User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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?[edit]


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! 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, Radiant_>|< June 29, 2005 21:26 (UTC)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Worn out[edit]

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[edit]

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)

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)


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)

block request[edit]

Dear Kim, Can you please bock user: 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)

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

final cleanup[edit]

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)

See deletion summaries, and see: Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#Kick_the_ass..._forestfire
Kim Bruning 02:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


... 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)

See above. Kim Bruning 02:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
I stopped about an hour ago :-) Kim Bruning 04:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
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)

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

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)

further discussion can be found at:


see also: Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#Kick_the_ass..._forestfire

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

Wikipedia:GNAA votes for deletion policy[edit]

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Re: VfU[edit]

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 04:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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 05:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
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 05:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


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)

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)

Thanks for trying[edit]

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, Radiant_>|< 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)

Discussion on my Talk page[edit]

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)

more on the "forest fire"[edit]

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)"

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)
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)

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)



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

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)

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)

Your assitance and support are requested[edit] Edit and sign if you would. Or don't if you disagree obviously--Tznkai 18:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Your message[edit]

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.

  1. Quite so, though I didn't quite percieve your actions as doing that. I'll look again. Kim Bruning
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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)
    Trolling me won't work. Kim Bruning 12:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    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)


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)


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)


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.


GPG workshop is a no go[edit]

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

Meh, there's always a way to do it :-) (replied on your user talk) Kim Bruning 12:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
There's some wikimania folks working on it. A laser printer would still be handy ;-) Kim Bruning 14:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

duplicate content in a page[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Deletion forest fire[edit]

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. Radiant_>|< 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)
What, no image macro? :( /dissapointed El_C 09:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I hereby grant you the title of Official Producer of Title-Granting Image Macros. JRM · Talk 10:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
You call that swift? I mean, thank you for this great honour! El_C 10:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome. JRM · Talk 10:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

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

VFD RFC[edit]

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)

The RfC[edit]

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)

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

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)

VfD closings[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Help on Harry Potter Issue[edit]

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

<!-- Please do not add any unverified speculation about whether Snape is acting for the Order of the Phoenix or the Death Eaters. Verified notes are those that come from official channels, such as J.K. Rowling herself or any of the official Harry Potter links as shown in the following URL: -->
<!-- Any unverifiable speculation will be quickly removed. -->
<!-- Thank you for your co-operation -->
<!--- Wikipedia is not: literary analysis -->

I tried kindness - I tried pointing out it wasn't in the spirt of the wiki - I tried rudness (comments - 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 02:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

Possibly too personal question[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Standing on your head[edit]

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. Radiant_>|< 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)

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:
  1. Facilitates monitoring deletions in general
  2. Keeps anyone from taking over the deletion process
  3. 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)

Signpost spam[edit]

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)

Block of Adraeus (talk · contribs)[edit]

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)

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)
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)

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)

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[edit]

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)

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)

Violent metaphors[edit]


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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Uhm, this comment nowhere near approaches the level of seriousness this discussion deserves. Sorry. JRM · Talk 22:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
No this was on IRC, and I did it purposely. ^^;; Kim Bruning 22:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I know. But Wikipedia policies are a way of life, man! I even talk NPOV now! JRM · Talk 22:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
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)

User pages vandalized[edit]

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


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[edit]

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)

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

Hats off[edit]

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

Thank you[edit]

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)

I Quit[edit]

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


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)

Just a reminder[edit]

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)

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

Func's RfA :)[edit]

  • 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.

Functce,  ) 22:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your NPOV[edit]

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)

Interview with Jimmy Wales[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
Any idea yet when the interview will be posted? Jacoplane 20:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Diffusing conflict[edit]

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)

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


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? Radiant_>|< 11:35, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


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


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

Your block[edit]

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)

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)

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

I don't understand why you did that[edit]

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)

*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)

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)

I said "Please don't do that" on his user talk. Sorry for not using 5 foot high letters, SPUI style! ;-) I'm very reasonable and enjoy discussing things with people. I'll even entertain that Mel Etitis got policy right and I got it wrong, for the sake of argument, if nothing else. Um, but then, he didn't respond to my warning at all. No communications :-/ How was I to know he wasn't acting in bad faith after that? Kim Bruning 13:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Because you are required to assume good faith. You need proof of bad faith, not reasonable doubt about it being good faith. "Please don't do that" is something anyone can say, administrator or not. A block is not typically expected to follow for ignoring such friendly advice. Nobody is talking about "5 foot high letters". A simple addition would have sufficed: "please don't do that, or I'll have to assume you're acting in bad faith, and block you accordingly". If he had reverted after that, you would have still caught flak, but nobody could argue Mel wasn't being the more unreasonable party in the exchange. JRM · Talk 13:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh dear. I hardly ever block or warn people you see. Last time I warned someone like that was a year ago or so, and I caught a lot of flack from a mediator then, IIRC saying "You should have just said 'please don't do that'". I promise to be more nasty to people in future. Kim Bruning 13:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Not nasty. Clear. Obvious. Not sugar-coating intent. Get across the message that you've got a block button and aren't afraid to use it. If that goes over badly, it'll still go over a lot better than just doing it.
Look, the way I see it, for established users who clearly are not out to deliberately damage Wikipedia it goes like this:
  1. Say "please don't do that, because..."
  2. Say "you're harming Wikipedia, stop doing it or I'll have to block you."
  3. Block them for an appropriate period. Explain that you're willing to undo it if they promise to behave.
It looks to me like you forgot step #2. JRM · Talk 13:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and for the record, I'm not here to tell you you've been a bad, bad little administrator—I'm trying to point out what I think would have worked better. Don't take any of it personally, please. :-) JRM · Talk 13:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that. & thanks. :-) I'll try to integrate what everyone tells me, and modify my behaviour accordingly. Kim Bruning 14:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
And while I'm still annoying you with those "you've got new messages" boxes: I'm also not saying that blocking Mel in the first place was a good idea. That RFA "tampering" could have easily stayed at the Wrong Version and waited for input from others. The above is just pointing out what you could have done if you felt you had to block. JRM · Talk 14:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, Mel definately did fail to communicate his intent, though I suppose I am a bit suspicious of his motives at times. Kim Bruning 14:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


I'm happy with the way it's turned out. Hopefully the whole affair is over. Sorry, I stepped into the middle of the whole thing without realizing just how big a dispute there was over it. Today's a new day.  :-) Tomer TALK 19:24, August 14, 2005 (UTC)


While it would be cool to meet some other Wikians IRL, I don't live in Rotterdam. I'd be happy to come to some future impromptu meet if you'd give me a couple days' notice beforehand (busy schedule here, y'know). And I'm afraid I can't come to IRC now, I have a date in 15 minutes. So why am I still typing? Don't ask :) Radiant_>|< 14:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, that is intentional. You know where my talk page is :) Enjoy the m33t. Radiant_>|< 14:48, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • En? Nog iets leuks uitgekomen? Radiant_>|< 12:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • Nee je was er niet bij, dus hebben we maar niet gedaan. :-P (Misschien ben je wel belangrijker dan je dacht! ;-) ) Kim Bruning 14:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Okee, volgende keer beter. Als je het me een paar dagen van tevoren laat weten kan ik waarschijnlijk wel. Doei! Radiant_>|< 08:22, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

resolve edit wars[edit]

In case you haven't been following the edits of the supporter of the "wrong version" in the Talk page of Macedonia, he has brought to the discussion racial discriminations, nationalism and other sorts of extremism which have no place in any wikipedia page. Now it has been official to every editor of this article that we're dealing with vandalism, and since this person will keep on reverting to his POV version "again and again", maybe it should be fair to do something to stop him. Regards. Miskin 00:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you please help resolve the conflict in Macedonia? The discussion is done and I think that everyone except you would agree that it's been a waste of time. Can you help restore the original article from the vandalism? Miskin 23:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Many Thanks[edit]

Thanks for reconsidering and supporting my RFA. I'm glad we were able to resolve all past differences in the process. Your support is appreciated. FeloniousMonk 18:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


My deletion of your comment was not directed against you. You were just addressing me in the wrong point in time. I have been attacked, this time by an entire pack, to have another editwar. I am not going to have it and am leaving.--Fenice 22:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem with editwarring and trolling around here is an ongoing one. I am not interested in fighting it. I just want to do my edits in peace and quiet, have discussions with ordinary sane rational calm people. Wikipedia is not the place for that. I don't know how long you have been here, but you realize that after a while. The problem I have with Violetriga is no first timer has happened before. I am just not going to have it any more.--Fenice 22:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think your attempts at improving this sitution are naive. Violetriga for instance has just abused her admin-powers without the blink of an eye. You are fighting on completely lost ground here. You will always have lots of sickos and people who are just plain old on drugs or trolling like Michael Snow. There is nothing you can do. --Fenice 22:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
For another good laugh: I have been trying to archive a talk-page discussion for about an hour now and just found out that it wasn't due to an error in the system but that Violetriga was reverting that. For his fun. And I am working cleaning up after him. I am sick of this. If you think you can stop these people from bullying their fellow human beings, go ahead and try - I have tried talking to individuals like that several times and it is pointless. --Fenice 22:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
And I completely forgot to say thank you for trying to negotiate or mediate. But I will leave and not come back. --Fenice 23:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's my jaundiced view of the whole conflict:

Fenice has done some very good work on the IDrive project. When Fenice first started working on the project,it did not have the critical mass to make the project self-sustaining. It was very much an uphill battle to keep things going—all without much help. Anything that interfered with the project, such as changing template colors or locations could easily been seen as something that would hinder the project.

Fenice also, by choice, has stayed away from the rest of of the often rough-and-tumble action in the rest of the Wikipedia. Actions such as edit-warring, which are too often business-as-usual in Wikipedia conflicts elsewhere, are seen as direct attacks. Although I sympathize, I also think that Fenice has been a little too proprietary over the IDrive project, and maybe a little too quick to take offense over some actions of other editors.

Violetriga has also been working hard on various Template projects, such as Template standardization and Template location, and she has been the main driver behind both of those projects. On the other hand, I think that she has assumed a larger mandate for both projects not justified by the votes in the project surveys, and she has also started enforcing matters as if they were hard rules rather than guidelines.

Furthermore, Fenice has already left the Wikipedia once over the edit-warring of Violetriga (an edit war started by Netoholic over a template). Even knowing this, Violetriga continued to push Fenice this time in what looked like, to me, an attempt to provoke Fenice. I think that Violetriga was basically acting like a schoolyard bully. I also think that Violetriga has become an admin, much like a very small number of other admins, that no longer think that the normal rules of the Wikipedia apply to her. Admins should be held to a higher standard because they are supposed to know the rules, not given plenty of slack because they are admins. Kasper Gutman 22:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Requesting 48 hour ban[edit]

I have purposefully nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency for speedy delete. I believe this falls under the policy of no disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, so it is only right that I be banned from Wikipedia for 48 hours, at a minimum. Agriculture 15:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Very well. Consider yourself softbanned for 48 hours. If you dare edit on wikipedia before the 48 hours are over, liberally apply a WikiWikiWeb:RolledUpNewspaper until you stop! I'm afraid I shan't actually be watching you carefully, so you shall have to implement this softban all by yourself. *innocent look* Kim Bruning 16:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Love that remark! Way to go Kim! :) Radiant_>|< 14:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)


yo dude why did u block me? pjashburn


I wanted to express my respect for your efforts to encourage Agriculture to continue contributing to Wikipedia. I think he may have become very defensive after putting a lot of effort into the WikiProject to see it nominated for Vfd in only a day...and his responses may have antagonized the situation. Regardless, I applaud your fine display of the core elements of human decency.--MONGO 00:09, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Daisy (Argyranthemum frutescens).jpg Thanks for helping out with XD! And the redirects you just made are very useful :-) Kim Bruning 22:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome on the work. I'm happy to help you with it. But know that I don't plan to use this form of deletion, because there are too many imperfections in the system. I'm happy to help you flesh out the page, but I figured you should know that I don't necessarily agree with it. ral315 06:53, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
On another note, if you'd like to be quoted on Experimental Deletion in the next issue of The Signpost, leave a note on User:Ral315/Signpost. ral315 07:04, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Merge[edit]

As another way to sidestep some of the problems at VFD, as well as fix some of the problems within VFD, there are many Wikipedia articles that should be merged, and where most of the votes at VFD are for merge, but there is no formal structure for merging the articles, so they never get merged. I wrote up some ideas at User:BlankVerse/Merge WikiProject ideas, but I personally refuse to wade into the disfunctional morass that is VFD. I don't have the time or patience to deal with it. BlankVerse 04:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Question on Template:Vote bar[edit]

Hello, I was curious about your opinion of putting vote bars on talk pages. It seems evident from precedent that they are not welcome on the core portions of any Wiki-vote, but Denelson83's bar really helped cut through the confusion on the Wikipedians for Decency VfD and would be welcome on the talk page if it's too distracting on the main page, i've tried to help filter things on the talk page a little for the admins and anyone who is interested, but it's still only a start. Karmafist 21:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

what are extant cliques?[edit]

Is there possibly an established clique between Jtdirl and Slimvirgin? or how? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (recent items) show hoe there seems to emerge excuses etc. 10:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, of course there's an established clique. How else could it be explained that I define an edit as vandalism when (a) it's dodgy looking, (b) the source is a blog, (c) the editor is unknown, (d) even the blog doesn't back the edit up, and (e) sockpuppets and anon IPs turn up to revert to that version? If you'd spend your time finding a good source instead of developing conspiracy theories, you might find your edit would stick. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Slim, it was not my edit. However, thanks for admitting your clique. Btw, apparently you see simple vandalism somewhat differently than WP definitions. That is probably a good reason to ask Kim Bruning his view. 10:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, those are pretty high volume pages, so I can't say much just with the links you provided, can you provide diffs? (Link to items in the page history?) Kim Bruning 15:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Heh, sorry to be heavy-handed on the issue. I am trying to stay out of things Wikipolitical - about 300 pages, most of them in the Wikipedia namespace, disappeared off my watchlist as soon as I came back. There's some things, though, that I really couldn't stick around if I didn't oppose - like this - something that I've dreaded for a very long time - coming in by stealth. I didn't do anything when the substub menace began, and I've always regretted it; I hope not to make the same mistake again. Ambi 15:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

At least I spelled your name right...[edit]

My apologies. That was MY misunderstanding. I'll issue a retraction ASAP. It would help if you can proofread the new article; I'll send you a link about the article later tonight. Alternatively, I'll probably be on IRC somewhat tonight. ral315 21:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Try this version, does it sound the way you want it to? ral315 21:16, August 23, 2005 (UTC)


Hoi, zie: nl:Wikipedia:De_kroeg#Kennisnet-brainstorm. Groet, Galwaygirl 12:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


Hi there! I was wondering... the systems proposed here sound reasonable, but the related categories and stuff are almost empty. Is this because they're not being used? Or because the XD templates are being reverted? Or because the pages end up deleted? Or else what? Radiant_>|< 12:32, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Answer: Yes.

Slightly longer answer:

  • Not being used in high volume, because it's experimental, not production
  • Some templates get reverted
  • People are supposed to clean up after themselves, so the pages end up deleted.

Actually I had some fun with XD2, where when you use it the category fills up and then seems to magically slowly empty itself again, possibly because of the handy-dandy history check on the template. :-)

Kim Bruning 12:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Looking over those options, I find XD2 (or some variation thereof) to be very suitable (possibly with the addendum that such pages can be hard-deleted after a number of days, in response to SimonP's comment about them breaking Special:Shortpages). Do you think that making something XD2'ish official would be a good way of getting rid of (or at least substantially reducing) the cesspool that is VFD? Radiant_>|< 10:40, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you mean XD4? XD4 is using short pages to simulate how the proposed PWD patch (a Deletion reform proposal) would operate. It's an interesting way to delete things. No need to hurry though. If that's what people come up with in a week or so, I'm curious to see what else they'll find! :-D Shall we wait and see what else people come up with? Kim Bruning 14:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh hmm, XD2 also lists those pages as short? Ut oh... ^^;; Kim Bruning 14:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
        • No, I definitely meant XD2. XD4 has the added server load problem, which is undesirable. If shortpages are a problem, the answer may be to simply add the template to the page, without blanking the page first. Radiant_>|< 14:08, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
          • Without blanking the page? O:-)
      • We could add "div style=hidden". Or simply "fnord". Radiant_>|< 14:20, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
        • Hmm! sounds like you have a winner for XD5 there. :-) Would you care to make a writeup? Kim Bruning 14:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Ok. Please copyedit. Radiant_>|< 14:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


Don't hurt me! Here's a flower: WikiThanks.png. Look, pretty flower! You wouldn't hurt someone with a flower, would you? JRM · Talk 23:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Placing users in danger[edit]

Kim, FYI Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Placing_users_in_danger

You should visit my talk page.[edit]

TheMessenger 18:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


I'm letting you know that I've just nominated myself for bureaucratship for the second time. If you didn't care to know about this, I apologize for the inconvenience. Andre (talk) 02:40, August 27, 2005 (UTC)


I'm not sure if I can get a style=hidden to work without also sticking a template at the bottom. Anyway, shouldn't the page be visible so that people can review it?

Oh btw, PFD is not ambiguous. AFD implies that userpages and Wikispace pages cannot be deleted. While they usually aren't deleted, it should anyway be possible to get rid of them. I suppose we could fork off a process for WUFD, but it would be Yet Another Process, plus a largely unused one. But we get some junk in Wikispace occasionally. Of course I emphatically agree that anyone who nominates a valid policy or proposal for deletion should be slapped with a large trout. Radiant_>|< 08:18, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

PFD is ambiguous, it messes up with IFD and TFD and CFD, "This is pages for deletion, OH, except some pages should actually be delketed over ... THERE", besides, afd shouldn't delete wikipedia namesace , and it shouldn't delete userspace, except by massive exception, MAYBE, and even then, I'm not sure having that exception in is at all such a good idea anymore (vide Wikipedians for Decency). Calling the place AfD immediately raises big red flags on any such debate, and makes it easier to close an inappropriate AfD ;-)
  • Deleting userspace is rarely appropriate (except for those hit lists and hate lists that occasionally pop up). Deleting WFD was baaad. However, have you seen the deletion debates on WP:NAN, WP:NIS, over a dozen of confusing, unused and dysfunctional wikiprojects, and several outdated indices in Wikispace that were actually misleading? Radiant_>|< 08:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Oh Hmm, yes well, XD is not tagging stuff, well not just. Though I like the way your tag works. Maybe we should have some kind of tagging ideas thing for XD. Buuuuut, XD itself isn't really about making Tacky Pastel Boxes and tacking them on stuff. ;-) XD is about making ugly stuff go like "kervanish!" and "kerpoof!", or at least "kerinvisible." The tossing on of a tag "I just kervanished this" is perfunctory, and optional (though highly reccomended of course, else people get rather kerpuzzeled). Kim Bruning 08:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I kerget that. But if I kersee something that's inkervisible (man that's annoying to kertype), my first thought would be to look at the history and figure out why. My idea was to get rid of (most of) our Violent Factionalizing Debate (or, if you wish, Persistent, or Annoying Factionalizing Debate). And I'm afraid people aren't going to like it if deletion would only ever be an easily-reverted kerblanking. Observe how most of VFD is either unanimous, or easily refuted by adding a source, and I hope you'll agree that most of it can be replaced with the simple question "are there any objections to kerdeleting <this page>", with a single object being sufficient. Radiant_>|< 08:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • That's ye olde deletion system (oft still used on many wikis!) , mayhap I might venture a kercool! ;-) Kim Bruning 10:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandal Bot Barnstar[edit]

Awarded for persistently trying various methods in order to block the Love Virus vandal bot

Well done. Rob Church Talk | Desk 18:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion[edit]

You may not have noticed this, but Radiant in his wisdom has now edited this article so that it claims that a redirect should be counted as a vote to delete. I am avoiding getting into arguments with him because he doesn't seem to be amenable to reason, but I think this is a bit much. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Regarding amenability to reason, I should point out that Tony walked away from Theresa's mediation, and rejected Susvolans's mediation outright. That is unfortunate; in my view he's being needlessly stubborn and is antagonizing quite a bunch of people with his behavior (no, not just me). I'd hesitate to pile this wikistress on you but if you have the time, your opinion would be valued. Radiant_>|< 11:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)


Hi, I was wondering if your interview with Jimmy Wales is online yet? Jacoplane 00:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Unalienable rights[edit]

I suggested the page move, and followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves, copying and pasting the text to the article's Talk page; for some reason you took exception to that, and deleted it. I've replaced it; please leave it now. If you disagree with Wikipedia policy on this, take it to Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

  1. I've already explained why I didn't just move it.
  2. I had reason to believe that the move would be contested (which has turned out to be the case), so the "requested moves" route seemed to be the right way to go, and following the instructions followed from that.
  3. Perhaps we have different understanding of the term "atomic overkill".
  4. It would at least have been courteous to discuss it with me rather simply deleying the text that I'd added. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

IRC ban[edit]

You've probably ignored me by now, so I'll have to contact you here. What the fuck is your problem? --SPUI (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure, my ignorelist on irc is very short indeed, and I released the last of my chanop rights several weeks ago. Are you sure you've got the right person? Kim Bruning 18:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Perhpas, then, the above should be rephrased as what the fuck isn't [Kim's] problem? :) El_C 16:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

An old sentence removed from VFD[edit]


Wikipedians: The Wiki, the Wiki, the Wiki's on fire!

Wikipedia: We don't need no water, let the mother ****er burn.

It's sad but thats the state of affairs. Agriculture 16:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The end of the wiki is nigh every day. Fortunately, next moring, it's still there :-) Kim Bruning 16:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
But everyday a little bit less is there as it slowly shifts into something it shouldn't be. Agriculture 20:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


Restore the above page. There is no precedent for your actions. 19:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia is not a democracy and voting is not permitted. There is no ambiguity here, it's even called votes. Kim Bruning 19:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I've entered a nomination on Votes for Undeletion. Whatever you think about the validity of the proposed policy, simply deleting the page with no explanation or warning after ignoring the debate over the policy for a month doesn't seem to make sense. --Jim Henry | Talk 20:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Voting is not permitted. Kim Bruning 20:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Kim, I know you dislike voting on Wikipedia, but it most certainly is permitted. VfD, VfU and the numerous polls conducted prove it. Just because it isn't a democracy doesn't mean voting is prohibited. You know this, and this action is borderline WP:POINT IMHO. Why don't you take a step back and reevaluate your actions? Agriculture 20:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually it's a nobrainer. It looks like a vote, quacks like a vote and is even named a vote. Kim Bruning 20:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
VfD and VfU are misnamed btw, and the names are being changed. (but this is trickier than a simple page move, since the pages are so entrenched) Kim Bruning 21:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not usually intervene quite like this, and especially not when I have no interest in the page in question, but I'm going to this time. Process is tiresome at times, and I think you find process more tiresome than many of us. That's up to you of course. But your mantra above, of "votes are not permitted" is not only insulting, it is, as you well know, not the case. I can't find the energy to cite policy at you, and you'd only cite WP:IAR back at me. I say that it is insulting because deleting that page is a high-handed way of impressing your view on the participants just because you can. It does long-term damage to your reputation with those editors who feel shunned by your actions — and if that doesn't bother you it should. It does long-term damage to the image of admins in general, imho. It makes you look like (I'm afraid) arrogant individuals who just delete anything you find distasteful. It makes you look (I'm afraid) like stubborn individuals when, in the face of the VfU debate, you refuse to see others' views and just brush the whole thing off like you would a fly. I suppose you hope that, because of the length of your service, you can rely on others to cheer for you. That is a pity. I really think you should have some respect even for things you don't like and restore that page. -Splash 21:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone else has restored it for you. I hope you will not simply re-delete it. My concerns above remain. -Splash 21:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Protecting it? No. -Splash 21:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It's simply impossible to have voting on an encyclopedia, unfortunately. If people have been editing policies to try to introduce it anywhere, then those edits need correcting.

Last time we asked people to cite which policies permitted voting, people couldn't actually point to them. Even so, if that's changed, I'll act on it at once.

Kim Bruning 21:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I had a feeling that was the most I could hope for. I'll buzz off somewhere else like the rest of flies. -Splash 21:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
*sigh* :-( Kim Bruning 21:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, well, I can buzz round here if you'd like...but I imagine we'll see each other around elsewhere :) Splash 21:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I love explaining the how and why of things I do to people. Actually you'll find that that is ingrained in human nature :-) I'm sorry if I sound a bit short-of-breath at the moment, wikipedia has been expanding so much, and the combination of large numbers of new people and at the same time their unfamiliarity with some basic requirements of what's needed to maintain a wikipedia makes for a Big Job. (Oh boy is it ever *Phew*). They'll learn forsure! :-) But in the mean time there's this huge job to do. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Kim Bruning 22:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Kim. Whatever drugs you're on - listen carefully:

  1. Collect them all in a small, plain, unmarked package.
  2. Send them to me, at my home address.
  3. I will dispose of them safely for you ;-)

--Uncle Ed 21:44, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

People waited too long on deleting VfD. I'm not repeating your mistake :-P Currently I'm only using caffeine. Do you like Earl Grey tea? :-) Kim Bruning 21:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey Kim... in general I like you a lot, and think you do good work, but this whole business is obviously both WP:POINT and abuse of your powers as an administrator. Your lack of ability to see this, and how you are breaking using WP:POINT to force your POV of what should and shouldn't be allowed, backed by your powers as an admin is disturbing. It's my opinion that a situation like this ought to warrant a reevaluation of your status as an administrator. You're not the worst admin on Wikipedia, but things like this can't be allowed to happen. I'm not going to be the one to initiate an RfC against you, but if one does happen, I will be forced to endorse it. Agriculture 23:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Well check out my apology on the VfU page. A number of people have come in and are helping fix the situation better than I did. I don't believe I abused anything, and I did actually apply policy. Even so I'll certainly be more gentle in future. (And people used to say I was too timid! ^^;;). Kim Bruning 23:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
It's the evil happy face, isn't it? I've noticed it a lot more lately, look at your comment right before this one. And your comment before that. And the the one before that. *eeps* make it go away... Dmcdevit·t 03:08, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Kim, thanks for doing that. There was a serious issue with the way the vote-counting was set up, and objections hadn't been properly acknowledged or addressed prior to the start of voting. I had actually asked Func and DBAbramson for advice about if I should put the page on RfC or stick a big "The methodology has been objected to and the results may thus be disregarded as invalid" notice or try something else to halt the voting. Your deletion fixed the problem, though. The Literate Engineer 23:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


Why not use something like:


This page meets Wikipedia's criteria for being nuked from orbit, it's the only way to be sure!!!. The given reason is: {{{1}}}

If you disagree with its nuclear anihilation, please explain why on its talk page or at Wikipedia:Nuclear Targets. If this page obviously does not meet the criteria for being nuked from orbit, or you intend to select another target, a military target then NAME THE SYSTEM, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from articles that you have created yourself.

Administrators, remember to check if anything links here and the page history (last edit) before nuking it from orbit.

for VfD? Targets for Nuclear Strikes? Agriculture 04:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

*Big. Evil. Grin.* Kim Bruning 04:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Urgh, polls[edit]

Take a look at Someone's angling for a poll module to be added to MediaWiki. Rob Church Talk | Desk 10:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Unreverting a revert on a policy page[edit]

I thought about not doing that, for the reasons you mention. It certainly cuts both ways. On the other hand, it's not exactly uncommon to return a page to the way it was if discussion is billowing around the change (and for an edit-war to then ensue). Whether your changes had consensus or not is at best unclear. Whether the version I returned it to does or not is what should have been, and now is, under discussion. I figured that one way of presuming people are happy with the status quo is that it hasn't been changed in several months. WP:NOT is on enough watchlists that the change would have been seen by many people when it was made, but allowed to stand. Respectfully, it also struck me that the change was made somewhat retrospectively to justify some comments in the VfU.

The discussion on the talk page has currently got the pre-March version at the end of it. I don't actually particularly object to it; although I do to James F. declaring a banning of polls (too much arbitration, I think). Almost nothing here is banned, or bannable. If the pre-March version stands unchallenged on the talk page for a few hours longer, I will revert myself.

I think your amendment to the {{policy}} tag is a good one. -Splash 16:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

As promised, I have reverted myself on WP:NOT to your last version. The discussion appears to have withered; if my revert starts it up again I'll let it run. If it does, though, I think it will continue in its current Merriam Webster vein of discussion. -Splash 21:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. :) I think Radiant and I could be well served with an intermediary/whatever on a broader scale, if you're open to that and could provide us with good counsel. Maurreen (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


You know, you catch a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar. If you want to crusade against Evil Voting, a better approach might be to discuss rather than delete and revert. Civility helps, too. android79 02:25, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Kim. I don't like voting either, but here's a little advice. Sometimes doing the wrong thing for the right reasons is worse than doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason. Because in the former case, you're just hurting your own cause. You have to recognize that others are acting in good faith and with their own reasoning, and don't deserve to be reverted like common vandals and insulted (like no one should be) without warning. I share much of your frustration, but why don't you just take a breather. See the random article button? Dmcdevit·t 02:38, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, it'd help if I saw other folks more active in handeling situations like this. But I guess you're kinda right. :-/ Kim Bruning 02:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Tell you what: next time you get the urge to drop the bomb on a vote-in-progress, leave a note on my talk page and we'll all have a nice friendly chat instead. :-) android79 04:15, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, or me if A79's out. How d'you like this for that vote? I thought it was pretty creative in the context of a vote on VFD... :) Dmcdevit·t 04:20, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

My reverts[edit]

I'd prefer not to revert, but in my experience, other methods with Radiant, especially one-on-one, have often been ineffective. I have tried almost everything. Maurreen (talk) 07:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


Please keep our blocking policy in mind; In most cases, when you're blocking for dispruption, which generally turns out to be controversial anyway, you shouldn't block in cases you're involved with. --fvw* 00:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

We were each following a different set of policies, which were apparently contradictory, if RN were an admin already (which he'll probably be soon, by the look of it) you'd have had the errr, satisfaction of seeing us mutually blocking each other. It looks like some policies need fixing. ^^;; Kim Bruning 01:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually Kim, If I thought RN would block you for that, than I'd oppose his (theoretical) RFA to the death. You don't have to do everything yourself. You even don't have to do anything at all. Try not doing anything and see what happens. In other words, if I could borrow the words of someone much wiser than myself, just shut up. I mean it. It doesn't mean you're wrong, but you are going about this wrong. Next time you do anything about a vote, why don't you ask someone you trust first? Dmcdevit·t 02:04, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Which just goes to show we need a Wikipedia:Be nice. --fvw* 01:45, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Oh I've just discovered that being as mean and unilateral as possible reduces the number of rotten tomatoes thrown at you. If you politely discuss, you get accused of being an evil admin who makes unilateral desicisions. If you unilaterally block the person, delete the page, protect against recration, and then sow the earth with salt, well, at least no one accuses you. :-( (I'm not enjoying adminship much anymore, can you guess?) :-( Kim Bruning 01:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
That's always a bad sign. Why not take a little holiday? No need to give up wikipedia altogether, just stop adminning for a bit. Get a sock puppet account if that makes it easier, I've heard they're all the rage at the moment. --fvw* 01:55, September 1, 2005 (UTC)