User talk:Bidgee/Requests for comment/Aaron Brenneman

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

Please note : This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:


 * protecting and unprotecting pages
 * deleting and undeleting pages
 * blocking and unblocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Requests for comment/Example user.



Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this administrator's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

Desired outcome
''This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.''

By rasing this I hope that full honest apology for the handling of the whole saga, wrongful block and their behaviour is given by Aaron Brednneman. My block log to be annotated by Aaron Brednneman stating that the block was wrongfully done (links in block logs are useless as how many people copy/past and read the link?) and Aaron Brenneman should recall himself to allow other editors to see whether he should continue to have the Admin tools or not. Bidgee (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''

Sequence of events
Full times and dates can be seen here since this summary would be longer if added.
 * I removed content which wasn't supported for the sources cited for the first time on 11 December, after noticing the edits on the article in the recent changes list. had done the same removal before I tried to get the article into a good state (never got to do so due to the SPA's)
 * also removed the Julian Assange addition (twice) which was added by the IP.
 * I undid the IP's edits again, I could have used a better summary and also stated something on the talk page.
 * Stepopen removes the other additions made by the IP.
 * re-adds the content (Clear SPA).
 * moves and adds more to Bradley Manning
 * Stepopen removes the content.
 * another SPA re-adds Bradley Manning
 * Stepopen removes the Bradley Manning content and test vandalism by an IP.
 * IP re-added Bradley Manning
 * IP adds debatable sources for Bradley Manning.
 * Stepopen removes it again
 * 128.253.237.77 re-adds the content
 * I removed the content (again poor summary and didn't again talk about it)
 * Another SPA re-adds Manning
 * I again removed it poorly
 * Cecilex re-adds it
 * XLinkBot reverts it due to the use of a blog link
 * Cecilex re-adds the content
 * Stepopen again undid the edit
 * Cecilex yet again re-adds it
 * I undid Cecilex re-addition
 * Cecilex re-adds again
 * Article semi protected by Courcelles due to the SPA edits.
 * Stepopen again undoes the SPA's edits
 * Cecilex returns and re-add the content
 * I undid the edit
 * Cecilex re-adds the content
 * I again undid it but this was the last (about the same time I had requested for Full protection)
 * Cecilex re-adds for the last time
 * reverts Cecilex's edit
 * Quigley removes OR and rewords as per talk page
 * Mkativerata fully protects the article on 22 December

Full times and dates can be seen here
 * Stepopen starts a discussion about the list of 'political prisoners' on the 11 December
 * Discussion section regarding Julian Assange is established by on 12 December
 * Stepopen raises issues with other parts of the listed 'political prisoners'
 * 70.134.49.69 says it is politically based (recharges)
 * Stepopen states reliable sources are needed
 * Philip Cross explains why sources used are not ok
 * comments on the list of 'political prisoners'
 * Quigley comments about 'political prisoners'
 * Aaron Brenneman comments on alleged contentious editing and stating the sources are reliable (assuming he didn't read the discussion which was taking place regarding 'political prisoners'). An another admin somewhat agreed with taken actions [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Courcelles/Archive_40#Administrative_action_on_Political_prisoner with removing the content
 * I could have worded this comment better but was rather frustrated
 * Stepopen also commented to Aaron Brenneman
 * Cecilex commented but didn't really deal with the issue at hand
 * Stepopen tries to tell Cecilex the type of sources we need
 * Cecliex replies about the sources
 * I try to explain why the sources are not ok
 * Aaron Brenneman replies to Stepopen
 * Stepopen replies to Aaron Brenneman
 * Aaron Brenneman replies to my comment
 * I reply to Aaron Brenneman's comments
 * 128.253.237.77 adds a comment
 * Aaron Brenneman adds a few comments (This is were he seems not to know Wikipedia's policies too well such as WP:SPA)
 * Cecilex explains why they added Manning (Clear SPA with a POV)
 * Aaron Brenneman comments on the new editor but failes to see them as SPA's
 * Cecilex comments on Manning again
 * I again try and explain why the sources shouldn't be cited and state that the article needs looking at
 * Cecilex replies but seems to fail to see why the sources are not suited to what they are trying to cite and makes bad faith comment
 * Quigley replies about POV meaning and clean-up of the article
 * Cecilex comments that they want Manning re-added and if they would be blocked if they did so
 * Aaron Brenneman replies to Cecilex favourably to them
 * Quigley comments on the clean-up of the article
 * Cecliex replies about the sources
 * Aaron Brenneman add a misleading comment "that editor was blocked shortly to stop the disruption" and also adds about the page protection
 * Skip a few comment
 * Today (30 December) Aaron Brenneman decided to add his own sets of rules for the article even though he is involved as an editor and as an Admin. SlimVirgin has comment to him about this

Aaron Brednneman as an involved Admin decided to warn us even though he had not ask or taken it to a third party. He only warned Stepopen and myself but not Cecilex. He even re-threatened me

I would list the diffs and comments made on ANI but I'm having a hard time going back to the date the ANI thread was made so the archive will have to do. Most if not everyone agreed that the block should not have happened, while I do agree my behaviour was not ideal however having an Admin who is involved will to allow SPA's to reinserting content which didn't cite on what was stated or just plainly unreliable to the fact they were POV or opinion based articles. However Aaron Brednneman has failed to answer a number of my questions in the ANI thread, as a editor fine but as an Admin it is not good enough.

The fact that Aaron Brednneman said that full protection wasn't needed yet blocking me (more then an hour later even though someone else also reverted Cecilex's edit), has me questing he ability to be an Admin.

Even the way they have handled themselves on my talk page and the fact that Nick Thorne's comment explains how I feel out of this whole mess.

Powers misused

 * Blocking (log):

Applicable policies

 * Blocking policy
 * Using the block for punitive action when it was clear that I hadn't or would revert or disrupt the article
 * Conflict of interest in the dispute and using the Admin tools to block one editor and not the other


 * '''Administrators
 * Very much like the blocking policy, due to the fact they they were involved in the dispute (via the heated talk page discussion)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}



Response
''This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by
Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by
Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.