Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:54, 17 July 2008

Welcome back!

I noticed your signing over at Footnotes ArbCom, so I just wanted to say it's good to see you've returned. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! - brenneman 02:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes Aaron. Welcome back. Glad to see you're still with us. — _Maggot 08:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy returns! El_C 08:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

zOMG Titoxd 05:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Belated zOMG. Haukur (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wow.. One of the sensible ones from a year or two back. Good to see you around again. And already stirring a pot or two, it seems. Friday (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad you're back

I'm not around so much at the moment for obvious and non-obvious reasons, but if you need a hand on anything, drop me a note. Don't expect a response, but just keep me in mind. May you live in interesting times. Hiding T 12:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ah. I've undergone a name-change since last we spoke. That may confuse things somewhat. Hiding T 12:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that offer, it means a lot to me. And I, ahh, got the memo. ^_^
brenneman 00:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Welcome back, and glad to see you again! I hope you have been well. Looking forward to working with you. =D - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Welcome back, Aaron. I don't edit much any more but I do check my watchlist periodically. Your talk page was still on it, so I noticed you were back. I hope things are well with you. -- DS1953 03:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Brief question

Yes, checkuser is involved; it's Davkal, if you're curious. Kirill 04:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Risker is *so* an admin...

Yep. Got talked into it. Now you know for sure the wiki is in deep trouble.  ;-) Risker (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Consideration of ArbCom

History

You said it's "19:59, 24 January 2006" all over again. What happened then? I guess there should be a way to find out what edit or action was done at that time without knowing the page, but I'm drawing a blank. Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it is this, where our host was admonished for removing the words "if in doubt, don't delete" from the deletion policy. Seems things have gone full circle. Risker (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I hope he sticks around. We need more of what Tony likes to call Pot Stirrers. I'm glad someone respected stood up and told ArbCom that. I mostly blame Doc Glasgow for perpetuating the BLP hysteria with his absurd essay. I think the only thing that can be done is to fight like hell to amend WP:BLP with restrictions to keep the discretionary part of that decision from getting out of control. Hypothetically, there is nothing ArbCom could do if say a reversal of their decision was codified into the actual policy, but I suspect that will be a tough row to hoe. Oh, it is somewhat interesting to note that about that same time in 2006 Kelly Martin speedy'd everything in Template:ser.* namespace, thus triggering the great userbox war of 2006. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

*slaps self* I'm on a twelve step program to stop myself talking in koans but it does not appear to be having much affect. I was actually referring to the last time that I was around and ArbCom demostrated that they had a slightly inflated sense of thier own importance. My favorite quotes from that debacle was "we (the committe) do not need your approval."

I've spent the last twelve hours reading several hundred pages, some grey and crackly with the dusts of time.

It's obvious that the role of the Arbitration Committee, and Arbitration in general, has drifted a long way from "assist in resolving disputes between users." I reckon that Cunningham would spin in his grave if he saw the current state of affairs. Call me a commie, but anyone who believes that the sucess of wikipedia is due to the actions of petty bureacrats as opposed to rank-and-file editors is sniffing glue.

We need a governing body like we need a hole on the head. We "need" an extra noticeboard, forms, and regulations about them because this kind of wanking is easier than writing articles. While I was away things appear to have gotten somewhat worse with respect to how entrenched the hierachy is. So here's my action plan to give the system an enema:

1. Become active at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship — Too many cockie-cutter admins leads to rot. Having reviewed the trends, we appear to be picking people who can tick boxes.
2. Become a fez-wearing clerk. — This both gives me more grist for the mill and stops people saying things like "quit kvetching and get to work."
3. Build a good picture of the problem that ArbCom is supposed to solve — Right now it's largely a solution in search of a problem.

Really, I "came back" wanting to write articles. But while wiki-space gnomic is 92% irrelevant to 99% of articles, there are disturbing trends.

brenneman 01:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I know you were on Tony's talk page, but did you see my link to User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft? Might be some useful ideas there, plus comments on the talk page from a sitting arbitrator and a former arbitrator. It seems the committee had internal discussions, but nothing much happened that we ever heard of. Carcharoth (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

1. You know it and I know it, but please forgive my momentary bout of madness and don't let anyone else know it. If you ever see me edit that page again, please feel free to blank my comments, point me to this dicussion, and I'll write "I'm a drama addict" 100 times at the top of my user page.
2. To adress the actual meat of your comment, I had been looking for that exact link but couldn't recall who had started it and googling "request for comment arbitration commitee" was unhelpful. Thank you.

