User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Archives/12

Welcome back!
I noticed your signing over at Footnotes ArbCom, so I just wanted to say it's good to see you've returned. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! - brenneman  02:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes Aaron. Welcome back. Glad to see you're still with us. &mdash; Maggot Syn 08:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

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

zOMG Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 05:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Glad you're back
I'm not around so much at the moment for obvious and non-obvious reasons, but if you need a hand on anything, drop me a note. Don't expect a response, but just keep me in mind. May you live in interesting times. Hiding T 12:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. I've undergone a name-change since last we spoke. That may confuse things somewhat. Hiding T 12:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that offer, it means a lot to me. And I, ahh, got the memo. ^_^  brenneman  00:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


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


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

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

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

History
You said it's "19:59, 24 January 2006" all over again. What happened then? I guess there should be a way to find out what edit or action was done at that time without knowing the page, but I'm drawing a blank. Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect it is this, where our host was admonished for removing the words "if in doubt, don't delete" from the deletion policy. Seems things have gone full circle. Risker (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I hope he sticks around. We need more of what Tony likes to call Pot Stirrers. I'm glad someone respected stood up and told ArbCom that. I mostly blame Doc Glasgow for perpetuating the BLP hysteria with his absurd essay. I think the only thing that can be done is to fight like hell to amend WP:BLP with restrictions to keep the discretionary part of that decision from getting out of control. Hypothetically, there is nothing ArbCom could do if say a reversal of their decision was codified into the actual policy, but I suspect that will be a tough row to hoe. Oh, it is somewhat interesting to note that about that same time in 2006 Kelly Martin speedy'd everything in Template:[Uu]ser.* namespace, thus triggering the great userbox war of 2006. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * *slaps self* I'm on a twelve step program to stop myself talking in koans but it does not appear to be having much affect. I was actually referring to the last time that I was around and ArbCom demostrated that they had a slightly inflated sense of thier own importance.  My favorite quotes from that debacle was "we (the committe) do not need your approval."


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


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


 * We need a governing body like we need a hole on the head. We "need" an extra noticeboard, forms, and regulations about them because this kind of wanking is easier than writing articles.  While I was away things appear to have gotten somewhat worse with respect to how entrenched the hierachy is. So here's my action plan to give the system an enema:
 * Become active at Requests for adminship &mdash; Too many cockie-cutter admins leads to rot. Having reviewed the trends, we appear to be picking people who can tick boxes.
 * Become a fez-wearing clerk. &mdash; This both gives me more grist for the mill and stops people saying things like "quit kvetching and get to work."
 * Build a good picture of the problem that ArbCom is supposed to solve &mdash; Right now it's largely a solution in search of a problem.


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


 * brenneman 01:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I know you were on Tony's talk page, but did you see my link to User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft? Might be some useful ideas there, plus comments on the talk page from a sitting arbitrator and a former arbitrator. It seems the committee had internal discussions, but nothing much happened that we ever heard of. Carcharoth (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You know it and I know it, but please forgive my momentary bout of madness and don't let anyone else know it. If you ever see me edit that page again, please feel free to blank my comments, point me to this dicussion, and I'll write "I'm a drama addict" 100 times at the top of my user page.
 * To adress the actual meat of your comment, I had been looking for that exact link but couldn't recall who had started it and googling "request for comment arbitration commitee" was unhelpful. Thank you.
 * brenneman 02:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's because you misspelled "committe". ;-)  Risker (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * By all means, it sounds like an excellent strategy. If you haven't already, you might want to check out C68-FM-SV as I suspect you might find it sheds some light on what is currently going on. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

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


 * It's been tried before, and I suspect any repeat attempt will be overwhelmed by debate over the technicalities of such an RFC rather than the substance of the matter.
 * You could, I suppose, go for an RFC/U on me; there's a reasonable (in my mind, anyways) case to be made that I'm significantly responsible for the Committee's adoption of general remedies, given that I wrote and/or proposed the bulk of them. But, admittedly, putting my head on a pike might not be as satisfying as doing it to the entire Committee. ;-) Kirill (prof) 19:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * brenneman 01:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


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

Voteing
It is, and we'll never. However, one thing I try to keep in mind is that it's a vote - but it's a vote where your vote can have a major influence. You know how one good oppose will totally derail an RfA, no matter how many supports were before it? Tan  |   39  01:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, to be frank, isn't the purpose of a good oppose? I wouldn't take the time spout off if I didn't actually want the person to (for lack of a better word) fail.  I actually take the time to examine a candidate's history.  It takes some work, but look at the timestamps of request for adminship regulars, and you'll see some who appear to read through 1000's of edits within a few minutes before delivering chain-gun 'Supports.  I'm note sure if I'm responding to the thrust of your message, and if I'm not please let me know.  brenneman  01:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think you misinterpreted. I was agreeing with you that in the end, the RfA is a vote. I was merely commenting that there's an additional parameter of being able to sway other voters with your own commentary. My message wasn't supposed to be anything other than a wry comment - Tan   |   39  14:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, rather than commenting in the edit summaries, I'd encourage you to answer the survey questions of the RFA Review, found here. the plan is to do an intensive and comprehensive study/evaluation/overhaul of RFA, and every comment helps. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 01:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Goodness... The plan is to email a bunch of people with a long list of questions? What's the percieved advantage of the previous on-wiki surveys?  Anyway, I've previously been active (b, a) in the "reform" area, but that's not my plan right now. -  brenneman  01:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We're asking as many people as possible to give their impressions of the process, then later - based on what the community as a whole views RFA as - we'll ask for recommendations on how to fix it. It's mroe than a straw poll, this time - it seems like it has a good chance of getting something done. If you participate, great, if not - no problem. Based on the above, it's clear you have thoughts on the process that might be of value, which is why I mentioned it. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 01:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"[L]ow level of Wikipedia namespace edits..."
S;

I'm having a good think, and that comment of yours caught my eye. Since I give you credit for having (>= 1/2) a brain, I'd like to pick it: There is no evidence that we can teach the ability to work collegially, or to create content. I think we can teach policy. Is there some reason that we shouldn't promote people who don't yet know chapter and verse? I can think of some, but I want to hear your views first. brenneman 01:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as a preface, I don't think that creating content is a requirement for adminship. But that's not the point, I suspect.
 * As we know, there is a fairly large gulf with few steps in between autoconfirmed user and sysop. Sysops gain a lot of tools at once when the crat flicks the switch. I am not, as such, comfortable with relying on an after-the-fact approach to teaching policies to new admins (plus the fact that it's too bloody hard to get rid of bad ones) so I look for 500+ contribs to Wikipedia namespace to show that there is at least a basic amount of work on policy pages/AFDs/etc. I wouldn't expect someone to know chapter and verse (although I would expect that someone could look up the answer to ~90% of policy questions, but I'm not going to go and test that because I have a life). I just need to see that the candidate has done at least some meta-work on the project before they go blocking and/or deleting.
 * If it were possible I would check for contributions to AFDs, AIV, etc., and I do check deleted contributions (for good speedy nominations) when I get a chance, because those are the places where I'm expecting admin candidates to have cut their teeth. But there are already people who sift through candidates' histories looking for reasons to oppose, and I hope I don't become one of them.
 * Feel free to follow up on this — I can't claim to be right all the time, or even most of the time, and I value your opinion. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that response. I find it mostly in line with my thoughts, so some bare-bones responses:
 * [F]ew steps [from] autoconfirmed user [to] sysop... [they] gain a lot of tools at once
 * Ok, if we were to fractionalise the tools, what are the most "dangerous" ones?
 * Protections is benign, ability to edit protected pages is not.
 * Deletion is benign, resotration *cough* BLP *cough* is not. Viewing deleted pages?  Not sure.
 * Blocking is nuc-u-lar.
 * How about an intermediate level, then? Give the 'less dangerous" tools to the lower level?  Problems with mechanics, etc, yes I know.  But we're already handing out rollback.
 * Which is as easy to take away as to give... hmm, nice segue.
 * [To]o bloody hard to get rid of bad ones
 * The community decides to award the bit but can't take it away? Odd.
 * I believe that there is close to a critical mass of admins who would support some process.
 * It should not involve Arbcom.
 * [L]ooking for reasons to oppose
 * Ouch. Lucky I just supported someone then!  But you're right, it's trial by fire.
 * Maybe #2 would ease that?
 * Thank again
 * brenneman 01:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty much agree with all that.
 * I don't think it's disputed that RFA is the worst possible process for turning people into sysops, except for all the other ones that have been proposed, and that since adminship is allegedly not a big deal, removing it should not be a big deal either. However, getting agreement on how to change it all seems nigh-on impossible.
 * Splitting the tools might perhaps be more helpful. Rollback was implemented rather stealthily but worked surprisingly well. It's marked as a perennial proposal though, and the last attempt was opposed.
 * So if we were to have "half-sysops" (working title), and assuming they're needed, what would they be able to do?
 * Good ideas:
 * Delete pages
 * Protect pages (but maybe not cascading)
 * Rollback
 * Avoid the account creation limit
 * Bad ideas:
 * Block
 * Undelete
 * View deleted revisions (more or less equivalent to undeleting really since they can just c/p the deleted version, and it comes with the added effect of GFDL-compliance issues)
 * Unprotect
 * Edit protected pages
 * What else do we do as sysops anyway? Stifle (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This thread shows why it would be a bad idea to give out the "view deleted revisions" right to more people... Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 15:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's another reason why it's a bad idea. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's another reason why it's a bad idea. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


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

On that note...
I noticed in one of the above threads that you mentioned something along these lines. As you'll notice from the link, I'm all for a proposal of this kind. Drop by my talk if you're actually headed in that direction. &mdash; Maggot Syn 01:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee goes live. &mdash; Maggot Syn 02:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

tsk, tsk...
This made me laugh! I would issue a civility warning but a) you know how well those work and b) I can't figure out who exactly you were being less than civil to. ++Lar: t/c 00:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was trying to balance outrage with bemusement. I'm logging off now, though, since the one is threatening to overtake the other. - brenneman  01:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Been wondering where you were at =). It would have been interesting to hear your opinions on the who June ArbCom Announcements fiasco... --Dragon695 (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO, other drama going on does not mean that the arbcom should drop everything else and refuse to accept new cases, especially such as this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * well said Aaron (and Lar) - I just wanted to add a small note of support from someone trying his best to sit on his hands as much as possible. Despite my long held, and reasonably well known, opinion that the whole arbcom shebang is utterly unfit for purpose, I sincerely had higher expectations than watching things unfold in the last few days. Re Matt - of course you should drop everything! This tide is getting your feet wet, regardless of whether you accept it or not - please don't try the crisis? what crisis? line, the community (and the individuals named in all current debacles) deserve much, much better. Start by urging all of your fellow arbs to begin posting 'on-wiki' immediately, and re-engaging with the community - and preferably lead by example! It's the least you can do. Privatemusings (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC) ...pours tea, sits back on hands, wonders how best to drink tea?
 * That, sir, is a slur on the memory of Jim Callaghan! *wipes away tear* Mackensen (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The IRC thing
With reference to this comment, I may be misremembering the exact sequence of things (this new signature is playing havoc with my hormones) but I think the Committee may already have sorted out the IRC conduct thing to the satisfaction of all concerned--that is to say, that those who wished to be happy with the result were happy, whilst those who wished to feel grumpy about the fact that nobody got their gonads stir-fried were not denied that solace. I think I remember something like that happening a couple of months ago. --Jenny 12:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, why in heaven's name would you think that this had been sorted? Has anyone seen the Arbitration Committee do what they said they were going to do and come out with a Committee statement on IRC? Risker (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Oh, I see...hormone problems...


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


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


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

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

Stop
Please don;t edit the proposed decision again. Thatcher 02:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it was a good edit - in content and in spirit. It's certainly not worth escalating anything about - but I think you did the right thing. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. - brenneman  04:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Naval lint?
Lovely allusions there, I truly enjoyed the deck chair reference. And of course, the edit following was precious in its own right, although for some reason, on my screen it is an excess of purple, not blue. I suppose that means the monitor needs fine tuning again. Risker (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I love that you think the problem is you, as opposed to my defective cones and rods.
 * 2) Your last few comments here have made me even more certain that giving you the bit was a mistake. Cheeky monkey.
 * brenneman 06:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's only because I go elsewhere to have philosophical debates. You haven't seen me in my full glory yet. And the problem isn't me, it's the bloody technology. ;-) Risker (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Doing as it says on the tin
I saw that you deleted the article on Abongo Obama.

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

Is the article as it was gone forever?

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

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

Regards,--Utahredrock (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not gone forever, it remains in the history (even if its deleted). If you want to know how to check for how many times something has been deleted, click history, then view logs. This one is for Abongo, and this one is for Malik. &mdash; Maggot Syn 05:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you SM. Also, in most cases you can get the contents of a deleted article (to assist with re-writing it) by asking a random admin. -  brenneman  06:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Your still not as active as you once were, so I thought I'd at least make the obvious response for you. &mdash; Maggot Syn 06:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Surely
As closing Admin, unless your opinion has changed, surely the best thing to do is speedy the thing. It's a blatant A4. If the proponents disagreed, there is no reason they couldn't have done a WP:DRV. Nfitz (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you're right. I'm struggling against the technology to express myself tonight, so I am probably repeating myself...
 * It is a 98.75% repost. BUT
 * That .25% are sources, AND
 * They didn't get introduced until later.

Now we could (and "should" according to established patterns) proceed by:
 * Deleting this,
 * Opening debate at DRV, and
 * Probably having someone host it in userspace for a couple of days.

But since we're already doing those second and third things, and since the major participants are probably less blase about deletion that you and I, I consider that the cost of deviating this time from how we normally do it is outweighed by the value of giving a newcomer a sligthly more gentle introduction into having your article deleted.
 * brenneman 07:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


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

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

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

Is there a normal process here?

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

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

Any thoughts?

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

Cheers,

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

Update
Tvoz resolved this, at least for the moment. She removed the merge tag. I can only hope that will end it.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still unconvinced that an omnibus Family of BO' article would not be the best solution. Not quite saying yet I'm convinced it is, but leaning that way.  Still looking at this and having a think. -  brenneman  00:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Will you be the closing editor of the current Abongo debate? How are closing editors chosen?--Utahredrock (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I've taken part in the debate, so it would be inappropiate for me to make the judgment on what rough censenus was. I think that outright deletion would be an inappropiate call at this point, but another admin may feel differently.  He'd need to provide a very careful defence of that decision in his statement, though.  There's no selection process for who does the deciding, it's random. -  brenneman  02:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You're being spammed (per your Malik AfD comment:
"Stop being so binary, you mob What's the problem we're here trying to solve? Someone has content that they are willing to add, are willing to find sources for, etc. That's a good thing and should be encouraged. We also have some standards about what constitutes an article, which is also a good thing. Rather than locking into delete/keep mentality, why don't we try to solve the actual problem. Merging into Obama family has been mooted, but there appears to be some slight precedent against articles of that nature. However, consensus can change, and a well written article at User:Utahredrock/Obama family would have a good chance at deletion review, and I'd be willing to be spammed to take part in any discussion there. - brenneman 00:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC))"to take part in precisely this discussion! (Here.) $\sim$ Justmeherenow     21:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, thank you for the update. - brenneman  06:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Wanking/Arbitration Committee/Requests for arbitration:C68-FM-SV
Just so you're aware someone's created this abuse page has been created in your user space. BigHairRef | Talk 04:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, is it the word "wanking" in the title that's maybe put you off? Are you sneakily trying to advertise the page to a wider audience?  I'm confused...   brenneman  04:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems I am a terrible villain, sorry to have interrupted your thoughts Aaron. It's just another Huggler doing new page patrol, this is why I hate tools assisted editing.  People ought to think first. Do you mind taking the CSD tag off?  Risker (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ack. I'm mostly going back to what I was doing, ok? ^_^  brenneman  04:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

because you might be interested
and maybe have 10 bucks spare and a charitable mindset? I'd be tickled pink to get to $150, which can do some pretty serious good in the world... and per my offer - I'm still matching donations..... can I tempt you? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're stalking me,arent' you? - brenneman  06:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

16:36, 31 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Thebainer‎ (→Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision: new section) 16:38, 31 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jpgordon‎ (→Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision: new section) 16:40, 31 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Deskana‎ (→Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision: new section)
 * actually I'm stalking them.. but don't tell :-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that makes me feel better for being stalker-free or worse for not making the cut... brenneman  06:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, you still have to contend with me (when I happen to show up, that is). Risker (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * well I think both of you should put your money where my mouth is..! ah go on.... In other news... now I see that Aaron part of 'Blocked historical users' I might have to hang out here to work out why (and what that is anyway!) Privatemusings (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC) I suspect it's the company which provides the attraction... :-)
 * I have no idea what most of that post means, PM, but I have already put my money where my mouth is...I predicted nothing would come of that arbcom, and it looks like I am way ahead on points there. Nothing will be settled in this case until they close the private SV/Lar case, which will then determine what happens with this one.  Risker (talk) 07:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

<- the money comment was concerning this offer (from the thread title), Risk - and the 'blocked historical users' is a category Aaron seems to be in for some reason! You're right though... I rarely make sense! Privatemusings (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC) still encouraging people to sign up to donate some money to Unicef if the arb.s can finish the case by the middle of the month - give it some thought!

Come back in a week...

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

G'day Aaron....
I wonder if you're at all interested a) in a quick voice chat via Skype and b) broadcasting your erudite philosophies (and any dirty jokes you might know) via. an interview as part of 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly' - which is a grassroots version of our more established cousin's over at Wikipedia Weekly. Let me know what you reckon! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ook. What is this 'skype of which you speak?  Oh oh OH!  Pretty pictures, brenneman like!  Uh?  Need bandwidth? Poo.  brenneman  01:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * it's surprisingly good with little bandwidth actually! - if I can tempt you into giving it a go, it'd be cool to catch up... I'll even bring a banana. :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking
I've lifted your block of User:RegenerateThis. It does not seem to me like you are an appropriate person to issue that block, and I'd rather see a block of a long-time contributor like Tony done completely above the board. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to inform me that you've ublocked your oldest wiki-mate, after you'd done so, and without using the forum on ANI that I've created for discussing it. - brenneman  00:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, come now. I have way older wiki-mates than Tony. And I don't read AN/I if I can possibly avoid it. Which, generally, I find I can. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Your stance on Wikipedia concepts such as "concensus" and "admin responsibility" is utterly transparent to me.  Please do not comment any further on this matter here, Phil, but use the appropiate ANI forum. -  brenneman  00:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


