I'm pinging the following people, all of whom expressed strong opposition to my first nomination:
brenneman (t) (c) 05:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Has a great deal of (highly justified, in my view) respect in the community for his wise picks (a Durin nominee usually sails through in a hugely lopsided vote, because his nominees are that good) and thoughtful comments on the candidacies of others, IMHO. You'd be well served not just to merely let him know about this, but further, to do some deep thinking on why he opposed you the first time, and address those issues so editors have some assurance they won't continue to be a problem once you assume the mop. The same is true for the others of course but perhaps not as much. HTH. (PS can't believe I got first support in!!! I'm so l337! ++ Lar: t/ c 05:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a most unusual RfA, the most out of process one [1]: I've seen in my short time here so, here goes more advice. Aaron said "If someone is willing to state that it is all my fault than I'll be willing listen."...
To both of you: I'm willing to so state!
When deciding how to respond, take it as the working assumption that it's ALL your fault. Assume NONE of the fault lies with the OTHER party, or at least make your writing look like you believe that even if you know deep in your secret heart of hearts that the other party is the true little shit in this.
That's hard to do but you're both clever, you can do it.
Turn the other cheek. If you're tempted to point out things that will score style points with those of us in the audience moved by clever snippyness or justifiable outrage, or whatever, save it. Put it on your blog or something. But here, make us all think you're assuming good faith about the other guy, and make it convincing.
The facts will speak for themselves, don't worry. And when you're acting for the good of the encyclopedia, as both of you almost always do, you can oppose what you think might not be the right thing to do without being snide about it. Try it. It might not work but what have you got to lose? And save the "but he started it" crap. So what? ++ Lar: t/ c 02:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone propose a solution as sensible as this one tbat doesn't require me to be bloody nice? Damn you Lar. ^_^
How about this: I'll go on voluntary Everyking/Snowpsinner style restrictions, and will cease entirely commenting directly about Tony or Tony's actions in any way. What I'll do is create a subpage, and anything I am fretting over I'll place there (as opposed to my blog!)
Lar, and maybe Doc and Sean or anyone else quasi-neutral, puts this page on their watch list, and serve as an idiot-filter for me.
E.g. I'm concerned about Tony's restoring pages for editing that have been AfD-ed. I put a note on my subpage to the effect of "I'm concerned about Tony's restoring pages for editing that have been AfD-ed, and would like something to go to WP:ANI," and provide diffs with short commentary. Lar (for example) refactors this to ANI. This would have the combined effect of making me get my facts straight first and removing any overly-emotional language. If I know that it's going to be edited out I'm less likely to be smart-arsed to begin with.
I'd like to hope that at some stage before the sun turns into a red giant and fries us all I'll have developed the maturity to not need this, but clearly that time is not now.
brenneman (t) (c) 03:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Aaron, you're making this much too difficult for yourself. This is a method that has been tried many times by myself and other people on Wikipedia, and it usually works:
Try it. It might just work. -- Tony Sidaway 03:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Aaron, you are not in any way required to cater to the hypersensitive. I agree with SlimVirgin. Edit boldly. You should always feel free to ask me or any of your other cronies fellow editors whether we think you're crossing a line. I think that you've struck a fine balance in recent months, and think you should continue to do so.
Nandesuka
05:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
There's quite a bit of back-and-forth here, and I'd encourage anyone interested to read it. But since it's being dealt with better above, won't be added to, and new issues are below, I've moved it to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Aaron Brenneman (second nomination)/Long thread. - brenneman (t) (c) 00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Two people have commented that they felt I was unfair to User:JJay. On review, I could have phrased things a bit better, but at this time feel that my comments and actions were acceptable. I'd welcome discussion on this. If I'm being "intimidating" now, that's a problem that is magnified by adminship. - brenneman (t) (c) 00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I was going to reply to a nasty comment here to get the user to behave a bit better, but wikimarkup+RFA style makes it very hard to find particular comments back when there's a lot of them, at least in your browser. Any suggestions? Or should we make some changes for future RFAs? (Actually I was thinking of helping Aaron set up a different RFA style in future, so that's one solve hopefully. Any other ideas?) Kim Bruning 19:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Given the distorted presentation of my record by Brenneman and some other users here I’d like to try and set the record straight before the end of this RfA. 40% of my total edits have been to AfD discussions- not over 50% or roughly 60%. That may be excessive, but the same could be said for my total participation (+5000 edits) during my four months at wikipedia.