brenneman 02:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's because you misspelled "committe".  ;-) Risker (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

By all means, it sounds like an excellent strategy. If you haven't already, you might want to check out C68-FM-SV as I suspect you might find it sheds some light on what is currently going on. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Rebuke of ArbCom

I'm trying to think of a good way that we can have a focused community rebuke to the ArbCom's expansion of powers? Perhaps if we were to initiate an RfC for user conduct on the committee? --Barberio (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been tried before, and I suspect any repeat attempt will be overwhelmed by debate over the technicalities of such an RFC rather than the substance of the matter.

You could, I suppose, go for an RFC/U on me; there's a reasonable (in my mind, anyways) case to be made that I'm significantly responsible for the Committee's adoption of general remedies, given that I wrote and/or proposed the bulk of them. But, admittedly, putting my head on a pike might not be as satisfying as doing it to the entire Committee. ;-) Kirill 19:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, to begin with I don't believe that a 'rebuke' is required as much as a 'rethink'. As someone who's been on more ad-hoc decision making groups than I'd care to admit, it can often be a dreadful magnifier of the weaknesses in a group of otherwise sterling individuals. People, good people, bumble along doing the very best they can and end up deciding to concrete the lake to stop the ducks being killed by boats.

Additionally, since this will be a complex and contentious discussion area regardless, the lower the temperature that the debate starts the longer it will remain viable. Something that starts out titled "Community examination of historic and future role of the Arbitration Committee" will get better results than "We want Kirill's head on a carp and we want it now!"

But, in close: Good idea. Please see above for the link to an in-construction Request for Comment.

brenneman 01:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I might also point out my earlier proposal at Misplaced Pages:Governance reform, which touches on the whole policy-by-ArbCom issue. Kirill 18:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for Adminship

Voteing

It is, and we'll never. However, one thing I try to keep in mind is that it's a vote - but it's a vote where your vote can have a major influence. You know how one good oppose will totally derail an RfA, no matter how many supports were before it? Tan | 39 01:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Err, to be frank, isn't the purpose of a good oppose? I wouldn't take the time spout off if I didn't actually want the person to (for lack of a better word) fail. I actually take the time to examine a candidate's history. It takes some work, but look at the timestamps of request for adminship regulars, and you'll see some who appear to read through 1000's of edits within a few minutes before delivering chain-gun 'Supports. I'm note sure if I'm responding to the thrust of your message, and if I'm not please let me know. brenneman 01:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you misinterpreted. I was agreeing with you that in the end, the RfA is a vote. I was merely commenting that there's an additional parameter of being able to sway other voters with your own commentary. My message wasn't supposed to be anything other than a wry comment - Tan | 39 14:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, rather than commenting in the edit summaries, I'd encourage you to answer the survey questions of the RFA Review, found here. the plan is to do an intensive and comprehensive study/evaluation/overhaul of RFA, and every comment helps. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 01:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Goodness... The plan is to email a bunch of people with a long list of questions? What's the percieved advantage of the previous on-wiki surveys? Anyway, I've previously been active (b, a) in the "reform" area, but that's not my plan right now. - brenneman 01:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

We're asking as many people as possible to give their impressions of the process, then later - based on what the community as a whole views RFA as - we'll ask for recommendations on how to fix it. It's mroe than a straw poll, this time - it seems like it has a good chance of getting something done. If you participate, great, if not - no problem. Based on the above, it's clear you have thoughts on the process that might be of value, which is why I mentioned it. Best, UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 01:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"ow level of Misplaced Pages namespace edits..."

S;

I'm having a good think, and that comment of yours caught my eye. Since I give you credit for having (>= 1/2) a brain, I'd like to pick it: There is no evidence that we can teach the ability to work collegially, or to create content. I think we can teach policy. Is there some reason that we shouldn't promote people who don't yet know chapter and verse? I can think of some, but I want to hear your views first.
brenneman 01:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as a preface, I don't think that creating content is a requirement for adminship. But that's not the point, I suspect.

As we know, there is a fairly large gulf with few steps in between autoconfirmed user and sysop. Sysops gain a lot of tools at once when the crat flicks the switch. I am not, as such, comfortable with relying on an after-the-fact approach to teaching policies to new admins (plus the fact that it's too bloody hard to get rid of bad ones) so I look for 500+ contribs to Misplaced Pages namespace to show that there is at least a basic amount of work on policy pages/AFDs/etc. I wouldn't expect someone to know chapter and verse (although I would expect that someone could look up the answer to ~90% of policy questions, but I'm not going to go and test that because I have a life). I just need to see that the candidate has done at least some meta-work on the project before they go blocking and/or deleting.

If it were possible I would check for contributions to AFDs, AIV, etc., and I do check deleted contributions (for good speedy nominations) when I get a chance, because those are the places where I'm expecting admin candidates to have cut their teeth. But there are already people who sift through candidates' histories looking for reasons to oppose, and I hope I don't become one of them.

Feel free to follow up on this — I can't claim to be right all the time, or even most of the time, and I value your opinion. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that response. I find it mostly in line with my thoughts, so some bare-bones responses:

1. ew steps autoconfirmed user sysop... gain a lot of tools at once
   • Ok, if we were to fractionalise the tools, what are the most "dangerous" ones?
     • Protections is benign, ability to edit protected pages is not.
     • Deletion is benign, resotration *cough* BLP *cough* is not. Viewing deleted pages? Not sure.
     • Blocking is nuc-u-lar.
     • How about an intermediate level, then? Give the 'less dangerous" tools to the lower level? Problems with mechanics, etc, yes I know. But we're already handing out rollback.

   • Which is as easy to take away as to give... hmm, nice segue.

2. o bloody hard to get rid of bad ones
   • The community decides to award the bit but can't take it away? Odd.
   • I believe that there is close to a critical mass of admins who would support some process.
   • It should not involve Arbcom.
3. ooking for reasons to oppose
   • Ouch. Lucky I just supported someone then! But you're right, it's trial by fire.
   • Maybe #2 would ease that?

Thank again

brenneman 01:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much agree with all that.

I don't think it's disputed that RFA is the worst possible process for turning people into sysops, except for all the other ones that have been proposed, and that since adminship is allegedly not a big deal, removing it should not be a big deal either. However, getting agreement on how to change it all seems nigh-on impossible.

Splitting the tools might perhaps be more helpful. Rollback was implemented rather stealthily but worked surprisingly well. It's marked as a perennial proposal though, and the last attempt was opposed.

So if we were to have "half-sysops" (working title), and assuming they're needed, what would they be able to do?

Good ideas:

• Delete pages
• Protect pages (but maybe not cascading)
• Rollback
• Avoid the account creation limit

Bad ideas:

• Block
• Undelete
• View deleted revisions (more or less equivalent to undeleting really since they can just c/p the deleted version, and it comes with the added effect of GFDL-compliance issues)
• Unprotect
• Edit protected pages

What else do we do as sysops anyway? Stifle (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This thread shows why it would be a bad idea to give out the "view deleted revisions" right to more people... Titoxd 15:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's another reason why it's a bad idea. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea that just might go places. I advocate for you to start a proposal page. Bstone (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

On that note...

I noticed in one of the above threads that you mentioned something along these lines. As you'll notice from the link, I'm all for a proposal of this kind. Drop by my talk if you're actually headed in that direction. — _Maggot 01:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee goes live. — _Maggot 02:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

tsk, tsk...

This made me laugh! I would issue a civility warning but a) you know how well those work and b) I can't figure out who exactly you were being less than civil to. ++Lar: t/c 00:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to balance outrage with bemusement. I'm logging off now, though, since the one is threatening to overtake the other. - brenneman 01:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Been wondering where you were at =). It would have been interesting to hear your opinions on the who June ArbCom Announcements fiasco... --Dragon695 (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO, other drama going on does not mean that the arbcom should drop everything else and refuse to accept new cases, especially such as this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

well said Aaron (and Lar) - I just wanted to add a small note of support from someone trying his best to sit on his hands as much as possible. Despite my long held, and reasonably well known, opinion that the whole arbcom shebang is utterly unfit for purpose, I sincerely had higher expectations than watching things unfold in the last few days. Re Matt - of course you should drop everything! This tide is getting your feet wet, regardless of whether you accept it or not - please don't try the crisis? what crisis? line, the community (and the individuals named in all current debacles) deserve much, much better. Start by urging all of your fellow arbs to begin posting 'on-wiki' immediately, and re-engaging with the community - and preferably lead by example! It's the least you can do. Privatemusings (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)...pours tea, sits back on hands, wonders how best to drink tea?

That, sir, is a slur on the memory of Jim Callaghan! *wipes away tear* Mackensen (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The IRC thing

With reference to this comment, I may be misremembering the exact sequence of things (this new signature is playing havoc with my hormones) but I think the Committee may already have sorted out the IRC conduct thing to the satisfaction of all concerned--that is to say, that those who wished to be happy with the result were happy, whilst those who wished to feel grumpy about the fact that nobody got their gonads stir-fried were not denied that solace. I think I remember something like that happening a couple of months ago. --Jenny 12:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony, why in heaven's name would you think that this had been sorted? Has anyone seen the Arbitration Committee do what they said they were going to do and come out with a Committee statement on IRC? Risker (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Oh, I see...hormone problems...

I think you may have misread the final decision in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC, or misremember it, or possibly you gave their words a different interpretion than I did.

The Committee said "Policy and procedure changes regarding Misplaced Pages IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee." A request for clarification made in March ran until late May and picked up responses from Paul August, FT2, Newyorkbrad, James F and FloNight, which described what had happened since the IRC case. The upshot seems to be that some initiatives have been made by individual arbitrators but there has been no consensus on the necessity or even the advisability of concerted action beyond that. So the problem has been addressed, but if you took it to mean "make a public announcement", that hasn't been done, and if you mean "reach consensus on a plan of further action" that hasn't been done either. Whether those would be advisable in the absence of consensus to do so is of course another matter.

I think my assessment is accurate: those who wanted to be happy about IRC are happy. Those who wanted to be grumpy about IRC are grumpy. The subject seems to have receded as a cause célèbre. Sometimes it's better not to tweak something for the sake of it. --Jenny 09:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop

Please don;t edit the proposed decision again. Thatcher 02:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a good edit - in content and in spirit. It's certainly not worth escalating anything about - but I think you did the right thing. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. - brenneman 04:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Naval lint?

Lovely allusions there, I truly enjoyed the deck chair reference. And of course, the edit following was precious in its own right, although for some reason, on my screen it is an excess of purple, not blue. I suppose that means the monitor needs fine tuning again. Risker (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

1) I love that you think the problem is you, as opposed to my defective cones and rods.

2) Your last few comments here have made me even more certain that giving you the bit was a mistake. Cheeky monkey.

brenneman 06:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's only because I go elsewhere to have philosophical debates. You haven't seen me in my full glory yet. And the problem isn't me, it's the bloody technology. ;-) Risker (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Abongo Obama

Doing as it says on the tin

I saw that you deleted the article on Abongo Obama.

I know this is at least the second time it was deleted.

Is the article as it was gone forever?

How do I find out how many other times (if any) it was deleted?

There is no point to ask the most obvious question . . . . so I won't, but please answer the others.

Regards,--Utahredrock (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not gone forever, it remains in the history (even if its deleted). If you want to know how to check for how many times something has been deleted, click history, then view logs. This one is for Abongo, and this one is for Malik. — _Maggot 05:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you SM. Also, in most cases you can get the contents of a deleted article (to assist with re-writing it) by asking a random admin. - brenneman 06:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Your still not as active as you once were, so I thought I'd at least make the obvious response for you. — _Maggot 06:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy

FYI: This was just (re)created: Malik Abongo Obama Revision as of 06:11, 7 July 2008 (edit) (undo)Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Talk | contribs | block)

Malik Obama

is sure to be nominated for deletion; so I've actually done so myself here even though I believe it now passes muster due to Maliks multiple press mentions (which had not yet been catalogued when contributors had so very recently weighed in on its "Obongo" iteration. Please be patient with this proposal while those interested weight in again. (I'm notifying those who commented.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Slow

To all and sundry above: I'm trying to respond to this, but I'm on a very s.l.o.w connection. Please be patient, your call is important to us. - brenneman 06:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely

As closing Admin, unless your opinion has changed, surely the best thing to do is speedy the thing. It's a blatant A4. If the proponents disagreed, there is no reason they couldn't have done a WP:DRV. Nfitz (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right. I'm struggling against the technology to express myself tonight, so I am probably repeating myself...

• It is a 98.75% repost. BUT
• That .25% are sources, AND
• They didn't get introduced until later.

Now we could (and "should" according to established patterns) proceed by:

• Deleting this,
• Opening debate at DRV, and
• Probably having someone host it in userspace for a couple of days.

But since we're already doing those second and third things, and since the major participants are probably less blase about deletion that you and I, I consider that the cost of deviating this time from how we normally do it is outweighed by the value of giving a newcomer a sligthly more gentle introduction into having your article deleted.

brenneman 07:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree. It was recreated only 24 minutes after the previous article was deleted. It's still less than 3 hours old. We have a process to deal with this - DRV. I have no idea why we wouldn't stick to it. Nfitz (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Obame family article, or lack thereof

Ironies abound

User Justmeherenow (to whom I gave my first barnstar) has re-proposed to merge Lolo Soetoro with Ann Dunham who is Barack's mother. Tvoz had been constantly suggesting the merge a week or two ago on the Lolo talk page so Justmeherenow went ahead and proposed a merge, which seemed reasonable given Tvoz's agitating for it. Justmeherenow opposed the merge, but apparently wanted the issue discussed and decided.

Then Tvoz seemed upset that a user who didn't support something would propose it--this led to its own mini discussion (somewhere out here). Since Tvoz opposed the merge (at that time), and there didn't seem much other support, I removed the proposal. Now, however many days later, Justmeherenow has proposed it again.

Is there a normal process here?

Can an admin step in to oversee the proposal and outcome?

I don't think it's appropriate for me to remove the merge proposal again. So far nobody seems to have even commented on the re-proposal.

Any thoughts?

Though I think you've commented otherwise, I don't think it makes sense to merge different individuals into articles. Sometimes it does. Obama's maternal grandparents, a couple of many decades, have an article together--that makes sense. Lolo only lived with Ann for less than a decade. Though their marriage was more like 15 years, they lived apart for about half of that time. Lolo's life seems separate enough to have it's own separate article. Both Lolo and Ann are now deceased.

Cheers,

--Utahredrock (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Update

Tvoz resolved this, at least for the moment. She removed the merge tag. I can only hope that will end it.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still unconvinced that an omnibus Family of BO' article would not be the best solution. Not quite saying yet I'm convinced it is, but leaning that way. Still looking at this and having a think. - brenneman 00:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Will you be the closing editor of the current Abongo debate? How are closing editors chosen?--Utahredrock (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I've taken part in the debate, so it would be inappropiate for me to make the judgment on what rough censenus was. I think that outright deletion would be an inappropiate call at this point, but another admin may feel differently. He'd need to provide a very careful defence of that decision in his statement, though. There's no selection process for who does the deciding, it's random. - brenneman 02:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Wanking/Arbitration Committee/Requests for arbitration:C68-FM-SV

Just so you're aware someone's created this abuse page has been created in your user space. BigHairRef | Talk 04:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, is it the word "wanking" in the title that's maybe put you off? Are you sneakily trying to advertise the page to a wider audience? I'm confused... brenneman 04:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems I am a terrible villain, sorry to have interrupted your thoughts Aaron. It's just another Huggler doing new page patrol, this is why I hate tools assisted editing. People ought to think first. Do you mind taking the CSD tag off? Risker (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ack. I'm mostly going back to what I was doing, ok? ^_^
brenneman 04:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Come back in a week...

• And chainsaw Prince Rohan. - brenneman 07:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• And create Dogger Bank itch - brenneman 08:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

G'day Aaron....

I wonder if you're at all interested a) in a quick voice chat via Skype and b) broadcasting your erudite philosophies (and any dirty jokes you might know) via. an interview as part of 'Not The Misplaced Pages Weekly' - which is a grassroots version of our more established cousin's over at Misplaced Pages Weekly. Let me know what you reckon! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

<scratch> Ook. What is this 'skype of which you speak? <grunt> Oh oh OH! </grunt> Pretty pictures, brenneman like! <jump, thump chest> Uh? </jump, thump chest> <scratch protruding eyeridge> Need bandwidth? </scratch protruding eyeridge> Poo. </scratch> brenneman 01:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

it's surprisingly good with little bandwidth actually! - if I can tempt you into giving it a go, it'd be cool to catch up... I'll even bring a banana. :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A barnstar award

		Outstanding Admin Barnstar
		For your grace and diplomacy as an admin. Cheers,--Utahredrock (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You're being spammed (per your Malik AfD comment:

Stop being so binary, you mob What's the problem we're here trying to solve? Someone has content that they are willing to add, are willing to find sources for, etc. That's a good thing and should be encouraged. We also have some standards about what constitutes an article, which is also a good thing. Rather than locking into delete/keep mentality, why don't we try to solve the actual problem. Merging into Obama family has been mooted, but there appears to be some slight precedent against articles of that nature. However, consensus can change, and a well written article at User:Utahredrock/Obama family would have a good chance at deletion review, and I'd be willing to be spammed to take part in any discussion there. - brenneman 00:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

----to take part in precisely this discussion! (Here.)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 21:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking

I've lifted your block of User:RegenerateThis. It does not seem to me like you are an appropriate person to issue that block, and I'd rather see a block of a long-time contributor like Tony done completely above the board. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to inform me that you've ublocked your oldest wiki-mate, after you'd done so, and without using the forum on ANI that I've created for discussing it. - brenneman 00:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come now. I have way older wiki-mates than Tony. And I don't read AN/I if I can possibly avoid it. Which, generally, I find I can. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Your stance on Misplaced Pages concepts such as "concensus" and "admin responsibility" is utterly transparent to me. Please do not comment any further on this matter here, Phil, but use the appropiate ANI forum. - brenneman 00:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Already there, albeit grudgingly. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

On wiki mates and nemeses

I remember trying to mediate the dispute between you and Tony years ago, when he was an admin and few thought it possible you could pass RfA (we showed them!) —how the tables have turned— but I am a bit concerned that you were the one who issued the block, because of the history between you two. So, Tony blocked by oldest wiki-nemsis, unblocked by oldest wiki-mate. Looks like an ordinary day on the wiki to me! El_C 02:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaron, I agree with El C that you shouldn't have made that block; in fact, I think no one should have, because Tony was arguably just telling the truth. We need to get beyond taking action when people use the occasional curse word; there are too many blocks nowadays for relatively trivial civility violations, and few to none for the major ones, such as trolling and stalking (which are often done terribly politely). SlimVirgin 03:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

While Tony certainly violated his civility parole, you probably shouldn't be blocking him under any circumstances given your history of antagonism, although that seems to have subsided lately. I mean this in the friendly sense of please don't let the fact that you were wrong to carry out the block yourself become an issue that obscures the fact that you were quite correct in your judgment of whether a block was appropriate. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the "history" Tony and I have, I've got the luxury of knowing how I feel about it, I suppose that no one else does. To be frank I'm mostly unconcerned by him now-a-days. I've been able to locate only few few (, , ) direct interactions between he and I in anything like the recent past. I'm no longer driven past the edge of reason by him as I once was, and as far as I was aware I made no action I would not have made for any other user. It would be utterly remiss of me to ignore the multitude of opinions otherwise, particularly from E&S whose opinions I value highly.

I'd like it to be clear that I was not simply blocking Tony for "incivility." He has been effectivly disrupting not only this arbitration page but a large number of similar pages for a considerable period of time. Of the last 500 edits to the page in question, 160 were his. That's as many as the next ten most active contributors to the discussion put together. He steadily increased the level of rhetoric, after being asked several times across several venues (IIRC) to take a different tack. He was directly warned by another administrator. *spreads plams*

There are in fact serious issues to do with stalking and harrasment that need to be dealt with. Dealt with calmly, and rationally, moving forward by consensus so that we all can have a safe collegial environment in which to contribute. I'm committed to doing my part to create such an environment.

brenneman 04:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in fairness it has been years (plural) since I've seen anything, though at the time it was pronounced. El_C 04:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks for your note, Aaron. First and foremost, I definitely don't believe that you support harassment. I'm not even sure whether you post on that site, but if you do, I hope you'll stop, because good people posting there legitimizes what they do. My concern was only that you had blocked because of the personal issues.

I believe, separately, that Tony should not have been blocked at all, because he was simply expressing an opposing view from most of those who take part in that ArbCom page, and it is arguably a correct view, the language notwithstanding. It's definitely a view shared by lots of people — I would guess by the majority of Wikipedians, in fact. But what has happened over the last 1-2 years is that sensible people are fed up with the whole business, and just don't comment. This leaves the floor open to those who post on WR and who support them. Given that context, I feel it was a shame to punish Tony for expressing what could be the majority view. But that is an entirely separate issue from my concern that it was you who blocked. I hope that explains things, and I appreciate your note and your understanding. Best, SlimVirgin 05:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages administrators
• Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall