message with the links to his manifesto and wikiphilosophies pages. I've opened up an RfA on the issue (Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#Karmafist). I know you've talked to him before about the manifesto. If you have anything to add, please do. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Got Your E-mail

Thanks for your e-mail! E-mail works. Am here, too, now, though still in stealth mode and not checking often enough. I might be near you in late May. Aren't you supposed to be working on your thesis instead of corresponding anyway? j 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

ahhh....

I see you tried to modify WP:RM - you're not the only one who has tried to get that page more in line with the main policy :). I went through a lot a while ago just to get 60% to "generally", so don't be too disappointed. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 12:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Gorgeous Roses!

I (finally) found those virtual roses that I believe might have come from your virtual garden. Thank you for sharing them! They brightened my day. They're just as fresh as when you first picked them. The fragrance is a little faint, but they're absolutely gorgeous to look at. 17:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats, I think...

Or did I read this wrong? :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

Hey, i dont really care, but is it really good etiquette to call people idiots in the edit summaries? im the one you'd be referring to. (this is in reference to WP:IAR). thanks. SECProto 23:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

ContiE has impersonated me on other wikis

Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [17] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 07:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ack!

For when you get back from your break (if you are on one). It seems like there hasn't been much discussion recently at WP:DFA. Any way to start it back up? I think we have good ideas, but we need to completely rewrite everything. — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Personal attack?

Dear Kim,

The user in question, as the link you provided shows, had written to ObsidianOrder:

"In the end, I am not an Islamist. I AM DEMANDING AN APOLOGY AND RETRACTION. I'm hoping you can civil about this so I don't have to escalate this issue."

I'd never encountered ObsidianOrder, nor seen him/her since, but the way this user was conducting himself, threatening other editors while screaming in caps and boldface, was unacceptable to me. I grant you that my sarcasm was unnecessary, but asking him to be specific about what he was threatening was fair and appropriate, and doesn't constitute a personal attack.Timothy Usher 01:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support.

Thanks for the support in regard to my issue on the mediation page. I have since seen many of my edits being removed and/or deleted and sometimes replaced by irrelevant information. I do hope that I get some assistance in regard to my issue. I had a good impression of Wikipedia and its followers in the beginning.

Thanks again…. By the way aren’t there any “supervisors” to this thing…. LOL Rawhide4u 17:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to this editor's accusations on the Cabal page, and laid out the diffs in my defense. I am optimistic that you know me better than to take the statements made against me at face value. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about article quality

Tried to collect what I had about it but it lacks a lot [18]. Perhaps I should write it as code. Some day I'll go through it and clean it up. I have some ideas about how parts of it could be implemented (what I did in an automatic classification engine) but nothing of these ideas are described, so the page shouldn't be completly unreadable. /me goes back to the norwegian trolls — John Erling Blad (no) 05:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Move

You might be interested in the following section: Template talk:Move#Vote or not to vote that is the question. Regards Philip Baird Shearer 11:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting in my RfA!

<blush> of course... You makes some of the most outrageous statements in my RfA! Thank you for the support, it is much appreciated. - Amgine 20:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Re WP:NPOV

I was referring to:

• [19]
• The prior discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Minor removal - Note that the end of this discussion was refactored in a way that it made unclear what I intended with my last contribution to that discussion. At that point I gave up to add further comments, but wasn't convinced in the least by the arguments of the only two other contributors to that discussion, Marskell and Saxifrage.

--Francis Schonken 08:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"66% "majority" of two people is not a sufficient level of consensus for policy changes" of course also referred to wikipedia:consensus - there was a recent debate (I believe, didn't follow it all that much) to convert the consensus idea to a supermajority idea. Needless to say I would have tought that a bad idea. Anyway, my edit summary comment hinted indeed at:

• 66% isn't even supermajority;
• The fact that the prior discussion had evolved to a stage of refactoring and talking next to each other, so not "consensus". As happens so often, there were people (in this case two) trying to convince each other, forgetting that that is not the important point in a consensus dynamic: they entirely thought this was a "majority" issue, so no need to convince the other party in the debate, their thought was that indeed it would have been sufficient to outnumber me. that's why I put the word majority between quotes in the edit summary. --Francis Schonken 09:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I never suggested 2 - 1 was consensus. I suggested there was no outstanding reason why the change shouldn't be made because you had not, in fact, provided one, beyond not liking the word "abrogation" (which I changed). And, while I realize NPOV has to be watched, simply editing via revert under the blanket "no consensus for policy change" is unjustified. This doesn't change policy in the slightest. It simply unpacks the sentence "neutral point of view is a point of view." In anycase, I have introduced compromise wording. Marskell 10:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Attacks

