Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Aaron Brenneman 2

message: I'm pinging the following people, all of whom expressed strong opposition to my first nomination:
:User:Nicodemus75 Respecting note on user's talk page.
:User:Durin 
:User:Kelly Martin 
:User:Karmafist 
:User:Cool Cat 
brenneman(t)(c) 05:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, upon receiving two messages on the 8th regarding emails asking to oppose, I sent four emails notifying of the existance of this page to individuals I hade had positive interactions with but who were not "cronies".  But even though I tried to be even-handed, I don't have the stomache for it, so I won't be doing any more of that.brenneman(t)(c) 21:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sir Spam-a-lot 

message: This is a most unusual RfA, the most out of process one: 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)
replies: text: For the record, this is basically "assume good faith" and "no personal attacks" on steroids... ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Aaron, my proposal is that you respond without fear or favor the way any other admin responds to policy violations by any editor, admin, or arbitrator, end of story. And that otherwise, you make no deals. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim has a point, it's actually a more robust approach. However, I'm down with giving your idea a try... with the proviso that I may have to ask you for clarity before refactoring it for you, and with the other proviso that I can't promise I'll always get to it right away, there's this pesky work thing and all... Prolly best if Tony doesn't reply there of course. PS: what is it with you and buggers anyway? You're making me nervous, or quasi, or something. ++Lar: t/c 03:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, whatever you need, I'm here. Just give me a buzz.--Sean Black (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Tony, my request to you is that you stop posting to this page. You've made your point several times, and everyone has read your posts. This page isn't about your dispute, but about Aaron's nomination, and the two issues are unconnected. Please let go of the former until the latter is resolved. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not entirely unconnected, but yes. The broader issue can be handled elsewhere.--Sean Black (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tony is just one person. He has voted and commented. The community is now voting and commenting. He has to stop trying to influence the outcome unduly. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if he's (deliberately) trying to sway the outcome in any way...but you are correct, Slim.--Sean Black (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: True, but should he feel concerned about something, he could obviously ask someone else, myself included, for assistance. But that's not at all unique to Aaron.--Sean Black (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see what's the problem with Tony's well-given advice. Aaron clearly exhibitted these actions in several of his conversations, and its a problem when someone is attemptting a comprimise or a civil conversation. One of the most important aspects of being an admin is acceptting critisim, not blowing a chap off, and not allowing your petty differences to interfere with the expansion of the encyclopedia.  I don't deny Tony may have a beef with Aaron, but the advice is in good-faith and factually correct. My opinon of the situation is Aaron's failing to accept these qualms and take the advice depicts a troublesome foreshadowing when he gains access to a block button. This may change, but as of now, its not currently feasible. You're welcome to prove me wrong Mr.brenneman. -ZeroTalk 07:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony gave his advice several times. Aaron has recieved it, and, I believe, acted upon it. We already voiced our opoinins on the main page, we don't need to do it here.--Sean Black (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point to recieve and act upon it was before the nomination. Its not considered taking advice accurately (in my opinion) becuase he's in the middle of rfa. So its perfectly feasible he'll be on his best behavior and accept critisism. The time to fix this problem and depict he's climed a new hilltop really should have occured before this nomination. I look at the behavior pattern depicted prior to the rfa, not during it. Its akin to being watched by the police, or being under probation - of course you'll be on your best behavior. Furthurmore, Tony continues to bring the point up because its very important. It is a very important factor in a person's admistrative analysis.-ZeroTalk 08:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK sure. But those of us supporting think that he has overcome his issues or that they won't be a big deal. To be frank, it's not anyone's (except Aaron himself) responsibility to "fix" his incivilty, and I think we should just let the nomination run it's course. These issues can be discussed in other, more appropriate venues, and it seems that both of them are eager to do so.--Sean Black (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're simply dealing with a matter of opinion on that point. Whilst I humbly respect your opinion, I believe with good reason that a person who cannot keep their cool and perservere through difficult conversation, let alone be approchable is quite a big deal indeed. And we're on the same avenue regarding the discussion in other places regarding this- why wasn't these issues discussed before the rfa...? Why not file a rfc to get constructive critisim in preperarion..? Why not ask conflicting sides their opinion on his improvement..? I mean not to assume bad faith Mr.Brenneman, but this is exceeedly troublesome for me. Fixing and discussing issues in the course of an rfa is (for lack of words) half-assed. -ZeroTalk 12:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aaron and Tony 

