Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aaron Brenneman (second nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] brenneman

(110/30/7) ending 05:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC) [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aaron Brenneman (second nomination)|action=edit}} Have your say here]

I've refactored the normal nomination page to my pleasure. This is a good indication of what you could expect from me if promoted. Oppose recommendations based on this refactoring are fair enough, I reckon.

Aaron Brenneman (talk · contribs) — (RfA 1) — (ArbCom • Workshop • Withdrawn)

I've been editing since 5 July 2005. My first edit was to a talk page, and not much has changed. I've got circa 7000 edits (plus eleven bad-faith ones)^[1] and about 30% are to talk. I believe in communication, and I think that the only way the community can scale is if we talk a lot.

Re: Sysop chores Rollback would be handy, as I want to avoid RSI when removing spam and bulk vandalism. Page protection is an area that I'd be interested in that I can't do now. I often see a "hands off" approach where a page is simply protected, left for a while, and unprotected. Sometimes this works, but I'd take a more active role in attempting to get the contributors working together. Blocking is something I'd certainly end up doing, but I'd be concerned about anyone who said that they wanted to block users. I close AfDs now, and have in the past closed some other than "unanimous keeps", but would like to be able to close "deletes" as well. I'd be interpreting the closer as having a wide mandate, and eschewing anything resembling vote counting.^[2]

Re: Contributions The work in changing "Vote for Undeletion" into Deletion review was a good one. It involved passionate discussion from people with divergent ideas that resulted in something useful. Very wiki! Forming Notability (websites) was another big one, although I can't claim any credit for the current form,^[3] I worked long and hard to make its predecessor relevant and effective. About a third of my contributions ar to article space. I make stubs sometimes,^[4] do a bit of clean-up,^[5] and I've never had an article featured.^[6]

Re: Conflicts I've had a few users take exception to my stance regarding Citing sources, verifiability, and external links. In most cases I think that I handled it well ^[7] but there's always room for improvement. The most recent example of a "conflict" that gave me any stress was over WP:WEB. I still believe that my approach was appropriate, and that my attempts to head the problems off were in good faith, which is why I had stress over being taken to ArbCom.^[8]

That being said, I've really only had one real conflict, and that one has been public and ongoing. More of a "clash" than a "conflict". I'm doing my best with it, and still suffer occasional lapses of sizzling incivility. It's pretty well contained, and I cannot imagine that I'd abuse my admin powers in relation to it.

Re: Adminship overall Accountability is paramount. If promoted I will open a "Use of administrator privileges" RfC on my three month anniversary and any time after that if five editors requested me to do so. If I'm doing the job right, for every irritated problem user there will be five happy good faith contributors. But if the community loses trust, stepping down should be even less of a big deal than being promoted.

Thanks for taking the time to read all that.
brenneman^(t)(c) 04:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Notes

1. ^  See IgnoreAllRules (talk • contribs) and my statement.
2. ^  The easiest way to see what I mean would be examples. If permission from the closing admin is given, I'm happy to say what I would have done and why for any AfD that get placed here:
   • Closed as no consensus
   • Closed as keep
   • Closed as delete
3. ^  I would like to extend Aaron credit for not only inspiring the current form of Notability (websites), but also playing a major part in bringing it to guideline status. The current form would not exist without Aaron's contributions. Hiding talk 21:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
4. ^  Some stubs I've created:
   • Operation Amethyst
   • Mainstreams of Modern Art
   • Gardner's Art Through the Ages
   • Archie McPhee
5. ^  Some recent examples of clean-up:
   • Oil paint, clean-up
   • Democracy & Nature, clean-up I'm pretty proud of this one, it stopped a long-running edit war
   • Gouache, clean-up
   • H. Kramer and Company, clean-up
   • Brian Curtin clean-up
6. ^  Here are the articles I'd like to make FAs, though.
   • Bystander effect
   • Oil paint
   • Infantilism
7. ^  Examples of conflicts. Some of these are long, I tend to be prolix.
   • User:OrbitOne (contribs) — Talk:Sissy baby, User talk:OrbitOne
   • User:Davy Blue (contribs) — Talk:ABDL, Talk:Infantilism/Archive 1, User talk:Davy Blue
   • User:Treelovinhippie (contribs) — AFD:Revision3 Studios (2), User talk:Treelovinhippie
8. ^  While I stand by my actions regarding WP:WEB and Snowspinner, my statement regarding the outcome is genuine, as the scope of the Arbitration widened beyond Webcomics.

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 ^(talk) 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^(t)(c) 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^{(?!? - help us)} 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 06:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Pilatus 06:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Support--Duk 06:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
8. OMFG don't oppose, are you kidding? — 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 Wikipedia 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 ^ask? 09:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Please see 10 my remarks to fudd labled "wheel_war" below while I go figure out how to make two footnotes point to the same place. - brenneman^(t)(c) 09:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Argh, I got the number wrong! - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:05, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia as it is now, he also wants to help create a better Wikipedia for the future.

    -- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 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 ^t 14:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
31. Support, as last time. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. Alphax ^τεχ 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^T|@|ESP 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 Wikipedia, 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 ^ask? 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 ^(talk) 20:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
51. Support Will make a excellent admin --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 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^(talk) 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 Wikipedia. Hiding 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^talk 23:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
60. Support. Good editor, unlikely to abuse admin tools.Jayjg ^(talk) 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
61. Strong support. User:Zoe|^(talk) 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/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\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 ^háblame 23:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
75. Support. Karmafist put it well; WP is fortunate Brenneman wants to be an admin. He is well qualified: a good contributor, he has experience, a knowledge of policy and norms few may claim to equal (even among admins), thoughtfulness, a natural ability to listen and consider other points-of-view (and not, as is too often the case, the better to rebut them, but too actually understand what the other guy really thinks), and the willingness to reach out and try to find solutions or compromises. This has led to many improvements in those areas that he has involved himself. Sees and admits mistakes. Is passionate about the project. His troubles, such as they are, seem to have stemmed in the past (on his part) from a quick temper: I agree with Splash's caution, but also with Sjakkalle's opinion that this is much improved. I do not see a good reason to oppose this request, but much to support it. Regards ENCEPHALON 00:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
76. All we are saying, is give Aaron a chance. Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
77. I'm very disappointed by the factionalism I'm seeing here. It was sort of to be expected, but it's clear how the people piling on supports are those from the faction that, er, oppose the faction opposing. (Karmafist, Geogre, SlimVirgin, et al vs Tony Sidaway, Phil Sandifer, David Gerard, Ambi, et al.) Brenneman can be rough and rude at times, but this is often no worse than some of the things I've consistently seen from Tony and Phil. I think the people from both factions are really great guys, but this RfA just reeks of factionalism to me (though I'm not sure how the lines are drawn -- it's something to do with Kelly Martin or admin actions, I'd presume). Oh, and sorry for hijacking your RfA as a soapbox, brenneman. I'm sure any good you'll do as an admin will outweigh any bads. (And if you start acting like an ass with the mop and bucket, I'll be the first to try to get you desysoped. :p) Johnleemk | Talk 05:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    I'm not seeing any "factionalizing" here at all. Personally, there isn't anyone you mentioned that I don't like as a person, editor, admin, or anything else, even if I don't always agree with them. Whether or not they like me is something different, though :).--Sean Black ^(talk) 05:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    Problem is, I've seen many of the people opposing and supporting in the same group when it comes to other divisive things -- the constant Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway "admin abuse" scandals are an excellent example. I'm not ascribing ulterior motives to anyone, but I am quite worried that this RfA indicates cracks in the community (because, really, I think brenneman and Tony/Phil have more in common than anyone might think). We seem to be moving to a more partisan future, IMO. Johnleemk | Talk 06:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    The factionalism may be in the eye of the beholder in this case. I can think of one recent issue where Geogre and I have expressed views on the same "side," and none where Karmafist and I have done so (not saying there aren't any; just that I can't think of one). I support Aaron because I've had nothing but good experiences with him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    Agreed.--Sean Black ^(talk) 06:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    Agreed too, although a lot of the opposers here are old, experienced wikipedians. which worries me more than slightly. Aaron, what else have you been up to that I've missed? ;-) Kim Bruning 13:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    Oh I would like to think that this is nonsense--Aaron is a very good editor and fully worthy of the respect of all other editors. I loathe factionalism and would love to support Aaron for a position that I think he could use very well. While I have personal reservations, I can see the point of the many, many people who have decided to entrust Aaron with the mop and broom. I am not aware of being a member of any faction, and if anyone has voted "opppose" out of some misplaced sense of loyalty to myself or to some faction that they imagine I represent, or for any other factional reason unrelated to the undeniably deep disagreements between Aaron and myself, I urge them to think for themselves and evaluate this excellent editor for themselves. --Tony Sidaway 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

78. Support Aaron is one of those users that inspires strong feelings, largely because in turn he's passionate himself. Sometimes he could stand to temper his comments, but then who couldn't? Regardless, I hope he'll take this particular critique to heart -- administrating is no easy task, and pushing an administrator button usually causes a large target to appear on one's backside. But the bottom line is that Aaron has been a tireless contributor who cares about Wikipedia. Does he hold some views that are heretical to some in the establishment (deletion comes to mind)? Probably. But opinions are no crime. The only question that's left, then, his dedication clearly established, is whether he'll act properly in regards to his new buttons. I have no reason to think he won't be responsible with his new privileges. That he's clashed with other people is no reason to deny such a serious and long-time contributor, when we routinely hand the keys over to people because they're good vandal fighters. I have no doubt he'll be a good addition. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 06:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
79. Support, because I honestly thought he was one already. Mo0[talk] 08:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
80. Brilliant Support --Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 13:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
81. Support per above.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
82. Support I find his acknowledgement of his own mistakes and his desire to improve both mature and admirable. No one is perfect, but few are those who are willing to grow in spite of that. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 17:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
83. Support -- seems like a nice person. Thumbelina 21:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
84. Support, with a hope that this will hit WP:100. Stifle 01:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
85. Support --Ugur Basak 02:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
86. Support.Dannycas 02:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
87. SuperBowl Sunday Support Image:SuperBowlXL.png εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
88. Support. Ramallite ^(talk) 23:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
89. Support. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
90. Support. That he doesn't bother with faux niceities isn't necessarily a bad thing. -R. fiend 08:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
91. Support ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
92. Support as above Smallbones 10:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
93. Support as above Slrubenstein | Talk 10:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
94. support I think his adminship will be a good thing for the wiki. Brokenfrog 15:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
95. support per arbitration comments. Very classy. --SarekOfVulcan 23:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
96. w00t have fun writing the thank you notes... Sasquatch t|c 01:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
97. Support. -Will Beback 02:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
98. Support I'll be the first I haven't always agreed with him but I think he'd make a good administrator. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
99. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
100. Support Aaron Brenneman is ready for adminshipTim | meep in my general direction 18:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

     It's WP:100 time!!!--Alhutch 19:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

101. Support. PJM 18:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
102. Support. Sure, helpful editor; would make a good resource as an admin. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
103. Support. No big deal. James James 05:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
104. Support Ready to be an admin. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 06:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
105. Support I see no major problem.--Jusjih 08:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
106. Support. Fuck politeness, lets concentrate on writing the damn encyclopedia! jni 09:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
107. Support. --Fang Aili 15:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
108. Support. I think he's ready. -Ravedave 20:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
109. Support Funny how the list of those who oppose this nomination is mostly filled with the names of those who I would vote to step into a pit filled with an extremely sticky substance and lots of broken glass. Hmmm - wonder what that means? Denni ☯ 00:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
110. Support May the power be with you! --FloNight 04:12, 9 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 Wikipedia, 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)
   • ^[9] - brenneman^(t)(c) 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^(t)(c) 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 [10], and to whom you had replied, curtly and rudely requesting that he "desist" from placing material on your talk page [11]. 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. Strong 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^Talk 12:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   I switched to strong oppose now as I just don't think Aaron gets it. Comments such as "Oh, and while I'm here, do you really think that raising an RfC for JJay will do any good?" and componding it with "Sigh. No wikistalking, eh? That means I'll have to do something useful like write an article or something crazy like that." are extremely provacative and unbecoming of our coummunity's admins. Also the canidate's failure to duscuss the aspects of his behavior before the rfa instead of during its course depict he hasn't learned anything. -Zero^Talk 17:38, 5 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 ^ask? 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^(t)(c) 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 [12] 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 [13]. 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 » [14] 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 [15], [16]. 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)
    • ^[17] - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:36, 4 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 Wikipedia or prove a point to his haters. Harro5 21:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • See, I saw that and said "Wow, there's someone who is taking concerns expressed by others seriously, and responding to them in a comprehensive, thoughtful, and civil manner." Nandesuka 02:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    A user will be on his best behavior in the middle of an rfa, despite his past demeanor of feelings. "...Taking concerns expressed by others seriously, and responding to them in a comprehensive, thoughtful, and civil manner" indeed! -Zero^Talk 00:56, 5 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^(talk) 23:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Obsessive and annoying busybody behavior is bad enough; obsessive and annoying busybody behavior enabled by admin tools? Uh uh. --Calton | Talk 02:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose - I have a nagging bad feeling about this candidate. Too often, his personality has struck me as agressive or abrassive. His user page contains a box of "nervous" users linked to occult, and at least some of these editors Aaron has evidently had significant conflicts with. The findings in the Webcomics RFAr, especially [18], are too negative and too recent for my taste. Looking at his recent contributions, I don't have any smoking guns, but there is still a lot of what I percieve as veiled hostility towards some users, e.g. Tony, and apparent frustrations with the culture of Wikipedia. Aaron also seems to have a strong tendency to do things his own way. In the distant past that manifested as unannounced changes to deletion policy, and more recently by applying his own style to RFA and RFC. This isn't necessarily bad, but I worry that he hasn't matured as an editor to the point that he would avoid being disruptive in the process. Altogether, I can't really say that he won't be a good admin, and I certainly do believe his heart is in the right place, but I can't shake my sense of uneasiness about this nom, so I am opposing. In many ways, I think this is a shame because there are a number of times where I can recall agreeing with comments and opinions Aaron has offered in the past. Sadly, the last time I felt like this, the RFA succeeded anyway and a few months later sysophood was revoked by ArbCom. If this succeeds, and it certainly looks like it might, I certainly hope that Aaron manages to control his behavior and avoids a similar fate. If this fails, I would be happy to reconsider given several more months of good behavior. Dragons flight 02:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose. There have been too many valid concerns raised by oppose voters. I just get a bad feeling that this would be an ArbCom case waiting to happen. Perhaps I could support in a few months, if the level of conflict died down. Carbonite | Talk 18:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose It is my policy to vote in opposition when a candidate speaks so vociferously in his/her favor during his/her RfA on his/her RfA page or any talk page. --M@thwiz2020 20:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose per all of the above, especially the Webcomics thing. And while that was some time ago, I didn't have to go back far at all (Feb. 1st!) to find this, which, while redacted quickly, shows a major failure to grasp WP:CIVIL. Admins should be a role model to other Wikpedians, IMO, and Aaron is not quite there yet. I did like the answers to the questions he gave however, and commend him for those. Turnstep 21:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    If this were a crappy TV show about a murder trial, that diff would be the moment where the gallery rocks back with a collectivel, "Oh!!!!" That is the biggest mark against the candidate presented in this RfA, and it was a couple of days ago. Harro5 03:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

    Odd, then, how Kim supported. Johnleemk | Talk 04:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

    That's one for the wikipedia outtakes and bloopers section. If you *really* search through peoples edit histories, you'll be horrified to see much more of that ;-). What I actually saw ,however, after [19][20], was [21]. At which point I made a civil reply. Kim Bruning 18:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

    Agreed. Handling such "bloopers" gracefully (which Aaron generally does) is a good administrator skill. --Tony Sidaway 21:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

    Switching to nuetral for now. See below. Turnstep 04:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

18. Oppose strongly for reasons of incivility toward others. Silensor 00:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose. Aaron would rather throw his weight around any any questionable article rather than dealing with it in a gentle manner. He's right of course, or he would abstain. So, when he's sure that our policies will back him up well then he goes for the jugular. His insensitivity is not lacking, his nurturing however is lacking maturity. I believe that our Admins should be more than "traffic cops". I believe that they should provide guidance to the well-meaning users that cross their path. I also believe that Aaron will be promoted in this round, my comments are designed to capture his attention in an area that could be improved. hydnjo talk 06:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC) - Changing my vote from oppose to Neutral. hydnjo talk 03:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

19. Oppose Aaron has civility issues... perhaps if he could manage to calm down a bit maybe then i'd support in the future... but per everyone else here I dont think thats going to happen.  ALKIVAR™ 15:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose. The edits I've seen have generally been of very high quality. However, since brenneman was so recently admonished by the ArbCom for not respecting consensus, and for acting uncivilly under pressure, I cannot support at this time. I would gladly support a future nomination once the impact of this RFAR is not so recent. --bainer (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose. An ArbCom admonishment asking the candidate to be "respectful of consensus in creating and altering Wikipedia policy" isn't the best way to encourage people to trust him with adminship. I also think Dragons flight's assessment above is right on the money in regard to other issues that affect Brenneman's suitability for being an admin at this point in time. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 00:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose. I fear brenneman is a loose cannon, and while he could be very very good as an admin, he could also be a lot of trouble.-gadfium 01:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose.Diversify.Pschemp | ^Talk 06:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Change to neutral.

    Relatively weak oppose based on civility issues. I've only had one serious disagreement with Aaron before and managed to avoid a fight over it, but, while I agree with Aaron about 56.442% (roughly) vis à vis the whole Tony Sidaway issue, I can't condone his conduct during the course of their far-reaching dispute (which has, on more than one occasion, resulted in disruption of the Project). On a relatively unrelated issue, while I don't mind refactoring pages, especially not when you let people know up front, this refactoring doesn't work so well, since when you try to click on one of Aaron's responses (reference #17 as of this writing), it goes to the bottom of the page, and gives no indication as to which note at the bottom of the page you're being directed to.  :-p Tomer^talk 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC) going neutral for now, pending outcome of bright light in discussion regarding resolution to the Tony thing. Tomer^talk 05:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

23. Oppose. Absolutely not.--Nicodemus75 21:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

    Note This vote should probably be discounted. Nicodemus has left the project and only seems to have returned to vote [22]. When I welcomed him back, I was met only with a nasty personal attack on myself and Brenneman [23]. --Doc ^ask? 08:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

    MARMOT voted on RfAs before being banned, and his opposes/supports were counted. WikiFanatic 00:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

    I'm not going to argue - if one vote matters, the 'crat can make the call. --Doc ^ask? 00:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

24. Oppose. No. Mackensen (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose due to unreconcilable differences with this candidate's philosophy. — Phil Welch 00:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose, not suitable for adminship. Bahn Mi 00:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
27. Oppose too controversial -lethe ^{talk +} 06:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
28. Oppose. Incivility issues concern me. I would support a future nomination if the candidate is able to show improvement in this area. —Wayward ^Talk 08:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
29. Oppose. Argumentative and needlessly condescending. Rhobite 04:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
30. Slight oppose, too much potential for trouble. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely an excellent chap to be having a drink with, but still oppose after reading thru this page. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 23:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Äh, scrap that. Neutral. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I like Aaron, and think he's done a hell of a lot of Wikipedia, 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)
   • ^[24] - brenneman^(t)(c) 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^Talk|@ 12:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
   • ^[25] - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral for now, hopefully the Tony squabble sorts itself out by the deadline... Tomer^talk 05:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral. I see hope in Tony's comments above. Pschemp | ^Talk 19:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral, --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral. I have stricken my oppose vote in favor of this position. hydnjo talk 03:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Nuetral. While I still have concerns over civility, I have been very impressed with some of this user's recent actions and discussions, and feel they would overall be a positive to Wikipedia. Turnstep 04:53, 9 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 Wikipedia, 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. (Forgot to sign. That was from me. Geogre 14:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
• DYK that <ref> might help with your numbering of footnotes?... -Splash^talk 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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^(t)(c) 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^(t)(c) 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)

• ^  I've created a spot where this can be discussed: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Aaron Brenneman (second nomination)#JJay. I've also asked a mediator to briefly examine my conduct.
• ^  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^(t)(c) 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^(t)(c) 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 Wikipedia 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^(t)(c) 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^(t)(c) 03:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.