In regard to your comments on my usertalk: Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. I needn't remind you of something you should already know: course language is an attack, making demands is an attack, etc. There's a better way to express what you need to, and attacking isn't it. I have enough problems without adding you to the list. Please consider expressing your opinion some other way. — Nathan ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 10:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

(answered on nathans talk page) Kim Bruning 10:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Newcomers' help page

I'm a little concerned about your recent edits at the new contributors' help page, particularly the dialogue with User:Deborahjay. I trust that you answered her in good faith (noting the smileys), but I believe you probably should have pointed her to Wikipedia:Userboxes, which is obviously the page she was looking for. I certainly don't want to offend you or to stir up controversy, but I just thought I should let you know my concerns, in the spirit of openness. I respect your opinion about the userboxes and the nature of user space, but I think we shouldn't let our personal opinions get in the way of helping newcomers. It would be great to see you continue to help answer questions at the newcomers' help page in the future, since you are such an experienced user and you seem to have a deep understanding of wikiprocess. --TantalumTelluride^♪ 03:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I believe it's important to explain to new people that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's not a blog or whatnot. The use of userboxes and the abuse of userspace is a very controversial topic on wikipedia, and it doesn't seem wise to send new users straight into the minefield.

I'd rather that people actually just mostly left the user pages alone, and worked on the encyclopedia instead. :-)

I get the impression that you're saying that new users *should* be pointed along a controversial course if they ask for it. If my impression is indeed correct, I'd very much like to hear your reasoning. Kim Bruning 10:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. It probably is a good idea to warn new users that userboxes are controversial, but I think it still probably would have been appropriate to provide the new user with a link so that she could find more information about them. Perhaps something like, "You're looking for userboxes, but let me warn you...." The dialogue at the help desk just gave me the impression that you were trying to keep a secret from the new user.

By the way, it looks like Deborahjay has found a few harmless userboxes to display on her user page. At least she doesn't have a picture of a giant kiwi wearing clogs! :P

Thanks for understanding. --TantalumTelluride^♪ 15:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kim Bruning and TantalumTelluride, I thank you both for your responses (here and to me) and want to add my part to this dialogue (which I hope you'll discover through some flagging mechanism or ??).

That request for Newcomers' Help was written on my very first day at Wikipedia (!), seeking practical advice and instructions.

Note: only yesterday, after ten days, did I get a full-blown "Welcome" message from FrankB providing extensive links to explanatory material, which I'm about to pursue in light of my tasks at hand.

My focus on designing a User Page was twofold: to have a place to track my own activity in a concise, internal-linked format (i.e. besides the "special page" of My Contributions), and to identify myself to other Wikipedians in my profession (translation/editing) and fields of endeavor (Holocaust/Israel/music), for possible networking.

Rereading what I wrote, I can see I didn't express myself clearly (partly due to ignorance and unfamiliarity), and I take responsibility for that. But Kim, I felt your replies were condescending, giving me little or no credit for responsible intentions, let alone good judgment. It struck me that you figured I was trawling for Chat Buddies and needed to be told "what we're doing here."

Even so, you did influence me to keep my profile here (as evinced on my User Page) strictly professional, and (except for one sentimental note :-) I've relegated my affiliations and avocations to the User Info page I maintain in LiveJournal.

As it happened, I soon received a helpful answer from Esperanzan Estarriol, guiding me to Wikipedia:Userpage and Wikipedia:Userboxes along the lines suggested by TT, above, that enabled me to proceed.

The various response mechanisms here are still a bit bewildering to me (a veteran of various IM channels and a moderator in Yahoo!Groups), but I'm learning all the time, making progress, and greatly appreciate your support. Thanks again! Deborahjay 05:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Deborahjay

Your bitter rejection

Of "Adminship renewel" was probably correct, but unfortunate. We're entering into that area where so much fruitless talk has occured that it's going to be impossible to actually change anything if we start to say "we've talked about this enough."

There is clearly room for some small improvement in the dead-minn process. My straightforward version would be to indentify those "consistantly disruptive but just shy of arb-able" admins and nuke them from orbit. But Jimbo won't hand me the keys to the nuclear football, dammit!

So some space to talk about it is probably a good idea. I've opened an RfC on myself with the hopes that I'd get some really juicy complaints and start the ball rolling about some form of adminship reform, but so far not one cry for my head!

brenneman^{L} 09:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Make a new page?

How do i do this

thx! -- added by User:Joshuarooney

• Well, you link to a page, using the square brackets (Use edit this page to see how I did that). If a page with the name in the brackets does not yet exist, it'll show up as red. You can then click on it, and you will be able to make a new page.
• Alternately, search for the page you want to create. If the page does not yet exist, you will be given the option to make it.

Kim Bruning 16:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

My user page

I think the problem with fixing some of the problems is twofold: first, that those who feel they are benefiting from the problems do not want change; two, the project is weighted down with inertia. Too many editors are convinced nothing is wrong and rather than learn from criticism, shout it down.

Could I help fix it? Yes, I could. I daresay I could completely rewrite the policy basis of the site and fix many of the problems I outlined. But I'd be unlikely to gain support. Most of the establishment thinks I'm a shitstirrer (and incredibly they seem to think that's a bad thing). But I think they'd actually like the outcome. It's simply that a wiki for ten thousand people has to be different from one for forty and a lot of the shit here grows out of that: people feel embattled because policies were made for a small community that all knew each other and had a degree of trust and they don't really fit a bigger website.

I'll give you an example of what I mean. Take the policy on NPOV. As envisaged, it was a great idea. And everybody could probably go along with it because if they had problems, they could talk it out. With few people involved, there was probably a common understanding. But now there are too many people, each with their own view of what it means. So they fight over it. And we have a court for behaviour but no means of deciding on which policy applies how. Worst of all, when we have content disputes, the bigger gang wins. This is a terrible means of deciding conflicts. If it were true that we did not have cliques and the most persuasive argument would gain the most support, it would not be so bad, but when a POV wins out simply because the person who holds it is more popular or better connected, that is not good.

Another example is that in the smaller community, users can be asked to trust one another's judgement. But in the bigger one, you don't necessarily know the other users, so you have to "assume good faith". (Which is all very well, but we are all too aware that people don't always show good faith.) So admins do what they think is right, others challenge them, and they are admonished to AGF and the matter ends in bitterness. Much better to not entrench the power structure, to allow adminship to be "no big deal" by simply rotating it and not allow editors' points of view to be privileged (which admin viewpoints have become), and to demand a closer adherence to a policy base that is clear.

If you want to talk about some of the things I mentioned, or anything else you think is worth discussing, feel free to drop me a talk message or email me at freddyvessant AT gmail DOT com. Grace Note 00:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hear! Hear! Good thoughts and good hypotheses. Nice summary of reality. --Rednblu 03:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ban

How about banning persistent vanndals from even accessing wikipedia?

it would make it a lot better for others...

Joshuarooney 08:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be a great plan. :-) There's only one technical detail. The current version of internet protocol (IPv4), does not have enough internet addresses to go around, so a lot of people end up sharing. When we block a person, we sometimes also end up blocking innocent people who are sharing the same address. That's one reason why we can't block people permanently. The other reason is that we believe that people are good, and that they will learn to be more responsible over time. Kim Bruning 11:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

search

how do i make a page availible to find by searching for it, i created one for my school, and i put it in the article 'meat anolouge' thx... --anon

Hmmm, well, google comes along once in a while and indexes wikipedia. If it's still there, it'll show up on google the next time they come by. Kim Bruning 11:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

...

i meant when you search on wikipedia, but i will try the google idea too :)

SOMEONE HAS VANDAlised my home page

someone has vandalised my homepage how do i issue a warning?

thanks Joshuarooney 13:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Just some anon. Best to leave it. If it happens again gimme a yell. :-) Kim Bruning 13:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Prepare a Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship/Megaman Zero 14 please!

Hi. Thanks for your constructive comment. Things were a tad chaotic, so I didn't notice and respond to your post until recently [20]. -Zero^Talk 16:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi, well, the statement at my user page is not really true anymore. There is a brand new Natural Selection page in development here: User:KimvdLinde/Natural_selection, and if you like to contribute, be welcome. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Admins

Admins qua admins should only apply policies is what I meant. The overlay should not be "use your judgement" but "apply the policy". I know this probably doesn't appeal to you because you're a fan of the looser wiki idea (as am I) but I think that that is what doesn't scale. -- Grace Note.

THEY'VE DONE IT AGAIN!!!

They vandalised me again, they put: 'i take it up the bum' and cpoy and pasted it a thousand times, it may be one of my mates being funny, but it is pretty embarracing, btw thanks for all the support you have been giving me.

i will be back at about 4:00pm.

--Joshuarooney 11:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

One or two per page

Kim, you need to be clear that on my user page I'm mostly discussing the politics, which affect very little of the website, but do have an impact on the culture and how Wikipedia views itself and is viewed. The broader issues of content control are something else entirely. I agree that most pages are little visited (which is a bad thing! Lack of systematic treatment of the encyclopaedia is a bad thing on the whole -- but many of the same people who resist cultural change also resist systemising the work. Personally, I have mixed feelings. I like a vast, sprawling chaos, but I also like a tremendously functional work: the tension between the two is a source of dynamism and wonder) and that conflict tends to be centred in certain places.

As far as "acculturation" is concerned, Kim, you need to bear in mind that it is as much a question of "old culture" meets "new culture". The old culture fiercely resists the changes that the new brings because it believes it made a lot of progress using the old methods. It fears that a change in culture would bring a derecognition of that progress. The newer culture needs to recognise the fears of the older. But at the same time, I think the older culture needs to grasp that things have changed, that there are very many new editors, with different views of what Wikipedia is for. How long can the old culture keep yelling "this is what Wikipedia is because this is what we made" when it is a/ outnumbered (and consequently no longer represents a consensus) and b/ having to resort to autocratic means to impose its ideas. If its ideas were strong enough, it could convince others of them. My idea is that it should accept that things have changed and strongly codify its culture. Grace Note 23:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the examination. You make me think. My spirit wants to follow your optimism. But my realism says, "Nope. People are just glorified chimps and have only glorified chimp politics to organize themselves--such as the chimp politics that controlled both Clintons' (both?) and both Bushes' Administrations just to name one country." There may be hope if we would all learn GraceNote's laws--which have yet to be explicated completely but still show great promise. Adopting GraceNote's laws would require us to deny our natural hungers for the chimpanzee politics that naturally controls the decisions in Wikipedia--as just one microcosm of the human universe ruled by chimpanzee politics. --Rednblu 02:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Kim, I didn't understand your note about a vote of no confidence on something. Re: the policy/guideline patrol, it isn't vandalism that's the problem but, for example, newish editors who try to add their own opinions to articles, are stopped by other editors invoking one of the content policies, and who therefore go to those policies to try to change them so that they can make the edits they want. Or, as we saw with Zephram Stark, sockpuppets changing the sockpuppet policy to make it slightly harder for them to be blocked. It's not just the changing of one policy that's the problem, but because the new editors have no knowledge of policy overall, they introduce inconsistencies between different policies. You wrote on my page that often it's the "new and enthusiastic people who come up with the great new ideas on how to fix things." I've never seen this myself. Can you think of an example from one of the policy pages, or indeed, from anywhere else? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, fair point that the original policies were started by new people. I suppose my only point is that they've grown since then, as has the whole project, and now that there are several interlocking policies, the way in which they interlock has to be taken into account when editing any one of them. That requires knowledge of them.

We also have to know that people editing the policies are doing so in good faith. That hasn't invariably been the case recently with some newish editors and, of course, Zephram.

The poll was only in order to see where the emphasis should lie. If six months or 1,000 edits is seen as too high a bar, it can be lowered, but I feel there needs to be something in place, if only to signal to people: Look, the entire ship relies on these engines. Don't screw with them until you've learned how they work.

This wasn't the start of the initiative, by the way. Quite a few people have been talking about this for some time, so this is just one step along the way to find out what, if any, level of restriction would be appropriate.

I don't see how the proposal would make it harder for you to find new people. New people to do what?

Sorry about not seeing you on MSN. I was only on for a few minutes to download the latest version then I logged off again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De dust

How about merging by map type? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi Kim, don't know much about it, but almost certainly to do with the IZAK thing. I'm in the process of writing it up for AN/I on another tab. Give me 10 minutes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. [21] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, answered. I do think you should have discussed this more with PZFUN before immediately taking it to AN/I. Since the situation is somewhat volatile I would have preferred to keep the incident under wraps. 16:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy patrol

I believe I could be of some assistance with this - please let me know your thoughts on this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

PZFUN

Did you see the discussion at WP:ANI#Nomination_by_PZFUN.2C_and_Speedy_keep_of_several_articles_by_Slimvirgin? User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh indeed I did. I actually went and talked with slimvirgin about it, and we came to the agreement that Slimvirgin would personally renominate several of them. Which she did. PZFUN On his side agreed to trust slimvirgin with carrying out wikipedia policy.

Now people are still yelling at PZFUN, without sane reason.

Kim Bruning 20:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It just seems like a campaign to remove anything having to do with Judaism from Wikipedia. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It is Category:Judaism_stubs, just stubcleaning. (see also reply on AN/I)Kim Bruning 20:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

A fair number of those summer camp discussions are still open. Do you think it's a good idea to close them and re-nominate now that the upset has died down? (No, I don't know what bit PZFUN to nominate the article on Dov Bär of Mezeritch, it was in OK shape ("OK for 'pedia) when it got listed on AfD. Dr Zak 22:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)