message: 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)
replies: text: Aaron, my proposal is that you respond without fear or favor the way any other admin responds to policy violations by any editor, admin, or arbitrator, end of story. And that otherwise, you make no deals. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim has a point, it's actually a more robust approach. However, I'm down with giving your idea a try... with the proviso that I may have to ask you for clarity before refactoring it for you, and with the other proviso that I can't promise I'll always get to it right away, there's this pesky work thing and all... Prolly best if Tony doesn't reply there of course. PS: what is it with you and buggers anyway? You're making me nervous, or quasi, or something. ++Lar: t/c 03:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, whatever you need, I'm here. Just give me a buzz.--Sean Black (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Tony, my request to you is that you stop posting to this page. You've made your point several times, and everyone has read your posts. This page isn't about your dispute, but about Aaron's nomination, and the two issues are unconnected. Please let go of the former until the latter is resolved. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not entirely unconnected, but yes. The broader issue can be handled elsewhere.--Sean Black (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tony is just one person. He has voted and commented. The community is now voting and commenting. He has to stop trying to influence the outcome unduly. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if he's (deliberately) trying to sway the outcome in any way...but you are correct, Slim.--Sean Black (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: True, but should he feel concerned about something, he could obviously ask someone else, myself included, for assistance. But that's not at all unique to Aaron.--Sean Black (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see what's the problem with Tony's well-given advice. Aaron clearly exhibitted these actions in several of his conversations, and its a problem when someone is attemptting a comprimise or a civil conversation. One of the most important aspects of being an admin is acceptting critisim, not blowing a chap off, and not allowing your petty differences to interfere with the expansion of the encyclopedia.  I don't deny Tony may have a beef with Aaron, but the advice is in good-faith and factually correct. My opinon of the situation is Aaron's failing to accept these qualms and take the advice depicts a troublesome foreshadowing when he gains access to a block button. This may change, but as of now, its not currently feasible. You're welcome to prove me wrong Mr.brenneman. -ZeroTalk 07:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony gave his advice several times. Aaron has recieved it, and, I believe, acted upon it. We already voiced our opoinins on the main page, we don't need to do it here.--Sean Black (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point to recieve and act upon it was before the nomination. Its not considered taking advice accurately (in my opinion) becuase he's in the middle of rfa. So its perfectly feasible he'll be on his best behavior and accept critisism. The time to fix this problem and depict he's climed a new hilltop really should have occured before this nomination. I look at the behavior pattern depicted prior to the rfa, not during it. Its akin to being watched by the police, or being under probation - of course you'll be on your best behavior. Furthurmore, Tony continues to bring the point up because its very important. It is a very important factor in a person's admistrative analysis.-ZeroTalk 08:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK sure. But those of us supporting think that he has overcome his issues or that they won't be a big deal. To be frank, it's not anyone's (except Aaron himself) responsibility to "fix" his incivilty, and I think we should just let the nomination run it's course. These issues can be discussed in other, more appropriate venues, and it seems that both of them are eager to do so.--Sean Black (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're simply dealing with a matter of opinion on that point. Whilst I humbly respect your opinion, I believe with good reason that a person who cannot keep their cool and perservere through difficult conversation, let alone be approchable is quite a big deal indeed. And we're on the same avenue regarding the discussion in other places regarding this- why wasn't these issues discussed before the rfa...? Why not file a rfc to get constructive critisim in preperarion..? Why not ask conflicting sides their opinion on his improvement..? I mean not to assume bad faith Mr.Brenneman, but this is exceeedly troublesome for me. Fixing and discussing issues in the course of an rfa is (for lack of words) half-assed. -ZeroTalk 12:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bugger 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Moved from main page 

message: 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)
replies: text: Insert shameless plug for User:Linuxbeak/RFA Reform/Adminship nominee discussion. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even better: insert shameless plug for Wikipedia talk:Discussions for adminship! - brenneman(t)(c) 00:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who, specifically, is this the user? El_C 04:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brenny, I'd presume.--Sean Black (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So pink... Must resist click-ing... Never presume, it lessens from the comedic quality (which the comedic quality? Exactly.) El_C 05:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see. Makes perfect sense.--Sean Black (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikimarkup