Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Aaron Brenneman 2

Sir Spam-a-lot
I'm pinging the following people, all of whom expressed strong opposition to my first nomination:
 * User:Nicodemus75 Respecting note on user's talk page.
 * User:Durin
 * User:Kelly Martin
 * User:Karmafist
 * User:Cool Cat

brenneman (t) (c) 05:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Further, upon receiving two messages on the 8th regarding emails asking to oppose, I sent four emails notifying of the existance of this page to individuals I hade had positive interactions with but who were not "cronies". But even though I tried to be even-handed, I don't have the stomache for it, so I won't be doing any more of that.  brenneman (t) (c)  21:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Durin
Has a great deal of (highly justified, in my view) respect in the community for his wise picks (a Durin nominee usually sails through in a hugely lopsided vote, because his nominees are that good) and thoughtful comments on the candidacies of others, IMHO. You'd be well served not just to merely let him know about this, but further, to do some deep thinking on why he opposed you the first time, and address those issues so editors have some assurance they won't continue to be a problem once you assume the mop. The same is true for the others of course but perhaps not as much. HTH. (PS can't believe I got first support in!!! I'm so l337! ++Lar: t/c 05:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * l337 indeed! To save the lazy from going and looking it up, I'll reprocude his comment from my first RfA in full:
 * 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)
 * This at least in part refers to my IgnoreAllRules explosion. I offered a public apology for it, and if I remember correctly a personal one as well.  I have not an explanation, largely because I don't have one.  There have been times when I've been genuinely angry over something on-Wiki, but this wasn't one of them.  There have been times when I've edited under the influence, this wasn't one of those either.  I simply do not know what got into me.
 * I do know that I assumed that it would be obvious that it was me. I made no effort to change IP addresses, and the resulting game of "show me yours" "no, show me yours first" with David Gerard was due to the large message on his user page saying he'd only do IP checks related to ArbCom.
 * I deeply regret the bad-faith reversions, of course. And I haven't used a sockpuppet for vandalism and been caught in months, by the way.
 * brenneman (t) (c) 06:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Been caught". *whistles* :)--Sean Black (talk)  06:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Was that a joke, or are you saying you have recently used a sockpuppet without being caught? &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-02-02 14:07Z 
 * Of course it was a joke. Aaron's not stupid.--Sean Black (talk)  14:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaron and Tony
This is a most unusual RfA, the most out of process one: I've seen in my short time here so, here goes more advice. Aaron said "If someone is willing to state that it is all my fault than I'll be willing listen."...

To both of you: I'm willing to so state!

When deciding how to respond, take it as the working assumption that it's ALL your fault. Assume NONE of the fault lies with the OTHER party, or at least make your writing look like you believe that even if you know deep in your secret heart of hearts that the other party is the true little shit in this.

That's hard to do but you're both clever, you can do it.

Turn the other cheek. If you're tempted to point out things that will score style points with those of us in the audience moved by clever snippyness or justifiable outrage, or whatever, save it. Put it on your blog or something. But here, make us all think you're assuming good faith about the other guy, and make it convincing.

The facts will speak for themselves, don't worry. And when you're acting for the good of the encyclopedia, as both of you almost always do, you can oppose what you think might not be the right thing to do without being snide about it. Try it. It might not work but what have you got to lose? And save the "but he started it" crap. So what? ++Lar: t/c 02:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, this is basically "assume good faith" and "no personal attacks" on steroids... ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * :as a policy wonk you can be sure it's driving me absolutely stark raving bonkers.

Bugger
Can anyone propose a solution as sensible as this one tbat doesn't require me to be bloody nice? Damn you Lar. ^_^

How about this: I'll go on voluntary Everyking/Snowpsinner style restrictions, and will cease entirely commenting directly about Tony or Tony's actions in any way. What I'll do is create a subpage, and anything I am fretting over I'll place there (as opposed to my blog!)

Lar, and maybe Doc and Sean or anyone else quasi-neutral, puts this page on their watch list, and serve as an idiot-filter for me.

E.g. I'm concerned about Tony's restoring pages for editing that have been AfD-ed. I put a note on my subpage to the effect of "I'm concerned about Tony's restoring pages for editing that have been AfD-ed, and would like something to go to WP:ANI," and provide diffs with short commentary. Lar (for example) refactors this to ANI. This would have the combined effect of making me get my facts straight first and removing any overly-emotional language. If I know that it's going to be edited out I'm less likely to be smart-arsed to begin with.

I'd like to hope that at some stage before the sun turns into a red giant and fries us all I'll have developed the maturity to not need this, but clearly that time is not now.

brenneman (t) (c) 03:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Aaron, my proposal is that you respond without fear or favor the way any other admin responds to policy violations by any editor, admin, or arbitrator, end of story. And that otherwise, you make no deals. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Slim has a point, it's actually a more robust approach. However, I'm down with giving your idea a try... with the proviso that I may have to ask you for clarity before refactoring it for you, and with the other proviso that I can't promise I'll always get to it right away, there's this pesky work thing and all... Prolly best if Tony doesn't reply there of course. PS: what is it with you and buggers anyway? You're making me nervous, or quasi, or something. ++Lar: t/c 03:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, whatever you need, I'm here. Just give me a buzz.--Sean Black (talk)  03:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, you're making this much too difficult for yourself. This is a method that has been tried many times by myself and other people on Wikipedia, and it usually works:
 * 1) Assume good faith.
 * 2) No personal attacks.
 * 3) When you have a serious problem with someone, use dispute resolution.  That means nothing more or less than go to someone's talk page and talk to them about it. And if someone comes to your talk page with a civil complaint, you don't say "desist", you actually read what they say, and assuming good faith and maintaining civility you reply.

