Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aaron Brenneman


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Aaron Brenneman
Closed (3/14/8) ended 6:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * While it's clear (and not altogether suprising) that this nomination has failed, I'd like it to be kept open for another day. David Gerard referred to this very early on as an RfC, either in jest or in a merry accident.  It has already been valuable to me in that capacity, and if I could beg a slight allowance, I'd like for it to continue to do so for a short time.  I'd also like to thank everyone who has commented, and encourage others to contribute their thoughts.  I'll reflect carefully on what's been spoken of here, and note that my talk page is always open.  Thanks again, this has proven more beneficial than I could have imagined.  brenneman (t) (c)  00:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

– Aaron is a strong editor who has made numerous good contributions to policy- and guideline-related pages. He recently had me thinking he already was an admin, which in my opinion means he deserves to be nominated. He's generally a levelheaded and insightful user, with the unfortunate exception of a recent sockpuppet incident. But he did apologize for that and promised not to do it again, and I am inclined to take his word for it. After all, nobody's perfect. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am pleased to accept. - brenneman (t) (c)  13:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support. Believe Aaron would not abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Arguing less and being more circumspect would be a good idea, but he's not over the line now, so objections to him I feel are somewhat overblown. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 23:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Obviously.  One of the people with the clearest idea of what Wikipedia should be.  User:Zoe|(talk) 04:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Strongly Oppose. In my opinion, Aaron is wholly unsuitable to be an admin. He has a long list of uncivil behavior culminating most recently with outright rulebreaking and vandalism . I recognize that he has apologized for his vandalism, but the very fact that he committed this egregious offense in the first place is a clear demonstration that he lacks the maturity to act responsibly if given additional powers at WP. Aaron's use of the racial epithet "nigger", and the phrase "...even they call each other that..." (presumably, "they" in this context is in reference to the "niggers" in question) in an AfD debate demonstrates a horrible display of racial insensitivity, at the least, and arguably racism at the worst - even though his subsequent claim was that this racist term was used to prove a point. I do not think that tossing racial epithets about in the course of AfD debates is appropriate behavior for an admin. He frequently assumes bad faith and shows little if any regard for WP:AGF, there really are countless examples of his assuming bad faith .  His chronic bloodthirstiness to see User:Tony Sidaway's adminship removed  (and other places) borders on inexcusable. These and other innapropriate behaviors and comments are really far too many to document in the context of this vote. It should also be mentioned that these incidents are recent occurrences, not some ancient, buried offenses way, way back in this editor's history. These are only a few egregious actions within the last 2-3 months. Thinking that he was already an admin is no reason to nominate him. I fear for Aaron's future victims if he is awarded special admin powers.--Nicodemus75 12:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) *Barring this, I won't be responding to anything in the "support/oppose/neutral" sections, but instead in the "comments" section below. - brenneman (t) (c)  13:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) The sockpuppet incident that Radiant! mentions is very recent (October 18th -- barely two weeks ago), was an intentional disruption of Wikipedia in a badly misguided attempt to make a point, and exhibited a serious lack of judgment on his part. I cannot, in good faith, support him at this time.  Oppose.  Kelly Martin (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose: Use of sockpuppet, abusive behavior, and vandalism all very recent events. I think this user has some good intentions, but being an administrator would not be an appropriate role for him. --Durin 14:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. As per Kelly and Durin. Would like to see more evidence of ability to handle disputes without losing his temper and it's too soon after the sockpuppet incident. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose but weakly...behave yourself for 90 days and then I will change my vote to support in all liklihood.--MONGO 15:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose for now: the sockpuppetry has me worried, and Aaron is a bit controversial. He's a good editor, though, and I would support in the future.  --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 15:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per Mervoingian. Privat  e   Butcher  19:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Although I am gladdened to see that User:Aaron Brenneman has apologized for the sockpuppet incident, that it happened at all must push me to oppose. NatusRoma 20:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose, as he did vandalism in the past. Carioca 21:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose, per User:Kelly Martin, and to some degree, User:Nicodemus75, who has worded his comment far more strongly than I would have. The comments of Doc are a worthy counterpoint to some of Nicodemus75's comment. (I will no longer use a bold font for my oppose votes, no matter how strongly I feel, because it seems like it has the potential to be unnecessarily insulting to the candidate, and because I hope my comments are more important that the generalized summary of them in the form of a vote) Un  focused  21:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There, there. Now all you have to do is realize that it's not a vote at all, and that voting is evil. :-) Dmcdevit·t 23:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose  all of the above--Rogerd 23:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose per the fact that I hate Sockpuppetry and the tone of the response made on the afd mentioned were completely unacceptable for an admin, regardless of how you feel about the words "Deletionist" or "Inclusionist"(I agree with Tony Sidaway on that argument, by the way, and have a similiar view with editcountitis). Karmafist 00:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per above comments.  Or an   e    (t)   (c)   (@)  01:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose polarisation among admins has always at minimum resulted in unnecesary stress. User seems to have problems with User:Tony Sideaway, until this and any other dispute have been resolved its inaproporate at this point. Also if the "vandalsim" accusations are acurate, I would me most certainly less than inclined to hand delete powers. -- Cool Cat Talk 02:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * I am not to certain how to vote. I'll re-consider my vote depending on his answers to the generic questions. -- Cool Cat Talk 12:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) I think Aaron could make an excellent admin (partisan, yes, but that's nothing new for admins) - I just think he needs a more time to elapse after the self-admitted sockpuppetry foolishness, before community trust could be restored. I think this nomination is very badly timed by User:Radiant!. Doc (?) 13:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) *I'd like to ask why purplefeltangel got an oppose from Doc for vandalism from four months ago, but Aaron Brenneman gets only a neutral for larger scale vandalism two weeks ago. Seems a bit inconsistent to me. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) **Fair comment, although who's ever totally consistent? I 'weakly opposed' purplefeltangel as, without the vandalism, never having interacted with her, I would have abstained (as per my norm). I'm neutral here as, without the vandalism, having had positive interaction, I would be supporting (as per my norm). But in both cases I'm essentially saying 'not now'. If purple is nominated again in a few weeks, I will not oppose. Is that consistent enough? Doc (?) 23:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) I may switch this vote before this RFC concludes, as I intend to vote as a spoiler to bad arguments. I lean oppose because user supports the nomination of schools that are doomed to no consensus, support because he's not a dick about it most of the time and it's not really bearing on his adminstrative duties, and because he's willing to try to work to a third solution. If the N word incident is a substantial oppose vote block, I will support. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral. I am a bit ambivalent about this. I too am concerned with the recent sockpuppet vandalism, which were rather serious and disruptive, and also of a quite mean-spirited nature, targeted against another user. I acknowledge that Aaron has apologized for it, and I appreciate that but the incident is uncomfortably recent. On the other hand, such behaviour was really very un-Aaron Brennemanlike. In fact, my dealings with Aaron have been very positive, sure, I have disagreed with him on many issues, but I am convinced that he means well for the encyclopedia. The "nigger" comments which people point to here are pulled wildly out of context, after reading the comment I see absolutely no evidence of any racism of any sort, in fact I would say it is more to the contrary. Nor will I forget that Aaron was one to offer some comforting words of support during a time and incident when I was under a lot of stress, here and here. I don't see that this RFA has a big chance of succeeding, and the concerns expressed here mean that I cannot support it, but Aaron is a fine editor. With some more skills at managing stress, and some more time to let the sockpuppet incident blow over, I see myself gladly supporting some time in the future. I would recommend backing a bit off from conflict when you get too upset; it is very easy to take the conflicts here way too personally. When people are behaving like morons, and they bug you up to a point where you feel that you've had it, either take a wikibreak, or do some work in the calmer waters of the main article namespace on less controversial issues. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral I honestly thought he was a admin but those latest issues are too problematic --JAranda'' | watz sup 15:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral. I think Aaron can be a good admin when a little time passes and it is clear that his lapse in judgment was an aberration. I only hope that he has extremely thick skin since this ill-timed nomination is bound to be unpleasant.  It is unfortunate that the side effect of a nomination is to publicly pillory an editor whose contributions to Wikipedia were considered valuable enough to merit a nomination to carry the mop. -- DS1953 talk 16:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral This has to be the worst timing ever for an RfA nomination.