User talk:Kim Bruning

Hi, I'm cutting down on wiki activity... maybe... (you know how wikiholism goes).

Note that I'm no longer mentoring Netoholic, I've done that long enough, saw some improvement, but it's taken too much out of me. Kim Bruning 29 June 2005 01:32 (UTC)

Other than that, feel free to leave me a message! Kim Bruning 29 June 2005 01:32 (UTC)

Archived. Not left. :-) Kim Bruning 29 June 2005 01:28 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, hang on in there. --W(t) 29 June 2005 01:32 (UTC)

:-) Kim Bruning 29 June 2005 01:34 (UTC)

No rest for the wicked?

Looks like you need this. Hey, take care of yourself, would you? That does mean sleeping once in a while, and at least looking at pages upon which there has never been an edit war and no one involved needs mediation. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 29 June 2005 14:00 (UTC)

Hi

Hi! I'm sorry to see you stressed out, and I apologize if I caused you wikistress lately. Please stick around a bit, your sense of humor is most appreciated. Yours, R adiant _>|< June 29, 2005 21:26 (UTC)

papers

Actually it's just a matter of not putting aside a block of time to do that. I blame it on my job annoyingly intruding on my Wikipedia time, and the fact that I thought I had a nice list to submit as a Featured List...and after I submitted it I found out that redlinked lists are not acceptable - so I wrote 31 short articles (stubs with taxboxes, really) and somehow that took up a whole day, which means that I fell even more behind with work than usual. Annoying job, getting in the way of my Wikiholism :) Thanks for the reminder, will send soon. Guettarda 30 June 2005 13:29 (UTC)

Sent you the one article I did save. Sorry about being a flake. Guettarda 30 June 2005 13:37 (UTC)

Hi, Kim

Thank you for the welcome back! I appreciate it. I'm sorry I didn't comunicate more with you during the RfA. It just got a bit frustrating for me. Thanks. :) func(talk) 30 June 2005 15:35 (UTC)

Hey there

I am glad to see you taking a rest. You have been much too stressed as of late. And this will give you a chance to finish your work (lest I have to call Nata!) :)

On another note, if you do get the time, someone has listed History of Cape Colony from 1806 to 1870 on the Featured Article Removal Candidate page, for reasons I think are slightly bogus. Would you mind looking over and giving your opinion here? Thanks! Páll 4 July 2005 04:57 (UTC)

Google maps

Please use the correct coordinates.--Patrick 4 July 2005 16:34 (UTC)

Worn out

I hear ya :-). You've worked very hard (while doing some very good work) so I'm not suprised! I hope you come back soon, and take things easy. Dan100 (Talk) July 5, 2005 17:53 (UTC)

I'm still alive! ;-) Maybe I should change the user page text. :) Kim Bruning 5 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)

Question about blocking a user

Kim, how dangerous would it be for me to block an admin for a token period, say, a day, for this personal attack against somebody I don't know? [1] I do not know this admin, nor have I ever heard of him before this hour. I just ran into the attack by random. Tom Haws 23:36, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Kim, catching sight of this message, I took the liberty of writing to Tom about it on his page. Bishonen | talk 05:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, your answer helps a lot. It is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks. (This abusive behavior by admins is embarrassing.) Tom Haws 14:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Kim, thanks for your farewell and your greeting when I returned -- you can always brighten my day with your cheery notes. I wish you the best of luck in graduating (if that happy event is still in your future, and not an accomplishment of your past), and hope that my return and the work that I will do is worthy of the praise you offer. I'm glad to know you've been continuing to work with some of the site's toughest cases -- it's one of your great talents, and the encyclopedia is very fortunate to have you on the job. :-) Best regards as always, Jwrosenzweig 20:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

block request

Dear Kim, Can you please bock user:212.10.37.218. He equals with user:Peter Lee, and vandalizes the userpage of user:Mario Roering. They are both blocked because of a editwar at nl.wikipedia, the IP of Peter Lee as well, because he did exactly the same to the userpage of Mario Roering at nl.wikipedia, and Peter Lee, is already warned not to do this kind of things. I'm his "curator"( for more informations about this word in this context, see the usertalkpage of peter or mario) at nl.wikipedia, and blocked him there for a week. The last just to inform you about the user. Effeietsanders 19:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, I'll block for 24 hours for starters. Kim Bruning 19:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

final cleanup

Well, yes, but you could have perhaps been more clear in your edit summary. Not that I necessarily disagree with your analysis or actions, mind you, but it was all rather ... fuzzy. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See deletion summaries, and see: Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#Kick_the_ass..._forestfire

Kim Bruning 02:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...

... why did you speedy delete Wikipedia:GNAA votes for deletion policy? I created it as an alternative as the other had an inflamatory title... - Ta bu shi da yu 02:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Kim Bruning 02:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but could you clarify what you meant by "GNAA trolls were attempting to start a meatball:ForestFire re: Kick the ass... GNAA articles." - surely, you aren't accusing me of being a GNAA member?! I just want to find out - I'm assuming good faith up till I know better however. I want to undelete that article, cause the deletion didn't fulfill any of the speedy deletion criteria! I also don't want to create bad blood between us by reversing your admin decision. To be honest, between getting abused for the way I ran the GNAA VfD, being abused by Chocolateboy for my edits of the actual GNAA article, and feeling a mite annoyed that my policy got deleted without a warning, and half way through the vote, I fear that the GNAA have won this round. Besides which, its distracting me from my Microsoft Jet Database Engine article! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, stop! You are not helping here!!! This is fanning the fire and making it hotter, not cooler! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped about an hour ago :-) Kim Bruning 04:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phew :-) at least this is one thing I'm glad about. I'm suggesting that we keep the VFU running: it probably won't be back. I'm still having a wikibreak: check out Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America for details. I just swore at Chocolateboy. First time on this website ever. Time for a wikibreak. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Before You Leave A Message about GNAA, READ THIS! :-)

I've roughly followed the suggested procedures from meatball:ForestFire, for dealing with trolling of this sort.

The VFD had gone into a 2nd iteration with a new page being created and imediately nominated on VFD. I deleted the total of 3 new pages before more wierdness could happen.

Where exactly in the WP:CSD is are such deletions authorized? Would not protecting the pages involved have done as well? This seems like an abuse of admin powers to me, but perhaps I misunderstand. DES 02:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

further discussion can be found at:

Wikipedia_talk:Kick_the_ass_of_anyone_who_renominates_GNAA_for_deletion_before_2007

Kim Bruning 02:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:GNAA votes for deletion policy

I have nominated this page at WP:VFU as I feel it's deletion was out of proper process.DES 02:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See above! Kim Bruning 02:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw, that is precisely why i took this action. Now a wider group will see if this is a proper way of deleting articles or not. If I am blocked for putting an article on VFU I will be unhappy to say the least. DES 02:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am now considering whether to get a third opnion on this or go straight to an RfC on improper behavior -- yours. Deleting a VfU page seems WAY out of line to me. DES 02:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: I am currently on irc, it might be a good idea to get your third opinion there. However, as far as I'm aware I'm following policy. I will also delete the RFC. You may at your option get a steward to temporarily de-admin me, however this would leave a rather sticky situation on-wiki with no admin looking after it. Please please PLEASE read meatball:ForestFire, and understand the implications before you proceed.

I don't use IRC, so that is out. I read the link you supplied (meatball:ForestFire). The pages you deleted did not seem to fit the case there descibed -- there was a dispute, but it was mostly between established users, not trolls or vandals -- it was only about vandals. Do you really think that having this listed on VFU would do more harm than the one page you did leave undeleted? I am droppign this for the night, but I will return to it tomorrow. That will give time for any short term flood to subside. DES 03:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't wnat this not noticed by proper parties, but want to respct your strongly expressed concerns, I have posted a somewhat obligue msg to the talk pages of several Bureaucrats. This msg does not explicitly refer to any of the pages with the fire setting tag in their names, but asks them to look at the edit history of third opnion and related pages. I won't do any more about this at this time. DES 03:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bureacrats is ok, though I'm not sure what they can do. Personally I've been trying to find an arbitration committee member, to make sure I'm doing the right thing, but they're all in bed at this hour, I think. :-( Kim Bruning 03:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC) At least one of the parties I notifed is also an AtbComm member. I'm willing to wait for morning for a response. I accept that you were doing what you thought proper. I disagree, but I assume your good faith. Everything I wrote is in the histories, so it can be dealt with in a less hasty fashion. Perhaps i was the one out of line. Oh I chose Bureacrats because they are highly respected people with an official position, and the ability to change people's status if need be, but mostly as the sort of people I would want giving an informal outside opnion on this matter. DES 03:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: VfU

I just got your message. I cannot see the justification for deleting TBSDY's outside of deletion policy, but I can understand that you feel it would be damaging to Wikipedia somehow (with which I do not agree). I cannot understand, though, why you cannot tolerate an undeletion entry for it on VfU. This seems highly inappropriate to me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support Kim's actions in this regard. Allowing a VfU page allows the forest fire to spread. Let's keep this discussion on one page and one page only. (And since this is not that page, I most certainly do not want to see it continued here.) Kelly Martin 05:00, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

(added after edit conflict) I understand your desire to avoid flamewars, but I don't believe that the possibility of a controversy-riddled discussion is sufficient reason to justify deletion of this nature, especially when the page in question was created by a longtime Wikipedia editor and highly respected administrator. I see your points but I feel that this widespread deletion is clearly outside policy; even if it will be helpful for Wikipedia I think it is too much rulebreaking for one person to do. To stifle discussion of its unwarranted deletion cannot be tolerated, in my opinion, even if it risks a flamewar. One simply cannot delete pages at one's whim and then remove discussions regarding the propriety of the deletion. If your actions are really so correct, then others will agree with you and assist you in these tasks. But I feel that these actions are outside policy and too unilateral—there should be a bit more agreement for such controversial actions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will not re-add the entry to VfU a third time. I still disagree with this suppression of discussion, but I am also prepared to admit I may be wrong, especially given Kelly Martin's support above. I still feel, however, that suppression of discussion, especially over one's own actions, is a dangerous thing—even if done with the best of intentions, I think "taking the law into one's own hands" like this and refusing to let others discuss one's actions is a very bad idea. I will let others support or oppose this at their will. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Hello, Kim. I blocked you for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR. If you believe this block was in error, please email me, or note it on this talk page (it's on my watchlist). Thank you in advance for being graceful about my implementation of the block. Yours, El_C 06:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I didn't quite understand what you meant by forest fire on your user page today (I just got here!), but check out some of the images I uploaded for Forest fire: Image:Forestfire1.jpg, Image:Forestfire2.jpg, Image:Forestfire3.jpg Image:Forestfire4.jpg, Image:Forestfire5.jpg. Yours, El_C 06:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying

against the forestfire. I'm sorry to see that it didn't help. For what it's worth the ensuing irony would probably be worth a good laugh or two, and a mention on WP:LAME. Yours, R adiant _>|< 09:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I completely support your deletions. Sorry it didn't work out as intended. :( Angela . 16:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Oh it worked out reasonably, reality is always dirtier than the theory. I got a secondary Forestfire back from my own actions, but that was smaller and managable. :-) Kim Bruning 17:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on my Talk page

A user asked me for my opinion on the present GNAA embroglio, which I provided on my talk page. Since I mentioned you by name, I thought I'd bring the discussion to your attention rather than talk about you behind your back. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

more on the "forest fire"

On User talk:UninvitedCompany you wrote, in part: "By taking the actions that I did, I started a new, smaller forestfire involving under 10 new editors, at a much slower pace, which at least was managable ^^;;"

"If I had immediately pointed to a single page to work on, the second -smaller- forestfire wouldn't have occurred."

"This shows that recanning the worms is still a viable stratagem, if you don't mind losing a nights' sleep :-) Kim Bruning 17:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

I actually saw all of the pages you mentioned (in the section i didn't wuote above), but I felt that the deletion of the second (TBDY's proposal) was the least justifed (it at least seemed to be a serious policy proposal, and did not have a possibly offensive title), so that is the one i took tio VFU.

I still think you were out of line here. The discussion was split over several pages, perhaps as many as 10, depending on how you count. I have seen split discussions before on here: the spoiler-templates discussion was split over several, as was the TOCright debate, and the recent CSD proposal. Ten pages out of how many thousand policy and semi-policy pages? And frankly it didn't look to me as if more pages were likely to be created. The people creating these pages, and most if not all of the people posting to them were not vandals nor newbies nor troills. Suggesting on the existing pages that the subject be contained, and further pages not created, and maybe that discussion be redirected to a single page or a subset of the existing pages, would IMO have met the case perfectly well. I didn't see and I don't see what the emergency was that justified deleting pages outside of policy. Having just spent a good deal of time debating the WP:CSD policies, it bothers me to see them treated as optional. Many of my arguments for expanding the criteria were based in the notion that admins should not, and usauly would not, abuse their powers by making deletions outside of the policy. Frankly i feel this action hurts wikipedia far more than any amout of ill-considered discussion of the GNAA. I hope that makes it clear where I was comming from on this. DES 17:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

replied to identical paragraph at User_talk:UninvitedCompany#Opnion_wanted, do please keep it to one page :-) Kim Bruning 17:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. As a courtesy since the reply was directed to you, i copied to this page. I won't do so further. I admit that I dislike the fractured style discussions can have when each person responds on the other's talk page without quoting. DES 17:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GNAA

The man deserves a medal... Aha, here's one! Thanks for sorting the whole mess out. smoddy 18:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. I mean, be bold and all but that was way out there!
If only these the worms would stay canned...
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 14:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this forest fire discussion? I am glad to hear of it, and much of my concern here is that it is usually better to have a plan than, as you boldly did, make one up on the spot. Please reply on my talk-page. Septentrionalis 14:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your assitance and support are requested

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tznkai/Petition Edit and sign if you would. Or don't if you disagree obviously--Tznkai 18:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Asking him a question and pointing out what seems to be a mistake is part of helping someone to learn the ropes. Saying nothing and watching them go wrong isn't.

Quite so, though I didn't quite percieve your actions as doing that. I'll look again. Kim Bruning
You're defending SS, but you call my actions "throwing my weight around"? My comments are a matter of record; I'll leave others to judge whether your characterisation is accurate.
I'm not defending Sam Spade in this one. I typically don't. He's quite capable of looking after himself. Sometimes I'd like him to improve his behaviour though. Sometimes he even listens to me. :-) Kim Bruning
You haven't tried to solve this conflict (except in the sense of supporting SS against FM), I'm not in a position to, though I've done what editors are supposed to do in the face of poor behaviour from SS, and Tznkai is trying to sweep everything under the carpet.
I have not. And Tznkais instincts here are correct. SS and FM can very well take their conflict off this wiki, and themselves with it if they don't stop. We're here to write an encyclopedia. Kim Bruning
We disagree about the former; the latter isn't inconsistent with trying to resolve disputes. Jumping on me (here and in your aggressive e-mail) won't get you anywhere, nor improve the situation.
Let's get this straight; I think that some of FM's actions were ill-judged, but excusable given SS's nasty behaviour over a long period; I support FM in this, and I make no pretence to neutrality. You support SS; why not drop the very flimsy pretence that you're neutral? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Trolling me won't work. Kim Bruning 12:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear as to what you think "trolling" means, so don't really understand this last point. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Hi Kim, as per our coversation in IRC, will you nominate me for adminship here? Dan100 (Talk) 15:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Pssst, not forgotten (or had second thoughts!) have you? :-) Dan100 (Talk) 17:05, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stalking

When I created this page I meant for it to refer to hostile stalking as in the type that users complain about on RFC's and RFA's but it needs to be clarified, I've been trying to figure out how to do this but so far have come up blank.

also posted on Wikipedia talk:Stalking Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 08:46, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

yes, I now realize that writing a page about wikistalking is hard at best and impossible at worst. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 07:02, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Reminder

Please look into this tomorrow. It seems obvious to me that Tony Sidaway, smoddy, SlimVirgin, and Carbonite are trying to create a chilling effect on the SIIEG group by targeting the users Ni-ju-Ichi and Existentializer in retaliation for their editing Islam-oriented articles, despite their breaking no policies.

Carbonite's behavior in challenging Ni-ju-Ichi to speak, and then deliberately banning his IP address so that Ni-ju-Ichi cannot speak, is very much an abuse of authority.

--Sqworbletch

GPG workshop is a no go

Kim- tried and failed to get my friend to do the workshop. Sorry :( . Fernando Rizo T/C 06:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, there's always a way to do it :-) (replied on your user talk) Kim Bruning 12:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's some wikimania folks working on it. A laser printer would still be handy ;-) Kim Bruning 14:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate content in a page

Hi - There was a mediawiki bug that's recently been fixed that caused content of a page to be duplicated when editing a section. It appears User_talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 2 was affected by this bug. Just letting you know so you can fix it if you care to. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:16, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

kmccoy's RFA

Hi, Kim,

Thanks for your support on my RFA. I'm glad that I could fit your 'admin criterion' without thinking about it. :) kmccoy (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion forest fire

Hi there! I was awikiway for a couple days and when I come back I noticed over a dozen pages debating the faults of the deletion process, including two RFCs, deletion of its main page, and scores of proposals of widely varying usefulness. Sounds like a forestfire to me. Should we do something to get all discussion back to a single page, because as it stands now it only serves to aggravate people. R adiant _>|< 08:30, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I hereby grant you the title of Captain of the Voluntary Forest Fire Department. Godspeed, captain! JRM · Talk 09:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What, no image macro? :( /dissapointed El_C 09:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby grant you the title of Official Producer of Title-Granting Image Macros. JRM · Talk 10:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You call that swift? I mean, thank you for this great honour! El_C 10:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. JRM · Talk 10:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, this forestfire isn't being fed by trolls so much, and it's mostly controlled already, and a central page exists. If you'd like to point people to Wikipedia:Deletion_reform, or at least create links back from any pages with this discussion running, that ought to do the trick. Kim Bruning 13:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yes well... And thank you, Kim, for this! :) El_C 07:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VFD RFC

There were plenty of signatures, and lots of ongoing discussion. I have undeleted the page.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC

Hi. I see that Michael Snow has restored this page. May I strongly suggest, whatever your feelings on the matter, that you do not redelete the page. A deletion/undeletion war is only going to fuel acrimony and bitterness in a matter that is already bitter and acrimonious enough. Cheers, [[smoddy]] 22:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was undeleted for archival purposes. Kim Bruning 22:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. I'm sure you understand the intentions of my post. Serves me right for not getting onto IRC. [[smoddy]] 22:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is my VFU listing and I would like it to proceed independent of Mr. Snow's archival efforts. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD closings

Hey, retard (that's a term of endearment now, by the way, you may call me doofus or imbecil, I assure you I've been called much worse), so I closed by first VfD. However, upon further looking at the rules for non-admins I found I may have accidentally violated one or two. I closed a VfD I was involved in; in fact, one I started, but as the resulting "keep" was the opposite of the outcome I desired I figure no one can really accuse me of doing anything completely unethical. It also may not have been as close to unanimous as would be desired, but 8/5 is a solid keep (some people might almost call that a "consensus". Some people. Almost), so I'm pretty sure it will not be controversial. Now, the problem is that I also discovered that the rules specifically say non-admins cannot close delete votes, so I fear your offer must be declined. Pity. -R. fiend 18:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They tend to hide these things pretty well (I've always found it difficult navigating around the WP namespace, actually) but we have it right here, rule #2. I guess you could say that if I'm pointing them out to someone then there's no chance of them being "lost" or whatever, so the spirit of the law is intact. The letter, however, is violated, and someone wouldn't be completely unjustified in crying foul. I certainly broke rule #3 with my previous closing, but in such an ironic fashion that it shouldn't matter, but I guess not rule #1 as it was not ambiguous (though not really near unanimous either). It is pretty clearly stated that non-admins should not close contraversial votes, which somewhat defeats the purpose of this, as they are the ones that most need it, and it seems you'd like me to walk a mile in Tony's shoes, and the easy calls aren't the shoes he walks in. Likewise just pointing out VfDs to you and having you do all the work at my dictation doesn't really get me anywhere either. I think the rules are generally pretty fair, as I didn't know until recently that non-admins were allowed to close votes at all. I guess I could do some unambiguous keeps for a while, but that only does so much.

Hmmm. I just noticed that rule #1 there describes a transwiki as a form of keep, while the VfD guidelines call it a delete. Christ. VfD isn't exactly broken, but it needs to get its shit together. -R. fiend 20:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you want to put up a notice on the VfD talk page or the admins notice board or someplace and see if anyone objects that's fine with me. In the meantime I'll look at some non-ambiguous keeps. This should be an interesting team; the Kerry/McCain ticket so many people wanted. -R. fiend 22:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help on Harry Potter Issue

I have strenously objected to the following comment that is in the Severus Snape article:

I tried kindness - I tried pointing out it wasn't in the spirt of the wiki - I tried rudness (comments 64.12.116.10) - I even tried to point out that other speculation existed in the article (I realize this was bad form re WP:POINT).

But I really don't have the time to really edit more than I have - I just don't know where to turn for help - The nature of Snape's relationship with Good and Evil is the most interesting thing in the book to me and his character is so rich - there is much material on what his motives are and different interpretations of his behavior. Since this is clearly outlined on many blogs, independent literary analysis of HP, etc. it is something that could be documented on Wikipedia without being original research. Am I way out of line here - or can you make some comments to help what I am guessing are "zealot kids" re Harry Potter that don't like seeing discussion that involves Harry being wrong :)

I prefer to edit anonymously so leave any comments for me here - TIA 64.12.117.7 02:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think I can see where that's coming from. Maybe write a trial paragraph in talk before pasting to the article might help? ("any objections to this version? No? Then inserted after 3 days"), something like that, also be sure to include references to the people saying these things. If that doesn't work out, try asking for advice at WP:TINMC too. (And if they're busy, feel free to come back here :-) Kim Bruning 16:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly too personal question

If you'd prefer not to answer, please feel free to ignore me. Anyway, here goes -- when you first arrived, I assumed (on the basis of "Kim") you were a "she", but later (perhaps on your RFA?) I was corrected that you were a "he". Now I see Ed referring to you as "she" in his RfAR, and I was about to correct him when he mentioned talking to you on the phone. Now I can't remember whether or not it was you who told me you were a "he" or if it was someone else, and I hate to mis-refer to people's gender (although perhaps I'm one of the few people who thinks it matters), so if you don't mind telling me, I'd just like to know which pronoun is appropriate. :-) Long question, I know. And if you'd prefer not to say, I'll completely respect that. Anyhow...have fun at Wikimania! Jwrosenzweig 06:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, I'm wondering too. You sounded female over the phone. I'd like to know (unless it's none of my business, in which case I don't want to know ;-) Uncle Ed 18:03, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

This might be intruding on Kim's privacy, or something (though I doubt it), but, erm, I've met him, and I can confirm he's a he. Maybe he doesn't have the deep, booming bass needed to convince people over the phone, but trust me, he can grow a beard like nobody else. JRM · Talk 19:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well...I'm laughing right now and I don't really know why. Hope you didn't take offense, Kim -- thanks for clearing it up, JRM. :-) Jw-ROSE-nzweig...perhaps I myself have baffled a few minds? 22:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standing on your head

Hello! You said you could conceive a better deletion process while standing on your head and performing a variety of other stunts. I'd love to see that :) seriously though, I do agree with the general sentiment that present VFD is far too contentious and factionalizing for its own good (not to mention the Wiki's good) and would like to hear what you suggest since I believe you're one of the most levelheaded people around here. R adiant _>|< 12:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'd much more like to see efforts at organizing the community opinions on what deletion system we ought to have. We probably don't need more proposals, we've got proposals coming out of our ears. We could go on until someone magically hits on the right one, I suppose... A common theme on Wikipedia:Deletion reform, for example, seems to be the division between people who want a centralized VfD (because they want to monitor deletions in general) and people who want a decentralized VfD (because they don't like the centralizers taking over the deletion process, and/or feel CVfD is so large maintaining it isn't worth the effort). The pro/con lists of the current VfD don't seem to be elucidating these things much. So much to do, so little time... Signing off, JRM · Talk 13:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the most common theme, perhaps that provides a clue as to how we should craft the solution. Let's list the criteria for user acceptability:

Facilitates monitoring deletions in general
Keeps anyone from taking over the deletion process
Allows maintainance to be worth the effort

How can I get people to vote on these "features"?

I'm an ace programmer. If people will agree on the features, I can program a solution. Uncle Ed 11:50, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

You're a MediaWiki developer? :-) I'm an ace programmer too. In fact the only thing we probably don't have a shortage of on Wikipedia is ace programmers—programmers willing to spend time on developing are another matter, though. But if you're volunteering to help the developers out, great.

Getting people to agree on what it is they want will be probably more work than implementing the solution, of course. JRM · Talk 12:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost spam

My apologies for the impersonal message, but you are one of a number of people who figure in recent events surrounding the deletion of VfD, a story about which will be in the upcoming The Wikipedia Signpost. A draft of the story is at User:Michael Snow/Deletion deletion. Please feel free to review it and point out any inaccuracies or misrepresentations you find. I would ask that rather than editing the story directly, if you could please direct any comments to the talk page. Thank you. --Michael Snow 23:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Adraeus (talk · contribs)

I don't think that was a good idea. While the edits were unhelpful, I believe that calling them "vote tampering" overstates the case. I'm not going to unblock only because I hate Wikipedia:Block wars. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Uninvited Company. Kim, I've e-mailed you about this. I also don't like to get into block wars, but I feel there are mitigating circumstances here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:19, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I supppose... though I did initially get a big shock with so many votes showing up red in the diff. :-/ People should (almost) never edit other people's votes. It's a very bad habit to start with. Even if you mean well, you can change the intent of what the voter is trying to say.

I didn't block for longer because, well yes, -like you said- they weren't exactly the most terrible case of vote tampering in the history of mankind.

Oh alright alright, if you folks think he won't do it again? Then that's good enough for me :-) I'll go unblock. Kim Bruning 10:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A block-free chastisement may also do the trick! Looking at it now, t'was defintely an inexplicable edit, heh. 24 hours does seem a bit harsh, though, I'd have gone with 15 minutes myself (if anything – unless he's already a problem editor, then ignore evrything I said), but I'm a softie. Btw, I would have reverted it on comic grounds alone. I love how sometimes people forget the period, so it looks like: support El_C 10:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC). Yes, that's right, I'm supporting myself in someone elses RfA, vote for moi! :D El_C 10:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He most certainly is a problem editor, see his block for a month by arbcom. He has been blocked a few other times as well, for various misdeeds. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 11:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for unblocking him, Kim, that was decent of you. You're right that he shouldn't have edited people's votes. It was odd to say the least. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:40, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

RV and protect

I agree with the 'protect' but not the 'rv' one. If you think that reverting "again and again and again" to a historical version which is not accepted by anybody (academics included), then you should be able to back it up in Talk on your own instead of urging others to do it for you. Otherwise it's as if you're supporting a biased act of vandalism by taking advantage of your admin privileges. Could it be that you actually agree with the new edits, or is it that you felt moved by the supposed struggle of a supposedly oppressed ethnic group? The stories of Arabs and Palestinians are touching as well, but none of them justify their actions and believes. In the case that you agree with the new edits because you consider them neutral, then you should be able to back up every single one of them. In case you were just moved without being sure who's right or wrong, then you owe an explanation for taking sides. Either way, see you in the discussion page of Macedonia. Miskin 14:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you pointed out that the articles are protected on their 'wrong' versions. I don't really understand the logic of this rule since the current wrong version is simply unsupported by both editors and academics. The person who's questioning the neutrality of the article can't realise that it's talking about the history of the region, not of the Republic of Macedonia. Miskin 16:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Violent metaphors

Kim,

I note your recent comment on User_talk:Robchurch.

I am concerned that your continued use of violent metaphors does nothing to help maintain the collegial environment that we generally enjoy at Wikipedia. Please stop.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly an honor to be followed around by you. Hmm, let's see... Could you specify which use of violent metaphors you object to specifically, I see one possible candidate, but I'm uncertain. Kim Bruning 15:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While there are several users I follow around, you're not one of them. I follow Robchurch's talk page because of the ongoing Ed Poor matter.

To answer your question, hate impending revenge the sharpening of knives Fear Of God foldspindlemutilate Might Get Hurt bite your head.

I would guess that all that's polemic. Hyperbole. Metaphor. It still undermines the collegial nature of the environment though. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe this particular fellow deserves everything he got from me, (if he does stuff like he tried with me in real life, people would seriously give him ParkingLotTherapy.). but...

Yeah I see your point.:-( It's not really like me to talk with folks like this either. :-( Kim Bruning 20:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In all of this we are forgetting Kim's utterly creepy use of smileys. The above is one of the rare instances where he uses them in ways most of us would not consider completely sociopathic, but otherwise, the skill with which Kim can scare the living daylights out of a person with a well-placed ":-)" or ";-)" after a seemingly innocuous phrase is unparalleled. JRM · Talk 22:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, this comment nowhere near approaches the level of seriousness this discussion deserves. Sorry. JRM · Talk 22:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's what I do with a simple application of smilies, I don't want to know what I must have done to this guy. :-( He reported being actually physically ill :-/ Kim Bruning 22:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your style doesn't seem suited to people who tend to take comments literally, personally and above all emotionally, no. Don't worry. You now know what doesn't work when talking to this editor. I believe you're the one who always talks about fixing the program when it fails, so there you go.

My personal advice would be to treat WP:CIVIL with more seriousness than WP:IAR in most cases. When in doubt, speak plainly and rationally rather than evocatively. It's boring and slower, but it has a higher success rate.

Then again, it's not exactly the end of the world. As the truism says, "a man who cannot make mistakes cannot do anything". So you misjudged—big deal. Acknowledge and continue. JRM · Talk 22:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No this was on IRC, and I did it purposely. ^^;; Kim Bruning 22:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know. But Wikipedia policies are a way of life, man! I even talk NPOV now! JRM · Talk 22:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not sure in how far I misjudged. I did 2 sanity checks. One person said maybe I judged correctly but overdid it with the fireworks, the other says maybe I judged incorrectly, but the fireworks were ok. IIRC :-/ Tricky ^^;;

I guess I have no choice but to live with it either way. Though I'm not a happy camper :-/ Kim Bruning 23:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User pages vandalized

Hey Kim, Two user pages (user:DevilBat and user:Pukachu) were recently vandalized by DreamGuy inserting an illegitimate sockpuppet warning on them. Just thought you should know. He's getting entirely out of control.

He's also warring on multiple fronts with user:EliasAlucard. Devilbat

Adraeus

Oh dear. Yes, I'll look into it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Kim. E-mail would be my preference, and I have in fact sent you a couple today, so take a look and by all means keep in touch. Adraeus has taken the page off his watchlist so he doesn't get tempted. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:47, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

duplicity via sig

I am puzzled by your reversion because SS has two sets of sigs currently displayed on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk, the three frowns in his comment under two support votes (,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸) and his Sam Spade one under his own vote, I believe changed by Adraeus. No need to make this any more confusing or difficult than it needs to be, Kim. That is my modus operandi here. On first glance it looks like two different people. Please make it consistent if you feel that strongly. El_C 01:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I appreciate the prompt response. I replied to it on my talk page, here. Thanks. El_C 01:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hats off

What can I say? Hats off, well done! :) El_C 11:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

This is all so overwhelming. I was convinced that I was sunk for a fourth time...and then, the love and support just came out of the woodwork, it seems. Kim, I trly and humbly thank you for the kind words and the support. I'm in your debt. - Lucky 6.9 04:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Quit

Okay, that does it.

As long as users like DreamGuy are allowed to behave as he does, Wikipedia has no use for anyone who actually operates in good faith, because any such users are only going to get stepped on by people like him.

I'm done trying to do good deeds for this place. I tried my best. Now I understand why David Gerard is such a hateful person. Either you get that way, or you recognize it's happening to you and you leave. Devilbat

RFA

Explaining my list of diffs: a couple of people expressed their support, stating their opinion about FM. You posted replies that question their opinion. You started out with your vote opposing FM, and included an explanation as to why, and when that seemed insufficient, you moved that explanation down to a new subsection titled "when the cat's away, the mice will play". At some point, expressing your opinion and requesting information crosses over to campaigning for or against something. If you were simply requesting information, you could have used their talk page, rather than casting doubt on their opinion and support. Opening a subsection with a title portraying you as the cat and FM and company as mice trying to get away with something might qualify as poisoning the well. My list of diffs were simply pointing out a tendancy I was observing that some might call campaigning against FM. I see you switched from oppose to support now. Given that, would you be willing to remove some of your earlier replies to votes of "support" asking for diffs and similar? It would remove some of comments that may be interpreted as campaigning by some.

above posted by me on 14:27, 10 August 2005. signing now. FuelWagon 20:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder

You have no excuses but your own to be mysterious. You are not the Ancient Chinese Wise Man. Still glad things got fixed.--Tznkai 14:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~I wish! Actually I just finished discussing with slimvirgin per e-mail, and had a busy day today so I just posted the final outcome and nothing else. Just had no t...~~ Wait, what am I saying? let's start over...

Perhaps it is you who is the ancient chinese wise man, or perhaps it is I who is not. Kim Bruning 14:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC) (with credit to º¡º)[reply]

The only WikiSaint we ever had... JRM · Talk 21:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Func's RfA :)

kerblink* :)

So, ... you are an admin, right??? ;-)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e, ) 22:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your NPOV

Kim, I just wanted to say thank you for your concern over the Macedonia issue. I am not sure how this all will end, but it is nice to know that at least someone neutral (not belonging to any of the "opposed" nations) cares.

There are still many other articles that are quite (in softest words said) not acceptable for the nowdays Macedonians. But, you can say that you did more than most of the other administrators, when the NPOV in the Macedonia and Macedonia related issues is concerned.

Please, if you would like to send any responce, please write it to my discusion page.