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

On wiki mates and nemeses
I remember trying to mediate the dispute between you and Tony years ago, when he was an admin and few thought it possible you could pass RfA (we showed them!) —how the tables have turned— but I am a bit concerned that you were the one who issued the block, because of the history between you two. So, Tony blocked by oldest wiki-nemsis, unblocked by oldest wiki-mate. Looks like an ordinary day on the wiki to me! El_C 02:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aaron, I agree with El C that you shouldn't have made that block; in fact, I think no one should have, because Tony was arguably just telling the truth. We need to get beyond taking action when people use the occasional curse word; there are too many blocks nowadays for relatively trivial civility violations, and few to none for the major ones, such as trolling and stalking (which are often done terribly politely). SlimVirgin  talk| edits 03:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

brenneman 04:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, in fairness it has been years (plural) since I've seen anything, though at the time it was pronounced. El_C 04:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, but the thing is, that even though it had been years since the last episode of the Tony and Aaron Show, you two started butting heads pretty soon after you came back. So, in a way, it's like the show is still going on. In many ways, even if there were a rather-long period of relative calm, some editors (myself included) would prefer to watch actual collaboration between you two before considering the feud ended. (Can't you two get an article to FA or something?) So, it would be advisable if you allowed other users to block him if the need arises again, which let's hope it doesn't. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 07:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Blocked
historical Since you shouldn't have performed the block on your old nemesis and since I haven't had the chance to block you for like ages now...this is long overdue. Next time, get someone who does not have a past history with the subject....oh, and I also disagree with the block...its just Tony being Tony. --MONGO 01:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot believe that I still fall for that every time: The initial shock, the rush of blood to the head, the *facepalm* as I glance down to see the sig. Every time.  This is the wikipedia version of the "is my brother smarter than a hamster" experiment, isn't it?  brenneman  06:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on my talk page

 * Moved to rejoin thread at User talk:Beamathan

User:Gene Poole
You have sided with Gene. No I haven't got my knikers in a twist but the fact is there is a policy for assuming good faith, don't be uncivil and no personal attacks inwhich Gene did not one not twice but three or four times and has been blocked for those policies above but now it seems ok to break those and I don't want to be part of a project inwhich it's ok to call people stupid and idiots. I did what you said which was to take the issue to Gene and after that I've got my right to respond but it seems ok to leave there UNCIVIL comments up. Other editors will see your comment and think that they now can call other editors stupid and idiot and the Admin's will wonder WTF they did wrong once it gets out of control. Bidgee (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * First, thank you for bringing this here, I am very pleased to be able to talk about this more.
 * Second, I did not handle this well. No, that's too kind: I made a total mess of this.


 * In the real world, when someone is rude we tend to either ignore it (if you're English) or pull them up on it at once (if you're American or Australian). Things don't happen that quickly here, and often there is no clear resolution.  When you brought your initial concern to the administrator's noticeboard, moving it to Gene's talk was (I still believe) an appropiate step.  Just dumping it there without making any further comment was not.


 * I can easily see, in retrospect, that this gave the impression that it beneath my notice. This was not my intention.


 * When the conversation at Gene's talk went south, my response was correct in substance but totally ineffectual in style. Yes, the best thing to do in the first instance was for you to talk to Gene directly.  Once that didn't work the best thing for you to have done was stop looking at Gene's page and go back to editting somewhere that you enjoyed.


 * But I'd forgotten how hard it is to walk away from a bad situation, to ignore someone who is sinking the boot into you. I was curt and dismissive and I gave no credit at all to your desire for resolution.  At this stage all I can offer is my apology, an assurance that I'll try to learn from this, and my services as a wiki-slave on an article of your choice.


 * Thank you again for taking the time to come back to my page, and for the opportunity to attempt to make amends.


 * brenneman 00:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Temple Institute
I looked at the web site and the material you removed doesn't seem on its face to be an exact or near copy of the Institute's website. Am I wrong? I know some editors recently added some material which seemed to unduly reflect an Institute viewpoint and some was modified and some removed -- perhaps not enough -- but I didn't see this as a copyvio situation. Best --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that note. I've left a brief reply at Talk:The_Temple_Institute. -  brenneman  07:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

got 20 mins spare?
I've pestered Lar about this previously - and am very glad Sam Korn took a look too..... we're almost at the 'lets make a decision' stage - maybe you're the chap for the task? questions etc. most welcome - it's by no means an easy one, but your help would be appreciated... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking now. - brenneman  07:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * wow! that's service! thanks! Privatemusings (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC) by the way, your collapsible box makes you appear for just an instant when this page loads.... it has the effect of a sort of subliminal wink - funky!
 * Ayy-yi. I'm not sure that I agree with the policy as it stands, but it's pretty clear.  Commented thusly at AN. -  brenneman  07:26, 23 July 2008

removed comment
oh. well it must have been some weird editing conflict thing, I didn't delete any comments, it must have been editing weirdness. 71.100.11.23 (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: I'm reviewing a block of yours
Hi. Thanks for letting me know. I have read the discussion and would be very happy for you to take over. Looking at the user's history this is obviously an ongoing problem and previous longish blocks don't seem to have had much effect. This latest one may hopefully help to provide an incentive for them to engage with you and work towards a long term solution. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: The "Hi I don't like you" block

 * Rejoined thread at User talk:GlassCobra

Re: Block
Make the block on Kuban if you want. But, by now, I would assume that too much time has passed and it would be considered punitive. I just saw 3 Rv's from Kuban and I wasn't even sure the first was a real rv. And he's always complained in the past how he hasn't broken 3RR and it's just caused more hassle than it's worth for me. So, go ahead if you wish. I'd probably support it if he's still reverting somewhere. Thanks for your note. Scarian Call me Pat!  10:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother. There is an update here. Same story, nothing new. --Hillock65 (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sir

 * Moved to rejoin thread at User talk:Haiduc
 * Sorry, Brenneman, you were off base before and you continue to be off base in your response to my criticism. First, you misrepresent my edit in order to attack it. Then, when I specify the reason for my concern with your behavior you "back away" from your previous generalized apology?! Sounds to me like you are defending a fragile ego, my good man. Not a good use of your position here. You "cannot accept a suggestion"??? You cannot see the polemical and dishonest tone of your own edit when pointed out to you in a collegial and collaborative tone??? My comment a "spectacularly unfounded" smear tactic??? "Nothing else to discuss"??? Spend some time looking into a mirror, my friend. This thing has gone to your head and you are embarrassing yourself. An admin who oversteps his bounds is one thing. An admin who oversteps his bounds and then cannot acknowledge his mistake and shifts into attack and defend posture is quite another matter. Haiduc (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Needlessly hostile, with a whole lot of inflammatory and very little substance; i.e. "polemical" (strike that "dishonest") because...? El_C 11:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

cheap shot?
Who is that directed to? less than three hundred year old words used to describe 3000 year old civilizations seems like a modern concept to me. ThuranX (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Argh... I was agreeing with you. But if it's not clear, I'll redact. -  brenneman  04:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, no, i thought you were. no need to redact, just wanted to be sure. ThuranX (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Your bad manners at the Pederasty article

 * Crossposted message removed, duplicated from Talk:Pederasty. Replied on User talk:Haiduc.
 * Re-joined thread back at H's talk
 * Re-joined thread at H's talk again. Replies here will continue to be moved there. 

Oops! He Did It Again
It's my new hobby: I check a book out of the library to follow up on Haiduc's quoting or paraphrasing of it, and nearly every time, I discover that he's more or less completely fabricating-by-cherrypicking. Nandesuka (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: A personal note
Hi Aaron, thanks for the note. I think I owe you an apology, because I've let my temper get to me, and it's shown in some of my comments. I'm going to try to concentrate on finding good sources, and let the discussion be based on that.

Just to let you know where I'm coming from, I have a strong interest in the classical world, especially ancient Greece--and there, pederasty was the normative form of male homosexuality. So I don't find the claim it was normative in other times and places all that surprising.

I don't edit in areas relating to sexuality all that often, but there was one pretty horrible episode at Homosexuality in ancient Greece with a disruptive editor that involved massive sockpuppetry and an eventual death threat--an obviously false one, but it was still a distressing episode. So maybe I'm a bit sensitive about this topic area.

Like I said, I'll concentrate on finding good sources, and we should both end up happy with the results. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci's personal life
Any thoughts on this? Nandesuka (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Being overly nosy, I think the word you are looking for here is "fork" and this article needs to be merged back into the real one. One has to wonder about a 22Kb article that starts off with "Little is known about his personal life... "   Risker (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just traced the article's history back to its creation, and now retroactively understand why I seem to have stepped into a sticky situation.  Risker, any advice you have on how to proceed would be welcome. Nandesuka (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I just peeked at the first version of the article and my heart sank. My gut instinct is to figure out how much of what is there now is already in the main article, and then figure out if the remainder is 1/properly sourced and 2/relevant. A quick once-over indicates most of the salient points are already in the main article, but it needs a closer examination to be certain. If more than 75% of this article is in the main article, then it is a clear and obvious candidate for merging, and as a first step that should probably be proposed if for no other reason than to take things step by step. It may eventually need to go to AfD as as a POV fork, but one can hope the issue can be resolved before that point. I'm going to be away for a few days so probably won't have much of a chance to help out until early next week, but I am going to keep my eye on this. Oh, one more suggestion; try not to work on too many articles that have the same problems in common, it will depress you and (let's be honest) isn't as much fun as working on something you're really interested in. Make sure you get some really enjoyable editing in too, along with the challenging stuff.  Risker (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Ah, the joy of using this new skin (Modern, I think?) is that the orange bar of distraction has been reduced to a very-ignorable blue one tucked into the corner. While you two were chatting here I was making a section on the article talk proposing a merge-back. That's twice that "parallel though" thing has happened, one more and we qualify for the "meatpuppet" merit badge. - brenneman  05:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Objection to merge RE: Leonardo

 * Moved to Talk:Leonardo da Vinci's personal life

Royalmate1/Guestbook
Sorry I had no idea you couldnt have those, I work on a different wikia sometimes and it has different rules. Royalmate1 01:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the sig tip
The whole red-background thing did come out more excessive than I had wanted. I ended up using a slightly-modified version of the one you suggested. Not as spartan as yours, but definitely a sight more moderate than the glaring one I was using. Thanks for the kind words :D  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 14:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

re: "removed threaeded comment"

 * Hi, I just undid  this edit, since I'm not sure how you can delete someone else's comments. Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 07:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Like I stated on 22:14, 31 July 2008, I've called it quits (which is why posts that legitimiately supported or opposed or even were neutral on the matter were archived). If there is ever a consensus on it, then that'll be a miraculous day indeed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the RFC Elonka talkpage
What was that...? It's standard to keep a venue where people can post comments on a contested deletion, and others can find them—as opposed, you know, to needing to bounce about between various user talkpages and spreading the issue thin. Thank you for your invitation to re-create the talkpage without consulting you, anyway. My pet admin has taken advantage of it, with a note to Thebainer. Best wishes. (Down, Bishzilla! The nice man won't try that again!) Bishonen | talk 08:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC).
 * Thank you for the note. My thinking was roughly "while I'm not in agreement with the deletion, let's at least be tidy."  I agree about split debate, but at the time I was convinced that the substantative discussion was occuring elsewhere.  In the light of the new day I'm unclear why I thought this and where I thought it was.  I suspect I had the talk page open in two tabs so I was looking at one while deleting the other... Stop by my talk more often, by the way! ^_^  brenneman  00:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ['Zilla chew thoughtfully on Aaron leg. ] Aah, Aussie good, 'Zilla stop by often! Where ketchup?    bishzilla     ROA R R! !    09:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

Recall
Originally posted in reply to your thread at user talk:Elonka.

And this is a good reason why I refused to sign up to be included on the list of administrators open to recall. Any editor with a grudge can find others who may hold similar grudges and slam dunk an administrator back to RfA. Take for instance a case where an administrator is mediating in a hotly contested article between two distinct factions. One side opposes the direction the case is going (one side always opposes more than the other), and in the heat of the moment, says that they want to recall the mediator -- also an administrator -- because of abuse of administrative tools or possible future abuse (e.g. "threatening to use the buttons").

In this case, which has happened to me as an example, the mediator gets tag teamed. Mass e-mails go out on the backend, posts are made on various web-sites, phone calls are made, and a campaign is started against you to bring any possible charge that may hold. All they need is one administrator who agrees, and the mediator could be sanctioned. At worse, if they can get enough to stack up against the mediator, and the mediator is on the list, then they could be recalled. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  01:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is also why I won't join the category. I would stand down if someone I trusted told me it was time to do so but I can't imagine ever joining the recall category. It's too open to misuse by people holding grudges and behind the scenes political movements, both of which have played a prominent role in Elonka's case. Sarah 02:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I must respectfully disagree, as my (practical) experiance with the category is at odd with these (theoretical) anecdotes. I have never pulled back from controversy, and I'm currently recall free.  Dispite the fact that I spend half my time practically begging for it.


 * Since I have not looked into the matter, to date I have stayed well clear of commenting directly on Elonka. However, if the suggestion is that this illustrates a failure in the recall process, I suppose I should go click on a couple of hundred diffs now...


 * brenneman 02:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Leonardo
brenneman, do you have to be so tactless? I left a message on YOUR talk page that told you my specific reasons for not wanting the pages merged. The reasons that I gave you were likely to provoke another editor, if they were placed on the talk page of the article. That is why I communicated with you directly! Moving my comments to the page without dicussing it with me was inappropriate. If I intended my comments to be discussed by anyone except yourself, then I would have placed them on that page in the first place. Please think before you act. Amandajm (talk) 07:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, writing your name in black instead of using four tildes is an inconvenience to other users. Amandajm (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ouch.
 * We were operating from different expectations regarding privacy: It never occured to me that you'd use my talk page for something that you considered semi-private, as opposed to sending me an e-mail. I did not intend to be rash or tactless, and I'm terribly sorry to have given offence.
 * I actually do use four tildas, the mediawiki software just writes my name in black when I do so. I've used that signature for quite some time, and I think that this is the first complaint I've received.  It may be a display setting that's different for you, but for me my name is underlined and is in fact almost the same colour as a "normal" signature.  If you'll explain to me more how it's a problem for you I'm happy to talk about changing it.
 * brenneman 07:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please revert yourself.

 * Rejoined thread at User talk:ThuranX

Anchoring (NLP)
Hi. I note that you have removed the contents of Anchoring (NLP) and redirected it back to Neuro-linguistic programming. I'm all for ridding the encyclopedia of the sub pages devoted to this subject but I am relatively new to editing controversial topics and don't want to make the mistakes of many editors past. I don't understand how it is OK for an admin like yourself just to remove the contents and redirect, rather than go through the afd process like Rapport (NLP), Strategy (NLP) and Modeling (NLP) are doing so at the moment? Hoping you can enlighten me. Best wishes Poltair (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason that a redirect doesn't need to go through any kind of consensus-building is that anyone can make a redirect (WP:REDIRECT) and conversely anyone can reverse a redirect. So it's not an adminstrative action.  It's not always a non-controversial action either, but hope springs eternal in the human breast.  brenneman  00:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, this seems to be my big night!
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page (at least I hope it's vandalism and not a random IP propositioning me). You're the second reverter so far. Who knows how many will show up as the night wears on. I'm not inclined to protect quite yet, as there may be a "honeypot" element involved. And no, I don't mean I am the honeypot, I mean my user page is...

In any case, thanks! Risker (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Your threat
You are welcome to submit the matter to whomever you please, though I find it hard to believe that you will choose an impartial arbitrator and your action therefore is meaningless. If you really want arbitration, YOU go to arbcom and start an action. Remember what I told you before - if this comes to arbitration, I will not allow you to be in control. I meant that.

When this does come to arbitration, as obviously it must sooner or later, I will be pleased to submit evidence that both you and Nandesuka are loose cannons. You specifically have been heavy handed and abusive, with me and with at least two other editors, Akhilleus and with Jeffpw, who was emotionally fragile and is now dead. Nandesuka lies consistently and predictably (I count so far three major lies, without even trying), a matter that needed to be exposed on the Leonardo page since he was engaging in disruptive behavior in his exchanges with Amandajm, who felt he was misrepresenting her arguments. Haiduc (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleated Files
Aaron, you don't know me. I got your name from the admin list. I've uploaded two photos that I need to be deleted. The formatting was all wrong and they're just wasting file space. The first one is and the second one is. There is another image here, but please don't delete that one. Can you help? Also, is there anyway to check that the picture is how you want it before you upload it? I cropped a photo, saved it, uploaded it, and it was a tiny picture in the top left of the frame. Dharma6662000 (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I've got little to no idea about uploads, sorry. -  brenneman  05:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you miss this?
Oh, don't tell me you missed this ? Bishonen | talk 12:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Guy's mental image of GII "dropping his load" will carry my through an otherwise grey day. ^_^


 * Mirth aside, while I do not find "Stifle was trolling" to be outside the bounds of normal discourse...
 * I would have said it differently than G did, and
 * I am open to debate that it was rude.
 * Once I accept that a reasonable person could find it even mildly rude, then GWH's chain of logic is defensible within the current structure. He has simply taken a very rigid interpretation of a terribly thought out "remedy."  Horrible decision, altogether too binary, but *shrug* it's not him, it's the system.  Ok, maybe a little bit him but mostly the system.


 * I'm pleased to see the ArbCom's responses all around. Wearing my "if I were an ArbCom, Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum" hat...


 * Reject. The underlying issue is the not civility sanction itself, but the civility policy.  It's outside the remit of this commitee to make policy, but I'd strongly support changes to the existing sanction. -  brenneman  01:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal
I am already extended past my interest zone in even looking at these articles; I really don't want them in my user-space. Nandesuka (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Argh, sorry, that was a quasi-random choice. - brenneman  05:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

My Roman ways
Are caught. D'oh. rootology ( C )( T ) 05:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nocturnalsleeper
I've been following this and tried to persuade User:FT2 not to block him. He is a good editor and up against some real cranks. Peter Damian (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet still son of....
See also Theban pederasty and its talk page. I bet you didn't know that if editors disagree with you, it's a "gang bang." Nandesuka (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: You may want to update this
FWIW, You may want to update this, although the author is now incommunicado. You may recognise the similar webpage as she did mine after I got hopelessly tangled up in code...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please advise
regarding this. Nandesuka (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such)for Science related articles
Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ?

User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)."

We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Wikipedia bureaucracy ? Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Help me!
Hi there. I have this problem that I've register the user name as Penulis at Wikipedia Malay version but I can't register to Wikipedia in the English version and the user Penulis in wikipedia English version does even exist. Can you help me with that. I will check you discussion page again later. 60.50.169.223 (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Your Hat!
Where is it? You'll need it to throw it in. In a week's time! - Mailer Diablo 09:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A question
Hey, not sure if you are right person, but you are admin so I will ask you. Can you please do something about Montenegrin related articles on Wikipedia. On every page Serbs edit it and put "Serbian" language, even though official language is Montenegrin, and not Serbian. Can you please help us, as there is no limit of Serbian aggression, even on Wikipedia. And it will show that Wikipedia respects every country constitution. Thanks for reading, I hope I will get answer from you.

Best regards, Rave92

Rave92 (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:VANISH
You probably don't know me, but I am exercising my right to vanish. As a result, do you mind deleting all the pages here except for:
 * User:Ilikepie2221/RfA review
 * All the userboxes
 * User:Ilikepie2221/sandbox/Article

Also, would you mind deleting my talk page, but keeping the archives? Also, Thank you for your kindness in advance. Pie is good  (Apple is the best)  02:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for opinion
Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down few lines on 'Allegations of Human Rights violation against the Indian Army' under 'criticism of the operation' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP & WP:V, the summary of dispute can be found at. I would request you to kindly go through the article and please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that npov, balance and undue weight concerns may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)