User talk:Kim Bruning/board

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

Will be answering remaining questions this evening (fri sep 1, 1900 UTC)

2 years[edit]

Even if I somehow manage to pull off all of the above in less time, I promise to stay on the board for at least 2 years to ensure continuity.

Just FYI, the seat that is contested will expire in July 2007. See Election_FAQ_2006/En. On another note, thanks for mentioning me as a candidate supporting transparency. I hope you'll also consider mentioning me as a long now candidate. Long term viability is very much part of my goals. ;-) --Eloquence* 22:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Drat. I thought I would be the first to point that out. I honestly hope you don't emulate Angela by bailing out mid-term. :-) -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 04:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Darn, missed that. I'm chronically overworked at the moment. Alright, I'll ask if I can still tidy my statement this evening, since I've submitted it on time, at least. (I'd also still like to add a photo.) Kim Bruning 10:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding chapters[edit]

What is your view on the function, functioning and future of the chapters? What should in your view be the relation between the Foundation and the chapters? What should chapters be doing and what absolutely not? effeietsanders 15:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a big question!
The chapters are the local face of the foundation in each location. They're specialised for their location and allow financial and legal activities to take place. They also provide a vehicle for local wikimedians to gather and cooperate.
Chapters should be working on helping small projects, getting wikimedians to get together and cooperate on real world issues, and they are also a face to the press.
Chapters should not commit the sin of trying to intervene with any of the on-line wiki-communities.
Kim Bruning 20:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Why is this page on Wikipedia, and not on Meta btw? effeietsanders 15:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Is meta more convenient? Hmm, might be at that. Kim Bruning 15:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is. 16:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Very well, You can ask questions on meta too now m:User talk:Kim Bruning Kim Bruning 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Long now" section[edit]

Hello. I have translated your statement into French language, but I'd like you to check the "long now" section if possible. Or at least explain it to me, because I have had issues understanding all your sentences in this section. Thanks! Guillom 21:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for translating! Do these points cover what you need to know?
* See especially Long now. The goals described are quite modest compared to the Long now foundation. Perhaps calling this paragraph Long Now is hyperbole ^^;;
* A financial endowment is a very specific instrument, which would theoretically allow wikimedia to run without donations, one day.
* Individual wikis are sometimes set up in ways that would make WikiDeath inevitable in the long term. This is something we need to watch out for.
Kim Bruning 23:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Dijxtra[edit]

Hello, these are generic questions I decided to submit to every candidate. If you already answered the question in your application, skip it. If you consider any question to be to private for you to answer, feel free to state that and accept my apology for being to intrusive. I also ask you to pardon my English since spellcheckers don't check grammar :-) Here are the questions:

1. Privacy policy of Wikimedia Foundation projects states that: "It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, may be released by the system administrators or users with CheckUser access, in the following situations: 1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement" If such subpoena occurs, would you agree that Wikimedia Foundation complies ASAP or would you request Foundation to dispute that subpoena in court, like Google did in January this year? Let me remind you that the second option requires money to be spent.

My every instinct would be to fight it in every way possible. Translating those instincts into the real world can be tricky, since you actually need to find ways of fighting that are effective. So in the real world I would first get advice on what's practical to do, and then I'd try to make the other parties' life as hard as is actually possible, hopefully dissuading them entirely.
I'm not exactly bad at this form of tactics. Notice that one of the reasons to hand in my adminship was because I don't need it anymore! :-)

2. What is your opinion of WP:OFFICE? Do you think that:

  • It is very good solution to bureaucratisation of Wikipedia, allowing a swift action in cases which need such action. We should widen the circle of people who have the power to use WP:OFFICE.
  • It is very good solution to bureaucratisation of Wikipedia, allowing a swift action in cases which need such action. (And only Danny should use WP:OFFICE privilege)
  • I don't like the thing, but we need it so we don't get sued.
  • Community is above any user and we should think of WP:OFFICE as temporary measure until we find a way for the whole community to act swiftly in cases of libel accusations.
  • We should move our servers to jurisdiction which makes it hard for people to sue us for libel.
I think that bureaucratisation is a bad thing, it needs to be hunted down and rooted out. Paperclips and duct tape will not fix this problem.
I feel that the OFFICE guideline is the emergency parachute that is used when the wikipedia community has failed. I am embarrassed that it needs to exist, and more embarrassed that it needs to be used. Thankfully it hasn't been used very much, recently.

So yes, office is a temporary measure that we should want to not use as much as possible. Not because it is ugly or inefficient, but because the only time it's needed is when the community has messed things up again. :-)

3. Have you ever been on a paylist of anybody/any organization/any firm connected to any current member of the board? Please understand this question in the broadest sense possible.

Not as far as I'm aware, no.

Thank you for your time, Dijxtra 20:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Native Speaker?[edit]

You claim to be a native English speaker but the sentence construction "I'm a native speaker of Dutch and English, I'm passable at German, and my French and Latin are not so good anymore." seems to contain errors a native speaker wouldn't make. Why is that? I'm interested because your actions seem to be in opposition to your words.

Candy 05:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Sounds like native English to this English speaker. There's a large difference between "native" and "technically correct". In fact, sometimes you can distinguish non-native speakers because they follow rules that native speakers usually ignore. Isomorphic 07:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Which makes me curious as to which languages Candorwien speaks, and which errors they've found :-) Kim Bruning 13:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


What are your views twards the WP:OFFICE policy? Do you approve of the recent scandal that has involved the use of that policy? Do you think it is abused? --NightDragon 09:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a question related to en.wikipedia, rather than the foundation itself, but it's not like I'm getting questions from other people yet :-) . I think I already answered part of your question above.
I do not like this guideline one bit, I would not like it on a boat, I would not like it in a moat... Unfortunately it's nescessary to have this guideline today. I'm just not sure what else there is to say.
A scandal? There's always the odd scandal or two associated with that guideline. Which one do you mean, and what's up this time? I might go take a look and talk with some people? Kim Bruning 13:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)