Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Aaron Brenneman 2 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by InkSplotch (talk | contribs) at 23:39, 3 February 2006 (oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:39, 3 February 2006 by InkSplotch (talk | contribs) (oppose)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

brenneman

(73/12/2) 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 NURxTURE (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)
  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. 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)
  24. Support --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 12:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. 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)
  26. 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)
  27. Support - Hahnchen 13:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  28. 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
  29. 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)
  30. Support does good work here even if he has a big mouth ;). --a.n.o.n.y.m 14:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support, as last time. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support. Alphax  15:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  33. Strong Support Absolutely. Extremely. Amazing editor. Xoloz 15:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support. He's got my support. Kusonaga 15:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  35. Strongest Possible Support I'm surprised I spoke the exact opposite words during his last rfa. Aaron's always in the trenches, an invaluable voice in a sea of tumult. Add to that his knowledge of the Wiki(the footnotes in the formatting here), and we've got a situation here where we're lucky that he wants to be an admin. Karmafist 16:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support. I've seen much that I like from Aaron. I think he is an intelligent, hard working editor, who cares deeply about our encyclopedia. As do others I have concerns about some of his past actions, but I have confidence he will be a good admin. Paul August ☎ 16:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. What can I say?Voice of All 16:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support. He's shown he's willing to work hard for WP. Chick Bowen 16:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support, Aaron is at least as trustworthy of the mop as most admins I know (this may become my new personal guideline for RfA). Also, his ability to work out a compromise with Tony is admirable. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  40. Very Strong Support One of the best Wikipedians there is.--Alhutch 16:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support, generally level-headed and willing to consider the opposite view, and to change his mind if he's wrong. >Radiant< 17:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. Great work on the Misplaced Pages, and he has a respect for the consensus of the community, which is very important in an administrator. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support. One look at who is opposing this nomination says everything. Why is wikipedia scared of an outspoken editor? I fully support his agitation, even if i don't agree with everything he says. Actually, on reflection, I do agree with everything he says. David D. (Talk) 17:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    What does a 'look at who is opposing' say? Why the need to turn this into some sort of partisan struggle? A quick look at who is supporting tells you that there is no fear of an outspoken editor, and also that there is certainly no cabal at play here. --Doc 17:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 18:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support: good editor. Jonathunder 18:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. His respect for consensus and process pushes my vote into this category. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support - Liberatore(T) 19:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  48. Is this a request for adminship? If it is, I support it. --TantalumTelluride 20:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support pile on.--MONGO 20:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support. What I've seen of him suggested that he was kind and fair. I'm sure he won't abuse the admin tools. AnnH 20:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support Will make a excellent admin --Jaranda 20:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support I have some reservations about this user's past conduct, but won't rehash that here. I'm a big believer in personal evolution, and as he stands now, he deserves a fair shake. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 21:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support - He can get hot under the collar from time to time, but he's got a very well-worked out understanding of policy, and takes a narrow view of admin resposibility, and I think he can be trusted not to misuse admin actions, and would make much positive use of them. Plus, he's a nice guy. --- Charles Stewart 21:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  54. Very Strong Support, Aaron will make a good admin, he's open to discussion, engages with issues and people and cares about the project. I would also add I've always found Aaron to treat me civilly, and I've disagreed with him on issues since he first logged into Misplaced Pages. Steve block talk 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  55. Strong Support FeloniousMonk 21:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support. I'm always a sucker for stories about those that start off on the wrong foot and end up well-loved by all most. Plus he has a cool name, and I'm looking forward to getting tons of admin requests on my talk page that I can't do anything about. --Aaron 22:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  57. Yes indeed. He seems to actually be against wheel warring and abuse of admin tools. We could use more like him, I think. Friday (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. - Haukur 22:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support. Tread lightly. -Splash 23:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. Good editor, unlikely to abuse admin tools.Jayjg 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  61. Strong support. User:Zoe| 00:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support as a good editor, someone very unlikely to abuse admin tools, and impressed by his answer to my questions. Ral315 (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support. -- Dragonfiend 01:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support as good editor/person. Dustimagic *\o/* *\o/* 02:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support innovation is a good thing. --rogerd 02:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support. Knowledgeable and experienced. There's no reason to deny him admin tools. Antandrus (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support - He should change his name legally to Awesome Brenneman. Proto t c 10:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support. — FireFox • T • 14:50, 3 February 2006
  69. Support Who does not have a big mouth on wikipedia?? Mjal 15:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  70. EXTREME WIKIBREAK SUPPORT from the Emerald Isle. I couldn't not vote "aye" on this. Cheers, Aaron, me lad. Blackcap (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support per Geogre, SlimVirgin. — mark ✎ 18:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support: --Ahonc (Talk) 19:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support. Excellent editor, and has all the qualities to make an equally excellent admin. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  74. Strong support - another cliche moment methinks... --Celestianpower 23:09, 3 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)
      • WP:ANI#RFC_against_Tony_Sidayway is a spectacular example. Can you get along with Tony if you have to? - David Gerard 22:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Clearly I don't understand what you mean by "get along". I stand 100% behind every statement I made in that thread. When an editor refuses to stop doing something despite being asked not to be several others, what options are open? I'm also still puzzled by your "lynching" comments. Please see User talk:Aaron Brenneman/RfC draft. - brenneman 23:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I think comments such as "I think that it's a total waste of time as RfC has no teeth" and "Enough is simply enough, and if it takes two weeks to put together a complete and concise history I think that would be time well spent" make it sound as if you're attempting to assemble some kind of prosecution case, rather than communicate with someone--with an editor, moreover, who had only a couple of days before made a patient and conciliatory response to your complaints on WP:AN/I, but asked that you refrain from couching such complaints as personal attacks , and to whom you had replied, curtly and rudely requesting that he "desist" from placing material on your talk page . There is a large gap between your self-perception and reality. You could have taken up the dialog that I initiated at that time, but you refused. Perhaps it is I who should have started the RfC, for it is I who was attempting to communicate with you, and you who were refusing to respond with anything except public yelping. barking. and growling of the type that I quoted in my edit on your talk page. In such cases, as you are aware if you have read the dispute resolution process, a possible next step would be to write up an RfC. --Tony Sidaway 01:03, 3 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)
  5. Oppose per Rdsmith4. Also, why'd you call that reference note "Idiots"? Are you calling us idiots for opposing you? That proves lack of civility even more. Sorry. WikiFanatic 21:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    'Proves'? How? I don't know why he'd called it that, but since the endnote refers to me and I'm managing to assume good faith, perhaps you could try too. --Doc 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    Ohhh, embarrasing. It's David's comment that "idiots" point to, and I simply chose a low-frequency word he'd used. I've changed it to "grit_teeth" to avoid further unintentional offence. - brenneman 22:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - Seen some subtle and some overt signs that this isn't a good idea just yet. -- Netoholic @ 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. You're a good guy and editor, but I don't think just yet, a bit too hot-headed at times. NSLE (T+C) 01:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose-Occasional incivility and pedantry are a problem. Seems to have enormous difficulty accepting opposing viewpoints. His obsession with countering Tony Sidaway looks like compulsion to me and does nothing but divide the community. On a personal note, I didn’t appreciate his appearance on my user page to offer unsolicited advice/analysis of my contributions . I have to assume this was motivated by differences in AfD discussions. Nevertheless, his goal here was intimidation and he then proceeded to shadow my AfD participation culminating in a « fake edit » that he knew would show up on my watchlist. At the same time, tried to drum up support for a combination stalk campaign/rfc against me , . Maybe Tony was away at the time, but this behaviour strikes me as bizarre and unbecoming of a prospective admin. -- JJay 02:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. As per David. I'm thoroughly disappointed that this is bound to pass anyway, but I have to show at least some concern. Ambi 09:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. On reviewing the evidence of obsessive behavior provided by User:JJay, which is new to me, I can no longer support this candidate. He is a good editor, but his bullying of other editors is a cause for serious concern. He openly talks of using the RfC, not as a means of communication, but as a means of intimidation of other editors of whose behavior (though apparently blemishless, at leaast in JJay's case) he disapproves. . --Tony Sidaway 20:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Fine editor, but trying too hard to squash the objecting votes by preparing a detailed, and naturally biased, rebuttal against all criticism of him. While this shows he wants the mop badly, it also shows he might be a bit too eager to settle some old scores if given admin rights. I hope people think seriously about whether Aaron wants to be an admin to improve Misplaced Pages or prove a point to his haters. Harro5 21:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose - Sorry, but some of your past actions trouble me. While I appreciate that you've apologized and hopefully seen the error of your ways, I would prefer to see more time without incident before applying. While we should forgive and forget, this is a bit soon, in my opinion. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose - I'm troubled by his behavior since the Webcomics rfar, which suggests to me poor conflict resolution and difficulty in getting over past conflicts with other editors. I have full faith he's working to improve these skills all the time, I'm just not convinced he's ready for admin responsibilities just yet. InkSplotch 23:39, 3 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)
  1. 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)

Comments

Responses

  • 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)
  • 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)
    I thought the Tony one was bad enough. You don't have to like people, but you do have to be able to work with them - David Gerard 22:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
    There's this really NEAT website called Misplaced Pages that can supply info like when ANZAC day is, perhaps you've heard of it? ... it tells us that ANZAC day is April 25. Hope that helps! ++Lar: t/c 18:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)

Lar is correct, no one wants to hear this, and this isn't the place for it. I'm sorry for the clutter, content has been moved to "Moved from main page". - brenneman 03:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)