Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:59, 2 February 2006

brenneman

(29/4/2) ending 05:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC) User:Aaron Brenneman/Scratch/RfA header

Questions for the candidate
This section has been converted into the essay at the top, so here's where new questions can be placed.

1. I've been increasingly troubled by admins unblocking themselves because they "shouldn't have been blocked in the first place." If you had admin tools (i.e. unblocking tools), what would you do if you made three content reverts to an article plus one revert of pure vandalism, and another admin mistakenly thought you had broken 3RR and blocked you? What would you do if you were blocked because an admin wrongly attributed a personal attack to you, when in fact the diff showed that the personal attack had been made by another editor? AnnH 12:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A. Oh hey, that's easy. I'd never unblock myself. How much damage is going to be done to the encyclopedia because I'm not around for a short time? The crux of this is that one admin looked at those diffs (using your first example) and saw four reverts. I look and see three, so I unblock myself, but later I notice that it was four... there's another little chip in the trust that the community places in admins. Much better to take it slow, understand that everyone thinks that they are right, and it is possible that I'm the one who's wrong. - brenneman 13:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Commentary and evidence

Diffs

Comments

Support

1. We started out sparring, but my respect for Aaron has grown immensely. He brings a lot of energy and good ideas to the table and I think he'd make a good admin. (I recently offered to nominate him so I'll skip the commentary for now (I reserve the right to comment later) and go straight to support) ++Lar: t/c 05:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. It is good to have a few admins who think out of the box, and I'm already hawking him with civility issues. He's advised to keep down the drama, but I cannot deny that his heart is in the correct place. I'm pretty sure we can keep those problems in check. Titoxd 05:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. Sarge Baldy 05:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
4. He rarely does things perfectly. He frequently makes unwanted sexual advances towards women. He kicks puppies occasionally, I'm sure. I'll keep watch on him should he fuck up, but I doubt that he will. Aaron, sail on!--Sean Black (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   He frequently makes unwanted sexual advances towards women. Unlike Sean. ;-) SlimVirgin 06:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   Er, what does that mean exactly? Sean's advances are never unwanted, or never even made? PS, Sean I think you spelt occasionally wrong. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 06:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   Never, ever unwanted. See for yourself.--Sean Black (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

5. Support. Aaron's brave and smart and funny. In content disputes, he's good at breaking the ice, even-handed, makes intelligent suggestions, and understands the importance of well-timed archiving. ;-) He'll make an innovative and responsible admin. SlimVirgin 06:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Pilatus 06:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Support--Duk 06:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Support, but what's with the bizarre formatting? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 06:41, Feb. 2, 2006
9. Support. Absolutely, under any circumstances. howcheng {chat} 07:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
10. I take a short repreive from my RfA boycott to support. Give him a chance. El_C 07:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. I was in the neutral column last time due to the IgnoreAllRules incident, but since then Aaron has matured greatly and is much more patient now than a few months ago. His handling of the Webcomics Arbcom case was calm and ordered. He has made a number of very good contributions to policy discussions. Aaron has a firm understanding of policy, and of the nature of the encyclopedia. I absolutely believe that he is ready to become an administrator now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Aye. —Cryptic (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. Aaron's a fine, sensible Wikipedian, who understands Misplaced Pages like few admin candidates seem to. The timing of his last RFA was unfortunate, but I have no qualms supporting now. I value his judgment, and really belive he shouldn't be denied adminship because of personal or political spats. Dmcdevit·t 07:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Support Fine wikipedian, with a good sense of humour. He's dedicated and an independent thinker. He appreciates process, but is not a slave to it. He can be a very bold and forthright (an Aussie thing?), but has the neccessary humility to go with it. My only concern is that he has an long-running spat with Tony_Sidaway; but that is two-sided. My support would be stronger if Aaron was willing to pledge never to revert Tony's actions (there plent of others to do that). --Doc 09:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Please see 10 below while I go figure out how to make two footnotes point to the same place. - brenneman 09:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Support --Adrian Buehlmann 10:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 11:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Support, if his RfA fails, we're all doomed. Babajobu 11:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
18. Every time I see that brenneman's made a contribution to an issue that I'm interested in, I look forward to reading it. I believe that brenneman has the best interests of Misplaced Pages in mind, more so than editors who always follow every process to the letter but never think about how we could improve. —Cleared as filed. 12:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
19. Support: Aaron can be prickly, but he has been dedicated since arrival to setting up standards by which the controversial matters can be assessed dispassionately. Instead of relying on "IAR" and "experts," he wants to have guidelines (not rules) by which we can agree. For this he has gotten the wrath of people who believe in a divine right of admins. For this, he has the support of this admin, 100%. This is a guy who wants to use administrator tools to help administrators work by the same rules as everyone else. Geogre 12:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Support Absolutely. Completely. Unstintingly. Hamster Sandwich 12:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
21. Support: Brenneman does what he says and says what he does. Not only is Brennan dedicated to working on Misplaced Pages as it is now, he also wants to help create a better Misplaced Pages for the future.

