User talk:Kim Bruning

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

• Current status: > random discussions with people. Checking AFD occaisionally.

Please leave your message below this line.

---

Policies

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

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

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

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

Policy Patrol

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

My proposal for AfD reform is up

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

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

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

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

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

Op tijd

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

Sandifer article

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

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

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

IRC

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

Phil Sandifer DRV

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Kim,

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

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

Linuxbeak and arbitration

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

RE:Request by User:Kim Bruning

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

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

IRC

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

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

User talk:SlimVirgin

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark

Hello,

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

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

Hmmm

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

SV talk page of limtited value

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

suggestions at the WP in 8 words merge thread

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

Thanks so much!

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

Guesswork?

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

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

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

Admin coaching

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

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

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

mediation

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

Bloody fuck

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

Admin coaching

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

*drum roll*....

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

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

My evil question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfA vote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MollyBloom 14:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about you, Droliver?

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

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

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

There are two court cases here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now what to do with them?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are the court's exact words:

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

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

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

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

SHS article

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Agateller

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

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

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

Responses to your questions

On IRC, you had said:

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

Below are my answers to your questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope I have satisfactorily answered your questions!

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

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