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
• User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 5
• User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 6
• User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 7

Hello! Note that I am away. Please append your message at the end of the page, though I can't promise I'll do anything about it atm.

---

This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III.

Discussion on Jimbos page

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

Super datatool!!!

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

Wikipedia has a second Carlos admin

Click there to open your card! → → →

My dear Wikipedian Kim Bruning,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 29 supports, 1 opposed, and 3 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, or even if you just stopped by to make a comment, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. Since I am a new admin, if you have any suggestions or concerns, feel free to inform me of them. Special thanks to Carlossuarez46 for encourage me and nomination. Thank you and good day.

Carlosguitar

Credits

This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor, who in turn was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunately this is not entirely my own design.

This end the usual RFA thanks spam. You may return to your regular editing now.

Governance reform and AGF challenge

Hi! I've been reading through some of your comments on WT:Governance reform. I find hard rules and binding decisions as appealing as the next person, but I also find your arguments very compelling.

Working within a corporate hierarchy, I see first-hand the tension between being bold to get things done, and waiting for the formal decision-making process to complete. When I do employee performance reviews there are usually questions on the form about display of management skills. Non-manager employees almost always skip these questions on the grounds that they simply have zero opportunity to exercise management skills. I tell them that the true test of management skills is exercising influence over others when you don't have a manager title, or when they don't report to you. I guess this corresponds to building consensus.

I followed the link to WP:Lectures, and I'm sorry to find that I missed the session on Fill's AGF challenge. I'm sure that you're really busy, but I'd appreciate any feedback you might have on my answers. Cheers, Bovlb (talk)

BRD in practice

And at a policy page at that. [1]. Further editing since. /NewbyG (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

wikibooks.ru

Do you need any help with your wikibooks.ru report? (Not completely altruistic suggestion :)) Then you could get more closely involved in mediating the dispute at MEDRS. (If you want that headache ;() Paul Gene (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC comment

Thanks for your carefully worded observations. WP:Consensus of course gives no precise definition of how to assess a discussion as giving an overall outcome (and points about votes don't count, don't make consensus etc well appreciated and reflect quotes to similar points I had previosuly made). The RfC lasted about 3 weeks and I closed it when no further opinions expressed for 4 days; the various oppose points had been discussed by others and not continued further.

As per Eubulides' discussion point discussion on wording is being discussed generally very sensibly, and that is as it should be on tweaking a policy. Discussion on whether the page should have been promoted was discussed at length (WT:MEDRS#Rfc_Promotion_of_MEDRS_to_guideline) and onset of edit warring then commented upon (WT:MEDRS#Edit-warring_over_guideline_status), I did not take much part part in those discussions (main part held over the course of a week), as it seemed better to let others discuss the promotion, although I thought I was fairly even-handed in partly agreeing with Paul on need to consider carefully the worth of newspaper articles. Unfortunately disagreement over certain aspects of wording and emphasis been entangled somewhat over the issue of page status (likewise this intertwined at Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Consensus_being_replaced_by_silence_at_Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_.28medicine-related_articles.29.23Rfc_Promotion_of_MEDRS_to_guideline). As far as I can tell, Paul does not per se object to the page being a guideline if it addressed sources other than medical journal reviews in a manner more to his liking, but I can't see where this can now go for content resolution given the burnout of so many editors in the discussion so far - as someone had pointed out village pump not jumped in to help out, so not problem of failure to engage wider wikipediaship. I think points raised and Pauls own comments on his talk page are encouraging (not sure my presence there will help at this stage, so I'll keep low). But I have to wonder that if a page 22 months in development and with such prolonged RfC discussion does not count as sufficent discussion what chance can there now be (forget "Consensus 101", this goes back to the fifth floor of wikipedia development, not the 1st room on the 10th floor).

Not sure of what "clout" you can bring to bear (but I'm impressed with your input I've seen so far) or ability to muster up some additional opinions (which always helps give a broader view and helps focus discussions on issues vs group-vs-group conflict). Both at the time, and in retrospect, can commentary be given (I'd like to think I'm willing & able to learn) perhaps at the AN/I, here, or my talk page, on specific issues of:

• my closing a 4-day quiet RFC and deciding to promote
• choosing to act personally at all in the subsequent edit war over page guideline tagging (vs perhaps requesting another admin input from the AN/I). Frankly might have been easier to just user-block under simplier upholding of "edit warring is disruptive" (as others subsequently softly seemed to have agreed with at the AN/I) but that really had not seemed the best approach, and I went to some effort to explain my actions
• whether reverting away from version of someone edit warring was correct in this case
• whether page protection appropriate - both by any admin and then specifically myself, especially given the previous point.
• Paul's talkpage reply to you quite sensibly wonders if actions technically correct vs wise, but other than letting discussion/arguement rumble on for even longer, what should mine or someone else's response have been - for almost without exception all in the dispute are very experienced editors
• Likewise Paul wondered whether I should excuse myself and this I raised at the AN/I, where discussion went somewhat off the points sought :-) (as an aside also leaves unanswered the question of if, and by whom & when, the page should be unprotected - as no other admins seem to have offered to step in, sort of defaults to myself at some point to unprotect if a request so made)
• I really don't have anything to contribute to WT:MEDRS discussion re usefulness of newspaper articles and how to decide to quote them for simpler language explanation or public impact issues (except that I think there is some usefullness of this), so I'm happy to stand back from specific content phrasing issues. I'm not sure though that someone disagreeing with an admin's action in a dipute should automatically mean that the admin must seek another admin's input - but again before the RfC/User was initiated, I did make offer for another admin to review and undo my revert/protection, but that not been forthcoming - rather seems the opposite leaving me propped-up in "the firing line" :-) or should that be :-( ? David Ruben ^Talk 22:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me think about the things you have said! --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I mostly agreed with your comment at the Rfc and asked in the spirit of goodwill to withdraw the Rfc.[2] Paul Gene (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Initiative.

Run with it. :-D Xavexgoem (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear!

I saw you wrote "Still, gotta keep trying eh?"

Could not agree with you more.

Btw, I'm back. :-) Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

oi.

You are so unretired.--Tznkai (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Shoot. you're right. I'd better go off and code eh? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Mediation process

Would you please go ahead and educate me on what you are trying to do? Please provide the links to the ground rules. Will the unproductive accusations in "wikilawering" and "forum shopping" be dealt with swiftly and fairly? What about references to irrelevant essays with inflammatory names like WP:Fanatic or WP:Idiot? If I am supposed to keep mum except for answering your questions, how fast my response is expected? Why other people are commenting on the page on related and unrelated issues? Why Sandy and Colin can respond to others' comments and I cannot? How quickly will you respond with your following questions? You nudge me repeatedly and then disappear for several days. Thank you Paul Gene (talk) 08:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

How about contacting UnaSMith and NBauman who presented reasonable arguments against the "guideline"? Are you sure you are impartial? Paul Gene (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Stalemate again. Kim, please note that I based my recent suggestion [3] on the previous Colin's post[4]. Nevertheless, Colin appeared to answer "No" [5]. When I asked him to suggest something [6] he effectively answered "no" again.[7] His answer was also 197 words (MS WORD count) effectively drowning the discussion in verbosity. Paul Gene (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we place a banner on the Talk page that the article is a subject of informal mediation to discourage irrelevant threads? Paul Gene (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Medcab followup

Hiya, you'd asked me to let you know when I saw a problem with another Medcab case. So, here I am.  :) Could you perhaps help out at Talk:Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA)? Thanks, --Elonka 21:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)