I include deleted edits in my total because I deserve credit for the significant time devoted to RCP. Any admin can verify the hundreds of articles I’ve speedy/copyvio tagged by looking at my deleted edits. The barnstars and thanks [5], [6] I’ve gotten for this may also be excessive. However, unlike Brenneman [7], I enjoy RCP and think all users should do it.
The comments from freakofnurture, Johnleemk and Lar are mischaracterization and deeply insulting. I have nominated 42 articles for deletion (o/w 41 were deleted), or an average of more than 2 per week. I have « voted » to delete hundreds of articles. The overall keep-delete breakdown of my AfD participation has been fairly evenly distributed, with at best a 10-15% advantage on the keep side. Thus Freakofnurture’s statement:
is false and he has no grounds to question my good faith. I would also note that freakofnurture did not seem to mind when I have "voted" delete in his own noms without providing much in the way of explanation [8], [9].
At times I could do a better job of explaining the thinking behind my Afd opinions (and sometimes I have not provided reasons). Nevertheless, the arguments I do make are often effective [10], [11], [12], [13] [14]. Furthermore, the often endless discussions I enter into in these debates, involving sometimes as many as 15 or 20 posts, belie the claims by Johnleemk that I do not « make a case for keeping » [15], [16]. I also devote considerable energy to improving articles while they are on AfD, to the point that the head of the schoolwatch page called me one of the « top, new school article improvers » [17]- even though I am not a member of their group.
I therefore had no interest in discussing my contributions or listening to unfounded criticism from a user with dubious intentions who already knew that I disagreed with his approach [18]. In my view, it was harassment when he repeatedly refused to take the hint that I had no desire to maintain this « conversation » with him. It was harassment when he wrote « I see you've got your back up, which is exactly why I started this ». It was harassment when he threatened wikistalking. It was harassment when he did a fake edit [19] four minutes after I asked him to stop monitoring my contributions [20] (since I had noticed the order of his AfD participation was mirroring my contrib list)- and despite his claim above I see no evidence that « fake edits » are common practice for this user.
As far as I’m concerned, the net intent of all this was intimidation designed to destroy my enthusiasm for participation in wikipedia. Despite what Brenneman thinks, civility was not the issue here. Rather, it was/is a misguided belief that his role is to mold the behaviour of users he disagrees with into a form that he finds acceptable– using any arm at his disposition. This was never his role, not then and I hope not in the future. -- JJay 21:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the hints are painfully obvious. Furthermore, your actions and comments explain your “motives” quite clearly, whether it involves me or other editors. If you want to make a case for having pure motives, start by apologizing for this [21] and for distorting my record-- JJay 01:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
"I can apologise for the insult you bear."????..."I cannot apologise..."sorry for the deep hurt that this appears to have caused you"... Although quite gifted at turning a phrase, you are somewhat less gifted at admitting you are wrong. It also nice to know that you were being frank and honest with Zoe, unlike with me since we clearly never had a "comfortable" relationship, which is why your "concern" for my health and energy was entirely misplaced. Thanks for leaving me alone and good luck in the future. -- JJay 02:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Consider this: it's also possible to be wrong. It's also possible for you to be wrong and to do the wrong thing. It's possible for one of your actions to be wrong, from the get go, without having ever been correct. You are ever ready to admit that you have been "uncivil" or could have "phrased things a bit better", but never that you were wrong. I have yet to see you type a phrase along the lines of: "I was completely out of line"...or "I was so wrong it hurts". This seems to be one of your great failings- admitting and accepting that you are wrong. In fact, you are so utterly convinced of your correctness at all times, that you feel fully entitled to broadcast it and to use this belief as a battering ram.
In the interest of harmony, I accept that you think you are correct but are still sorry. I will assume that it is heartfelt and not an example of you being, to paraphrase your expression, "back in your box" for the length of this RfA. Since you also seem driven to have the last word, please respond, I will no longer post here. -- JJay 03:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm pinging the following people, all of whom expressed strong opposition to my first nomination:
brenneman (t) (c) 05:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Has a great deal of (highly justified, in my view) respect in the community for his wise picks (a Durin nominee usually sails through in a hugely lopsided vote, because his nominees are that good) and thoughtful comments on the candidacies of others, IMHO. You'd be well served not just to merely let him know about this, but further, to do some deep thinking on why he opposed you the first time, and address those issues so editors have some assurance they won't continue to be a problem once you assume the mop. The same is true for the others of course but perhaps not as much. HTH. (PS can't believe I got first support in!!! I'm so l337! ++ Lar: t/ c 05:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a most unusual RfA, the most out of process one [1]: I've seen in my short time here so, here goes more advice. Aaron said "If someone is willing to state that it is all my fault than I'll be willing listen."...
To both of you: I'm willing to so state!
When deciding how to respond, take it as the working assumption that it's ALL your fault. Assume NONE of the fault lies with the OTHER party, or at least make your writing look like you believe that even if you know deep in your secret heart of hearts that the other party is the true little shit in this.
That's hard to do but you're both clever, you can do it.
Turn the other cheek. If you're tempted to point out things that will score style points with those of us in the audience moved by clever snippyness or justifiable outrage, or whatever, save it. Put it on your blog or something. But here, make us all think you're assuming good faith about the other guy, and make it convincing.
The facts will speak for themselves, don't worry. And when you're acting for the good of the encyclopedia, as both of you almost always do, you can oppose what you think might not be the right thing to do without being snide about it. Try it. It might not work but what have you got to lose? And save the "but he started it" crap. So what? ++ Lar: t/ c 02:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone propose a solution as sensible as this one tbat doesn't require me to be bloody nice? Damn you Lar. ^_^
How about this: I'll go on voluntary Everyking/Snowpsinner style restrictions, and will cease entirely commenting directly about Tony or Tony's actions in any way. What I'll do is create a subpage, and anything I am fretting over I'll place there (as opposed to my blog!)
Lar, and maybe Doc and Sean or anyone else quasi-neutral, puts this page on their watch list, and serve as an idiot-filter for me.
E.g. I'm concerned about Tony's restoring pages for editing that have been AfD-ed. I put a note on my subpage to the effect of "I'm concerned about Tony's restoring pages for editing that have been AfD-ed, and would like something to go to WP:ANI," and provide diffs with short commentary. Lar (for example) refactors this to ANI. This would have the combined effect of making me get my facts straight first and removing any overly-emotional language. If I know that it's going to be edited out I'm less likely to be smart-arsed to begin with.
I'd like to hope that at some stage before the sun turns into a red giant and fries us all I'll have developed the maturity to not need this, but clearly that time is not now.
brenneman (t) (c) 03:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Aaron, you're making this much too difficult for yourself. This is a method that has been tried many times by myself and other people on Wikipedia, and it usually works:
Try it. It might just work. -- Tony Sidaway 03:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Aaron, you are not in any way required to cater to the hypersensitive. I agree with SlimVirgin. Edit boldly. You should always feel free to ask me or any of your other cronies fellow editors whether we think you're crossing a line. I think that you've struck a fine balance in recent months, and think you should continue to do so.
Nandesuka
05:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
There's quite a bit of back-and-forth here, and I'd encourage anyone interested to read it. But since it's being dealt with better above, won't be added to, and new issues are below, I've moved it to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Aaron Brenneman (second nomination)/Long thread. - brenneman (t) (c) 00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Two people have commented that they felt I was unfair to User:JJay. On review, I could have phrased things a bit better, but at this time feel that my comments and actions were acceptable. I'd welcome discussion on this. If I'm being "intimidating" now, that's a problem that is magnified by adminship. - brenneman (t) (c) 00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I was going to reply to a nasty comment here to get the user to behave a bit better, but wikimarkup+RFA style makes it very hard to find particular comments back when there's a lot of them, at least in your browser. Any suggestions? Or should we make some changes for future RFAs? (Actually I was thinking of helping Aaron set up a different RFA style in future, so that's one solve hopefully. Any other ideas?) Kim Bruning 19:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Given the distorted presentation of my record by Brenneman and some other users here I’d like to try and set the record straight before the end of this RfA. 40% of my total edits have been to AfD discussions- not over 50% or roughly 60%. That may be excessive, but the same could be said for my total participation (+5000 edits) during my four months at wikipedia.
I include deleted edits in my total because I deserve credit for the significant time devoted to RCP. Any admin can verify the hundreds of articles I’ve speedy/copyvio tagged by looking at my deleted edits. The barnstars and thanks [5], [6] I’ve gotten for this may also be excessive. However, unlike Brenneman [7], I enjoy RCP and think all users should do it.
The comments from freakofnurture, Johnleemk and Lar are mischaracterization and deeply insulting. I have nominated 42 articles for deletion (o/w 41 were deleted), or an average of more than 2 per week. I have « voted » to delete hundreds of articles. The overall keep-delete breakdown of my AfD participation has been fairly evenly distributed, with at best a 10-15% advantage on the keep side. Thus Freakofnurture’s statement:
is false and he has no grounds to question my good faith. I would also note that freakofnurture did not seem to mind when I have "voted" delete in his own noms without providing much in the way of explanation [8], [9].
At times I could do a better job of explaining the thinking behind my Afd opinions (and sometimes I have not provided reasons). Nevertheless, the arguments I do make are often effective [10], [11], [12], [13] [14]. Furthermore, the often endless discussions I enter into in these debates, involving sometimes as many as 15 or 20 posts, belie the claims by Johnleemk that I do not « make a case for keeping » [15], [16]. I also devote considerable energy to improving articles while they are on AfD, to the point that the head of the schoolwatch page called me one of the « top, new school article improvers » [17]- even though I am not a member of their group.
I therefore had no interest in discussing my contributions or listening to unfounded criticism from a user with dubious intentions who already knew that I disagreed with his approach [18]. In my view, it was harassment when he repeatedly refused to take the hint that I had no desire to maintain this « conversation » with him. It was harassment when he wrote « I see you've got your back up, which is exactly why I started this ». It was harassment when he threatened wikistalking. It was harassment when he did a fake edit [19] four minutes after I asked him to stop monitoring my contributions [20] (since I had noticed the order of his AfD participation was mirroring my contrib list)- and despite his claim above I see no evidence that « fake edits » are common practice for this user.
As far as I’m concerned, the net intent of all this was intimidation designed to destroy my enthusiasm for participation in wikipedia. Despite what Brenneman thinks, civility was not the issue here. Rather, it was/is a misguided belief that his role is to mold the behaviour of users he disagrees with into a form that he finds acceptable– using any arm at his disposition. This was never his role, not then and I hope not in the future. -- JJay 21:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the hints are painfully obvious. Furthermore, your actions and comments explain your “motives” quite clearly, whether it involves me or other editors. If you want to make a case for having pure motives, start by apologizing for this [21] and for distorting my record-- JJay 01:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
"I can apologise for the insult you bear."????..."I cannot apologise..."sorry for the deep hurt that this appears to have caused you"... Although quite gifted at turning a phrase, you are somewhat less gifted at admitting you are wrong. It also nice to know that you were being frank and honest with Zoe, unlike with me since we clearly never had a "comfortable" relationship, which is why your "concern" for my health and energy was entirely misplaced. Thanks for leaving me alone and good luck in the future. -- JJay 02:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Consider this: it's also possible to be wrong. It's also possible for you to be wrong and to do the wrong thing. It's possible for one of your actions to be wrong, from the get go, without having ever been correct. You are ever ready to admit that you have been "uncivil" or could have "phrased things a bit better", but never that you were wrong. I have yet to see you type a phrase along the lines of: "I was completely out of line"...or "I was so wrong it hurts". This seems to be one of your great failings- admitting and accepting that you are wrong. In fact, you are so utterly convinced of your correctness at all times, that you feel fully entitled to broadcast it and to use this belief as a battering ram.
In the interest of harmony, I accept that you think you are correct but are still sorry. I will assume that it is heartfelt and not an example of you being, to paraphrase your expression, "back in your box" for the length of this RfA. Since you also seem driven to have the last word, please respond, I will no longer post here. -- JJay 03:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)