    -- That Guy, From That Show! 12:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

22. Sigh of relief. I didn't really want to let this RfA go through without supporting. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
23. Good editor, an asset to Misplaced Pages, but does not cope well with differences of opinion. Engaged in trolling, socking and vandalism as a result of a difference of opinion. Apologised but despite contrition his problematic attitude still remains. Has engaged in personal attacks on me on two occasions and then rebuffed polite attempts to resolve this on his talk page. Has said openly "I am no longer able to assume good faith with regards to you" and doesn't seem to regard this as a problem the needs to be resolved. In view of his propensity for longrunning vendettas, I fear that he might abuse his administrator powers in pursuit of one. Tony Sidaway 06:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

    I'm not aware of any long-running 'vendetta' other than his dispute with you. --Doc 09:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

    Does he need to get obsessive about more than one other editor before it matters? :) --Tony Sidaway 12:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

    That's a bit extreme Tony. That "longrunning vendetta" is one you are a part of, and truthfully, it can't have happened one-sidedly. Yet, I have very little fear of you abusing your tools with respect to Aaron, or that he will to you. In fact, I think he will agree to Mark's suggestion below. And to suggest admin "abuse" right now seems a bit unfounded and presumptuous. Dmcdevit·t 09:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

    I have taken discussion of this allegation, which I believe to be without foundation, to User talk:Dmcdevit. The vendetta is completely one-sided. --Tony Sidaway 11:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

    I've got a fetish for tidy, so all my responses will be below, per superscripted notes. - brenneman 09:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

    In view of Aaron's positive response to an offer by fuddlemark and Doc_glasgow, I'm switching to support. Until his recent personal attacks of the past few days, I was of the opinion that Aaron had matured well, showed great promise, and would be a credit to the admin bit, and told more than one person that if nobody else did so soon I'd nominate him myself. I can easily handle any nastiness he may get up to with respect to myself, it's what I'm good at, and he knows that if he ever went for anybody else in the same way (which appears unlikely, I seem to be the annointed one) the whole community would be down on him like a ton of bricks. So yes, Aaron meets the criterion. --Tony Sidaway

24. Support: (after edit conflict) He makes lots of contributions and it's good to have somebody who is sometimes critical and who is passionate. Dr Debug (Talk) 12:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
25. Support --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 12:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. Aaron has grown more in a short period of time than any other editor I know. I have no doubt that this will continue.. Nandesuka 13:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
27. Supportize. I normally don't make comments to RFA much much but Oof. What a fast learner. I had <THIS HUGE STACK> of objections. Talked with him briefly, and he addressed them all. Oh hmm, that and normally refactoring your RFA page leads to near automatic support from me anyway :-P Kim Bruning 13:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
28. Support - Hahnchen 13:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
29. Support, Aaron cares for Misplaced Pages and seems to have matured from earlier misjudgements. My concern had been interaction with Tony Sidaway, and hopefully that is resolved now, as even Tony is supporting promotion. —Quarl 2006-02-02 13:34Z
30. Support. This would be unqualified, but I think he has a Tony-sized hole in his judgment and that sometimes he lets his big mouth get the better of him; I should hope that he will make more of an effort not to let this happen. That said—I've always found him willing to talk about things reasonably afterward, as well as to have a productive chat with when we disagree about something. Most of the work he does is very good, and I'm not worried about him abusing admin powers, so after opposing last time I'm happy this time to support. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Absolutely not, under any circumstances. Phil Sandifer 05:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Fine editor, but a bit too unpredictable. — Dan | talk 05:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Not as yet. Gets too bogged down in clashing with others' personalities. Overly concerned with process. Hasn't worked out yet that on Misplaced Pages, gritting your teeth and working productively with people you consider idiots is not optional (c.f. his clashes with Tony Sidaway) — this is absolutely mandatory for an admin. Doing much better than last time though - David Gerard 07:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
   • - brenneman 09:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose-Civilty is lacking. Good chap, seems to know the ins and outs of wikipdia, but needs to work on the behavior aspect. Shows too much annoyance and impatience at opposing parties on the side of a debate, and not easliy approchable. Communication is an important aspct of the admistrative process.-Zero 12:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I like Aaron, and think he's done a hell of a lot of Misplaced Pages, and will continue to do a lot, especially if this RfA passes. However, he has from time-to-time had the occasional lapse of judgement (and, fair play to him, he admits them). There is a possibility that the unpleasantness with Tony will escalate if they both have admin powers, and I'd like to see an undertaking that Aaron will not undo any admin action of Tony Sidaway, regardless of how boneheaded that action may be. It'd be nice to get the same from Tony, but then only one of them is up for RfA :P fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   • - brenneman 09:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Great growth curve, however I do not think it is necesary to hand over admin tools just yet. I do not see any sign of RC patroling and other "admin chores". --Cool Cat 12:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
   • - brenneman 12:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 66 minor edits outside the Misplaced Pages, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 06:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• See Aaron Brenneman's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• Just something I ran across that summarizes why I support those who oppose the liberal interpretation of "IAR": "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt the Younger.

Responses

• 8) I'd prefer that this not be a re-hashing of the entire history of Tony Sidaway and brenneman, but I suppose it is un-avoidable. To respond to charges that I've engaged in a "vendetta", I can only refer to the talk page of the recent pseudo-RfC I initated. Other than that I'd prefer not to respond to any of Tony's comments. - brenneman 09:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• 9) David - If you could provide diffs where I've had personality clashes with people other than Tony, or where I've chosen process over outcome, that would help. I'm happy to provide diffs where I've gone orthogonal to process. This RfA, for example. - brenneman 09:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• 10) fuddlemark/Doc - I'm afraid that I cannot promise that I won't undo any admin actions of Tony's. If promoted, I'd treat any actions he takes as an admin exactly as I would any other: Respectfully. This means that I'd attempt where practical to use the talk page or IRC first, than avenues such as WP:DRV or WP:ANI. I can categorically promise to never reverse any action by any admin more than once. Just as in any other edit, there are enough people around that if someone else doesn't make the reversal for you, it's time to reconsider if you're doing the right thing. - brenneman 09:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  Okay, let's put a time limit on it. And some Designated Intermediaries. Doc_glasgow and I have spoken, and we both think it'd be a good idea if you and Tony stayed at arm's length. So, my proposal's this: if Aaron feels that a Sidaway admin action is wrong and needs to be undone, he takes it to Doc or myself and we'll review it and take the appropriate action (and the appropriate blame). After ANZAC Day, he's on his own to do whatever he wishes (think of it as going from P plates to a full licence). How's that? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  Ok, if you'll stipulate that you mean ANZAC Day this year, that's fine by me. ^_^ Most of the time I think that we're in too big a rush anyway, and the delay while I talk it over isn't going to hurt anything, plus you might convince my that Tony did the right thing. - brenneman 12:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  Not fair! I don't know when ANZAC day is! Needless to say I would never reverse one of Aaron's administrator actions; his animosity towards me is such that I could not credibly claim to be making a judgement on the actions rather than the man. I suggest thar Aaron (and all admins) follow my practice of placing blocks up for review on WP:AN. This gives administrators the opportunity to check that a block has not been made in error or poor judgement, and to reduce or reverse it. Since blocks are very personal things, it also spreads the responsibility and ensures that the blocked person is aware that the block has community support. --Tony Sidaway 13:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• 11) Cool Cat - I'm not sure how to respond to that. The three most commonly used links I have are Newbie Anon  and New. I place stubs on new pages, talk to new people about what they could do better, and place pages that cannot be saved on AfD. I revert vandalism, remove spam, close AfDs. Are you saying that I don't do enough of those things? - brenneman 12:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  You do a good job of all of these, but there is another side, and it's something you should be aware of. Here the arbitration committee found that you had "used inflammatory language in attempts to warn new contributors about participating in AfD", that you told one published author and respected commentator on webcomics that he had participated in "the mugging of an AfD" and referred to participants in webcomics deletion decissions as "foaming at the mouth". You need to curb this. --Tony Sidaway 13:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  That's not a terrible nuanced version of events, I'm afraid. The note I placed was:

  If you're here because of a websnark posting:
  Please understand that this is not a vote, this is a discussion. Please refer to WP:SOCK. Multiple comments by very new users to the effect of "OMFG don't delete, are you kidding?" that fail to provide evidence per WP:CITE and WP:V are highly likely to be discounted by the closing administrator. Many Wikipedians have been known to react unfavourably to attempts to alter the course of a nomination in this manner, and may in fact recommend to delete based upon it. If you wish to prevent this comic being deleted, the way to do so is to provide verifiable evidence.

  In retrospect it was regrettable to use "OMFG", and I am now aware of {{AfdAnons}} which I have used since.

  As to the other comments, I'll link them here in chronological order: "invasion" , "contaminated" , "foaming" , "mugging" . It's worth noting that these comments appeared neither on the AfD nor on the talk pages of any of the new users. Three occurred on Dragonfiend's talk page. It's often difficult to strike a blance between expressig yourself frankly and openly and knowing that every word can be dredged up at any time by someone trying to score a point. I'd contend that these comments could best be described as "coulourful". The first, in particular, was accurate if nothing else. At the time the "invasion" comment was made, over 70% of the contributors were later discounted by the closing admin. If you can provide some other examples of where I have been uncivil to newcomers, that would be good. - brenneman 13:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)