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


 * That's not a terrible nuanced version of events, I'm afraid. The note I placed was:
 * If you're here because of a websnark posting: Please understand that this is not a vote, this is a discussion. Please refer to WP:SOCK. Multiple comments by very new users to the effect of "OMFG don't delete, are you kidding?" that fail to provide evidence per WP:CITE and WP:V are highly likely to be discounted by the closing administrator. Many Wikipedians have been known to react unfavourably to attempts to alter the course of a nomination in this manner, and may in fact recommend to delete based upon it. If you wish to prevent this comic being deleted, the way to do so is to provide verifiable evidence.
 * In retrospect it was regrettable to use "OMFG", and I am now aware of AfdAnons which I have used since.
 * As to the other comments, I'll link them here in chronological order: "invasion", "contaminated" , "foaming" , "mugging" . It's worth noting that these comments appeared neither on the AfD nor on the talk pages of any of the new users.  Three occurred on Dragonfiend's talk page.  It's often difficult to strike a blance between expressig yourself frankly and openly and knowing that every word can be dredged up at any time by someone trying to score a point.  I'd contend that these comments could best be described as "colourful".  The first, in particular, was accurate if nothing else. At the time the "invasion" comment was made, over 70% of the contributors were later discounted by the closing admin.  If you can provide some other examples of where I have been uncivil to newcomers, that would be good. -  brenneman (t) (c)  13:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the idea is that you're not supposed to say any stuff like that at all. You're not the only one; I've said unwise things in the heat of the moment.  As you're probably aware, the response by outsiders on that AfD was one of some justifiable shock at the nomination of that particular article.  Looking at the comment to which you were responding, I think you'll have to agree that Eric Burns was being very civil, explaining his meaning carefully, and your response was one of some outrage.  You didn't do Wikipedia any credit in that exchange, and the reason your should curb yourself is not that arbcom might later wag the finger, but that in the here and now, at that time, you were telling Eric Burns that his decision to participate in the discussion was tantamount to mugging. Many of the comments were discounted by the closer, fir the purpose of head-counting, because they were not verifiable as editors, but this does not mean that their decision to participate in the discussion was wrong or that their comments were unwelcome--far from it. --Tony Sidaway 16:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * An excellent summation of the issues and concerns in that unhappy affair, in my view (I was one of the newbies greatly put off by what was said at the time, but I persevered, perhaps to the great regret of some!). I would characterise Aaron's comments in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics/Proposed_decision as acknowledging the truth of that summation, and vowing to strive to do better in future. Does Aaron have a tendency to sometimes speak rashly and say things he later regrets? Yes, I think he does (and so do I and so do we all, to a greater or lesser extent), but I think unlike many of us, he is actually willing to admit error and work to mitigate it. Has he backslid from that vow sometimes? Yes, on occasion. It's something I think he still needs to work on further to be the most effective admin he could be, but I assume that you and I both think, since we both support his candidacy, that on balance, having him as an admin would be a net positive. I hope he improves further of course. (heck, I hope I improve further too!) Hope that helps.++Lar: t/c 17:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. My only concern has been that Aaron has shown an ability to dish out treatment that, if it were ever to be directed at those of a less resilient disposition, would drive people away. This is not something we could afford our administrators to do in any great numbers.  Aaron must work to curb that temper.  It also would be good to see if he could return to supporting Assume good faith.  No administrator should ever place something like this on another editor's talk page. As David says in opposing, "gritting your teeth and working productively with people you consider idiots is not optional".  --Tony Sidaway 18:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree in turn. (you may recall I have opined at some length on the bad effect that WP:BITEing newbies can have, even if done inadvertantly.) The mitigating fact is that he's now got a coterie of people following him around who are going to bonk him over the head with a wiffle bat when they see him do it, and he's usually fast to redact (you-and-he warface excepted, at least for now). So hopefully little or no long term harm, and every bonk, it is hoped, will lessen the impulse in future... plus you get to be the lightning rod for much of it. Perhaps we should secretly pay you to remain a foci? ++Lar: t/c 21:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh I've noticed yon chaps with the wiffle bats. Very efficient they are, too. As lightning rods go, I'm not a bad choice. I'd rather he got another hobby, though, then those of us involved (myself involuntarily) could get more useful stuff done. --Tony Sidaway 22:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And, in all seriousness, if you'd slow down and talk about things a bit more than I would get more done. To characterise your portion of this as "involuntarily" is interesting.  I have taken this opportunity to go back and review our conflicts.  The consistant and overriding common variable is that of me attempting to get you to respect the contributions and opinons of others.  In almost every instance, the ends that you desired could have been accomplished quicker and with less effort all around with more talk, and less bluster.
 * I have commited some outstandingly uncivil statements to print, this is true. I have, as several people have noted, a "big mouth".  I continue to seek to improve on this.  However, I will not in any way shirk from my stance that as long as you consider discussions that you do not agree with to be an obstacle, vocal protest is appropiate. I almost cetainly will not "stay out of your way", but I am willing to compromise.  There must be some way for us to co-exist peacefully,  but that would entail changes from us both.
 * brenneman (t) (c) 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You cannot even accurately quote me. As I said in a reponse to your comment on David Gerard's Oppose vote, I had approached you in a conciliatory manner summarising some of your points and asking you not to continue presenting them as personal attacks.  You had responded by asking me not to place messages on your talk page.  To which I replied: "If you want that, you must stay out of my way and not engage in any more personal attacks on me. There is not at present a feasible alternative to this. You don't get to opt out."  It wass you who spurned communication, I who said that you don't get to opt out, and the only way to avoid having me attempt to communicate with you would be to keep out of my way.  --Tony Sidaway 01:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you asked, this would be a good example of why it's two-sided, Tony. Stop it with the "immeasurable capacity for self-delusion"s and the "continued loud, monomaniacal bleating"s if you want to be taken seriously. Dmcdevit·t 01:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. --Tony Sidaway 01:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for informal mediation

While this is an unusual venue for it, I'd like to open the floor to suggestions to how the ongoing back-and-forth can be resolved. In the end, a great deal of time and effort is expended all around. Not just on my pary, or on Tony's, but on the part of editors whom the encyclopedia would better served if they were creating content.

We would all be happier if the constant low-level disruption that I'm party to can end. If someone is willing to state that it is all my fault than I'll be willing listen. While I do not that is the case... I've been wrong before.

The only thing I am unwilling to compromise on is neutral point of view. Everything else is negotiable, but Tony also needs to be willing to compromise. I view his statements that he will neither restore any articles nor delete any templates for the month of Febuary as a positive one, for example.

brenneman (t) (c) 01:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want me to help, you know where I am.--Sean Black (talk)  01:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I was going to offer, but then I remambered something about 'where angels fear to tred', so perhaps not. Frankly, we could mediate the issues, but it is pointless. This is a personality clash between two people who almost must have the last word. Try, last one to speak - loses the argument. --Doc ask?  01:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Oh, oops, wait... damn. -  brenneman (t) (c)  01:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've offered to do what I could: User_talk:Tony_Sidaway/Archive_2006_02_02, User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman... I can see both sides I think and no one is blameless, but these guys, as thought leaders here, have to figure out how to get along or at least not get in each other's face a lot. My offer stands but I'm not quite sure how to proceed. and I made some suggestions: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Aaron_Brenneman_%28second_nomination%29 which may be a better place to take it than here? ++Lar: t/c 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)