Thanks I sterbinski 03:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with Jimmy Wales

Hi, I was wondering when & where you're going to be posting your interview with Jimbo. I posted a question on the wikinews page you made for the interview. Curious what the interview looks like. I guess you're doing it for wikinews. Probably good to post a copy in the Wikipedia Signpost too. Jacoplane 21:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi kim, maybe you missed my question before. I'd still like to know where you're going to be publishing your interview. Wikimania's passed now so I'm looking forward to reading your interview. I don't mean to be repetitive, this is just in case you missed my earlier comment, and I'm curious if you included my question in the interview. Salut! Jacoplane 00:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Jimbo was overbooked for interviews at wikimania, so we're looking to get him to answer the questions some time soon now anyway... ^^;; I'd hoped he'd have answered already actually. I'll keep on it! Kim Bruning 01:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I can imagine. I was actually watching Dutch public television news one night and low and behold, there's Jimbo being interviewed... that was quite a surprise :) .... Anyway, thanks for your response. Jacoplane 01:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diffusing conflict

Is something I could not care less about! All I care about is who to block next! Will it be you? Or you? Or how about you? Yes, YOU! Regards, El_C 01:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

<grin> Kim Bruning 02:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TINMC

Ah, glad to hear from you on this issue. I have so far been unable to find out why TINMC is different from RFM; is it because there are different mediators involved? Also, TINMC doesn't seem to be particularly active; I posted a request about a month ago and never got any response. And you're probably aware that its name (and alleged redundancy) are confusing some people? R adiant _>|< 11:35, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hey

I can't IRC where I am at the moment. Hop on AIM please.--Tznkai 16:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy

"rv. Please A: Respect the candidates' wishes, B: Respect peoples' privacy. Mail only for this subject."

Huh? I was replying to a message on my talk page. I used the exact same heading that Tznkai used, and did not elaborate further on the subject. Tznkai replied further on my talk page, continuing the duscussion and so indicating that I was not out of place for having done so. I hardly think that replying to his message was not respecting his wishes, and aparently neither did he.

It's fine to take this to email. I didn't like the insinuation, however, that I was being less respectful of privacy than Tznkai was in his original message. I've replaced the discussion on my talk page (with the name removed). I'd prefer it if you didn't delete stuff from my talk page.

Also, as an aside, Tznkai gave his reason for withdrawing in that message. It seems a little odd to remove his own comments from his talk page, which answer questions that no doubt other users will be asking. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All is good then. :-). — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your block

I'm preparing a complaint concerning your block. Could you tell me which section of the blocking policy you believe covers your action? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, I'd like to draw your attention to my proposal at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy and encourage you to (voluntarily) follow it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While as you may have seen, I've criticized UninvitedCompany's proposal there, I believe his advice is nevertheless sound with respect to your situation in particular. You've recently made questionable blocks on three users in good standing (Ed Poor, Adraeus, and Mel Etitis), all of which in my opinion were out-of-process and not supported by the blocking policy. As a result, I strongly suggest that you adopt a more conservative approach to blocking people in general. --Michael Snow 06:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, short of the occaisional obvious vandal, I hardly ever block anyone for anything. It stands to reason that the only time I would end up blocking someone (who isn't a vandal), it would be a respected user and for strange reasons. :-P

Kim Bruning 11:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my entire block log. It's even shorter than I thought ^^;; Kim Bruning 11:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you did that

Kim, I don't understand your actions. I noticed Mel and you revert-warring on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk and just had time to look at the disagreement (which seemed minor to me), and to wonder if you, specifically, had realized that you'd reverted 3 times in 6 hours, and to think of warning you about it—and then I realized with amazement that one minute after your last revert, you blocked Mel. Blocked! For "vote tampering!" It doesn't matter who was right or wrong about the issue you were reverting each other about—I don't care—it was minor AFAIC, and both were clearly in good faith. You're not supposed to block someone you're currently engaged in conflict with. The blocking policy says so, and even if it didn't, it's just ... obvious. Why didn't you ask someone else to do it? If you thought nobody else would want to, wouldn't that in itself suggest something to you? Look, I can understand if you did something high-handed in the heat of the moment. But I can't understand how you don't now, afterwards, see that blocking Mel was against the blocking policy, against common sense, against common courtesy. P.S. No need to recapitulate the "I warned him" cra.. er, statement, to me, I've seen it, I've got it, I don't think it's to the purpose. Bishonen | talk 12:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Sigh* I wasn't edit warring with anyone. Reverting is a form of Soft Security. The 3RR messes with that, and you have to transition to Hard Security way too fast. This means that people have to pick up on warnings quicker. If that's the consensus, then I'll stick with it, but it does make me somewhat unhappy. (Note that I consider reverting after a warning as never being in good faith.). If I catch you online later I'll explain some more. Kim Bruning 12:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good thing that you blocked Mel. He was clearly acting in bad faith, and if the RfA hadn't been fixed as soon as possible, it would have seriously damaged Wikipedia. Plus, people who violate the one-revert rule ought to be blocked—not to mention administrators who ignore the advice of other administrators. I believe bold statements like these improve the community as a whole.
The paragraph above is irony, in case it wasn't clear. Blocks aren't punitive measures, but they're not ZenSlaps, either. They're tools. Consider carefully, not reflexively, when to use them, and don't rely on reputation to get across intent. What you consider as "never being in good faith" is something the rest of us can probably be excused for not knowing, when it's not written down. Security? In this case, humbug. "I am going to block you if you do this again, because I think you're being bad now". Can we at least all agree that you forgot this vital little footnote in the heat of the moment? JRM · Talk 12:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I said "Please don't do that" on his user talk. No response from him whatsoever. Still none by the way. You suggesting next time I use 5 foot high letters, SPUI style.? ;-) Kim Bruning 13:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]