--Scimitar parley 17:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral I really like Aaron, and want to support, but I must say that I do find this use of the N word (previously unknown to me) a bit offensive, and I cannot in good conscience support at this time. Wait a few months. Xoloz 19:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) I thought he already was an admin which normally means that I'd support, but I'd like to have a bit of a wait following recent events. JYolkowski // talk 03:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * Comment Aaron's interactions with User:Tony Sidaway and his sock use, are matters that voters will wish to consider carefully. However, the 'nigger' incident is a load of irrelevant nonsense. Aaron was using a Reductio ad absurdum, which only operated because he was assuming that calling people 'nigger' is totally unaccaptable. To call this 'racist' demonstrates a poor understanding of the subtleties of rhetoric. It was poor judgement as it left him open to precisely this type of spurious charge, but it was neither racist, nor bad faith.Doc (?) 13:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disagree most strenuously with this. The phrase "...even they call each other [nigger]..." is wholly inappropriate and offensive language to anyone of African descent, irrespective of what sort of argument is being made while using such a reprehensible phrase.--Nicodemus75 13:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry to intervene my comment here, but Nicodemus75's observation just rings absolutely to any person of color. Rhetorical intent aside, "They call each other nigger..." is just plain sickening to me... I sincerely and earnestly mean gut-wrenching.  One can't reason it away, and people should have the good sense to avoid it.  I consider Aaron a friend here, and I understand that it's just a mistake, but it cannot be minimized to those whom it insults.  I know Doc's good-faith as well, but it's best to just let go.  Most people of color won't be convinced that this was tiny, and it is a little odd to see nice people trying to do that. Xoloz 19:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Xoloz you are, of course, correct. I spoke from the detached ignorance of a WASP, who has never been on the receiving end. I will speak no more. Doc (?) 23:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * With the greatest respect Nicodemus, you have just used the same language in an argument, and it is not offensive because, in context, you are quoting. So the context of the argument does matter, and that a blanket condemnation of the phrase is simplistic. It was 'poor judgement',(but, providing we assume good faith, it is nothing more) and he swiftly apologised.Doc (?) 14:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

But (when read in context) I would call it an instance of poor judgement (for which he apologised), nothing more.-Doc (?) 14:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Some context: the Afd in question as per above and the discussion at WP:ANI
 * The quote in full: "Yes, and nigger is a useful term for clarifying race. Heck, they even call each other that! (Please note that was sarcasm.) Here it is plain and simple: Don't call me a deletionist. Ever. I'd remind you, Tony, that you recently supported a block of someone for calling another editor by their name.  Labels only serve to polarize debate, raise tensions, and give excuses to ignore valid points.  What happened to 'Argue the content, not the contributor?'  I'm suprised - are you supporting the egregious incivility Nicodemus75 has delivered above?  brenneman (t) (c)  23:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)"
 * My feelings on this - The bigger revelation for me here was not that people may sometimes take the things that you say too literally. It was that there existed a group of people who were warm and caring and genuine, and who extended their support to me in this time.  I made the mistake of lashing out when that support didn't come when I felt like I needed it, but it did come.  It's easy to forget that Wikipedia can operate in slow-motion, so this incident taught me two things: community and patience.  brenneman (t) (c)  14:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Responding to Xoloz above I'd first like to point out that a) my comment was in response to being told I could not possible be offended by the phrase "deletionist" because there existed a group that applied that label to themselves and b) it had the words "that was sarcasm" immediately following it, along with a brief impassioned plea not to resort to labelling people. I fully accept that this was hurtful and insensitive, and I am sorry.  What I cannot accept is that this is the only way to see this.  I thankfully do not have the experiance to understand how "gut wrenching" it is to see that written down. I'll say that again, with some bolding:  I cannot fully understand how this is for Nicodemus75 and Xoloz.  That makes me both glad that I've escaped that  unpleasant facet of life, and sad that it is making it hard for us to communicate here.  Because I don't share that frame of reference, both personal and cultural, I'm not actually saying the words that they are hearing.  I'm not in any way attempting to back away from any apologies that I've made, or to diminish any hurt that I caused.  But it's clear that, at least with regards to this, we aren't speaking the same language.  Both before and now I've tried to reach out to Nicodemus, but I'm not sure that it's fair to expect me to do all the bridging of the gap between us.  -  brenneman (t) (c)  20:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I can't speak for Nicodemus, but I do understand there was absolutely no ill-will behind it, and will be happy to support Aaron vigorously next time; these things happen, and it is clear offense was inadvertant. As I said, my point was that one shouldn't try to argue the finer points of context too strenuously in this sensitive sort of matter.  The best thing to do here is to lay rhetoric aside and hug everybody. :)  Hugs for everybody!!! :)  Xoloz 03:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
 * Comment: Is Radiant!'s apparent obsession with Tony Sidaway affecting his judgement? First unblocking Agriculture out of hand, now this nomination which a moment's thought would show would obviously fail with the sockpuppet incident still in mind. (And BTW, Aaron did admit and apologise profusely for the sockpuppet foolishness, and has been answering the objections on this RFC with reasonable grace so far.) - David Gerard 15:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Mindspillage has asked for some other examples of me and dispute resolution. Without further commentary on my part:User talk:Davy Blue, Talk:Sissy baby, User talk:Treelovinhippie, even tried to make up with Tony a few times:, . - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  15:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I would not call your strident demand for Tony to have an adminship duel with another editor a "mature" way to settle a dispute, nor do I consider your "explanation" (offered all of yesterday) for why it was reasonable for you to demand such a thing to illustrate that you have learned anything about conflict resolution since your unfortunate sockpuppet incident. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Context: Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway_2
 * I'm glad for the opportunity to adress this with you again. I've stated several times that I believe the "duel" characterisation to be unfortunate, as per the link you've provided.  Sometimes it's easy to confuse what is being said about what has been said with the original quote.  That's clearly what happened in the Bartlett High AfD that Nicodemus75 has raised, and that's also what appears to have happened here.  I continue to believe that admins should not be afraid to re-test the support that they have in the community.  I made the suggestion after brief consultation with Scimitar, and acted in good faith.  While I do not see my contibution as "strident", you continue to believe it was.  Clearly you have a reason for this belief, and out of respect for that I will examine my conduct in that manner again. -  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  17:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the point in voting right now, but I would like to say a few words about Aaron. Wild accusations by Nicodemus aside, Aaron is a good guy. Outside the conflict with Tony, Aaron has proved himself to be a reasonable, friendly person with good judgment. (Incidentally, I'd say the same thing about Tony outside of the conflict with Aaron :) He's adept in policy discussions, reverts vandalism, helps new users, participates at AFD, and generally is of admin-quality. And I don't think that that Tony-conflict is really of much interest to his adminship, as there's no way I think either of them would ever use admin powers against each other. It's true, this was way too soon for it to have any chance. But I fully expect he'll be an admin a few months from now. Dmcdevit·t 21:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I already try to do my bit at Articles for deletion/Old, but as it stands I can only do the obvious "keepers" which get snapped up pretty quickly. There are a lot of more complicated or contentious closes that I'd like to do, but a non-admin closing something like Articles for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews as "keep" would have his feet in the fire pretty fast. I already do RC patrol, but I also like the less-used []. The occasional vandalism that does get listed there is often missed as it's by editors with usernames, and there are lots of chances for positive interactions with new people.  I think that Requests for page protection could use a bit of a deft hand, and I'd look forward to helping smooth the waters there as well.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Most of my serious contributions have been outside mainspace, but I did write the article on the International Cometary Explorer, which I'm pleased to note hasn't required too much clean up. Of my work with policy, I am particularly pleased with the results of efforts towards expanding the scope of Deletion review.  Nothing there was created entirely by me of course, but that I'm proud of the part that I played.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. No one has ever "caused me stress", as I'd have to take responsibility for my own stress. I've had pretty much one "conflict" ever but it has been high profile and ongoing.  I've lost my temper a few times, made several small mistakes on good faith, and made one error where I acted in bad faith.  If I had everything to do again, I've learned to rely on my fellow editors a bit more, so I'd handle things differently.  There's usually nothing urgent about any one situation, so if you build trust with other editors then conflicts often undergo collective decompression.  Barring that, my usual response to possible problems is to talk more.  Most times the other contributor thinks they are just as correct as you do.


 * 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.