Try it. It might just work. --Tony Sidaway 03:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


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

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

Moved from main page
There's quite a bit of back-and-forth here, and I'd encourage anyone interested to read it. But since it's being dealt with better above, won't be added to, and new issues are below, I've moved it to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Aaron Brenneman (second nomination)/Long thread. - brenneman (t) (c)  00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

JJay
Two people have commented that they felt I was unfair to User:JJay. On review, I could have phrased things a bit better, but at this time feel that my comments and actions were acceptable. I'd welcome discussion on this. If I'm being "intimidating" now, that's a problem that is magnified by adminship. - brenneman (t) (c)  00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved but interested wikipedian, I would like to know why you feel these actions were acceptable. Is there another side that I don't know about? What did JJay do to justify a possable RFC? And what was the point of the 'fake edit'? Raven4x4x 00:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is clear to me Mr.brenneman is not speaking and editting in good faith. There is no justification for monitoring a person's edits to gauge quality and stalking them like common vandal.-ZeroTalk 00:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some confusion: I did not propose an RfC. I was concerned that over 50% of JJay's contributions were to AfD.  This did not, and still does not, seem terribly healthy to me.  I broached it with JJay.  In review, I could have phrased it somewhat better, but that's more about tuning than anything.  I wasn't terribly happy with his response.  I asked another editor what they thought the best course of action was.  She suggested a request for comment.  I responed that it wasn't my first choice. -  brenneman (t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  00:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As to the fake edit, my watch list is pretty big, I often review my recent contributions as a de facto watch list. I wanted to investigate the subject of the article prior to contributing to the discussion.  I did, and was satisfied that I would have recomended "weak keep", or at the very least not recomeneded "delete".  Consensus appeared to be forming, so I never contributed further. -  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  01:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose you think voting "Keep and expand" on every single AFD regardless of the topic's encycolopedic worth could possibly be done in good faith? That requires a much greater suspension of disbelief, I'm afraid. &mdash; <font color="006000" title="User:Freakofnurture">F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ <font color="006000" title="User talk:Freakofnurture">TALK ] )  09:31, Feb. 4, 2006
 * Aaron, you asked another editor what the best course of action would be. I'm wondering why you felt there needed to be a course of action. Each user contributes in the way they enjoy most, or the way they feel best. Less than one fifth of my edits are in the main namespace. That certainly isn't 'normal' but I enjoy doing what I'm doing (in case anyone's wondering how I managed this, I close the Featured Picture nominations most of the time, revert vandalism, make some graphs and not a lot else), and I hope no-one wants to take a 'course of action' on me. As long as JJay wasn't being disruptive or anything (and there's no indication that he/she was), my view is that you should just have left him/her alone. I don't see why you felt the need to do anything. Raven4x4x 10:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * While I do take your point about "from each as they are able", and would be happy to talk it over further, is this the correct venue? This section was created in response to some serious charges.  Here are two quotes from the main page:
 * JJay - "his goal here was intimidation"
 * Tony Sidaway - "his bullying of other editors is a cause for serious concern. He openly talks of using the RfC, not as a means of communication, but as a means of intimidation"
 * I presume that you've looked over my other contributions to JJay's talk page, and perhaps you've also seen article talk pages where we've interacted. Having done so, do you agree with the comments made by Tony Sidaway and JJay?  As I said above, being a "heavy" is magnified considerably by adminship.  I know I can be forthright, and a "busybody" as Calton pretty accurately described me.  I didn't think I was a bully, though.
 * brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c) 12:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (indent break) I think the issue is more with JJay's constant voting to keep pretty much anything (at least Kappa tends to make some sort of case for keeping), no matter what the subject. JJay's surfeit of edits in the Wikipedia: namespace is a side-effect of that. Johnleemk | Talk 10:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No matter a user's contributions, brenneman's actions and demeanor were pretty unacceptable. Wiki Harrassment and wiki-stalking is a perma-bannable offence. Please don't attempt to find out the Committee's willingness to quell difficulties the hard way. Futhurmore, none of us has any justification to gauge the "quality" of another's edits, and JJ's were, at the very least, constructive.


 * Aaron, when I say that I think your stalking and comments are a serious failing, I think you'd better listen. Please let other editors take the initiative here if you cannot refrain from being incivil. Nothing can be gained by you, or by Wikipedia, by this continued bickering and slanderous comments towards other editors. -ZeroTalk 12:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The idea that looking at other editors contributions or leaving a few messages on their talkpages constitutes "stalking" and "bullying" is ridiculous on its face. I'd like, therefore, to ask you to moderate your tone.  You're free to not do so, of course, but it will just make you look silly, in my opinion.Nandesuka 12:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My tone is fine. Looking through a person's contributions to simply post a rude comment on their talkpage depicting a person's contrributive status is just plain rude. Please, Nandesuka, do your homework, and look clearly at the diffs in the history before making acusations of this kind. From your depicting view of the situation, you make it seem as if I sinply materialized these accusations from thin air.-ZeroTalk 12:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I wasn't clear. I have looked clearly at the diffs in the history, and I think your characterizations of the diffs in question as "incivil", "slanderous," and "stalking" are absolutely hysterical and wild-eyed.  I think that you simply materialized those characterizations from thin air.  Looking through people's contributions and commenting on them on their talk page, when doing so will improve the quality of the encyclopedia, is not "stalking", it is in fact a large part of what makes Wikipedia work.  To try to characterize a completely normal interaction that hundreds of editors and admins do every day as "stalking" is beyond the pale.  You should stop doing this.  Hope that helps!  Have a nice day.  Nandesuka 13:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any question that Aaron was being a busybody. It takes a particulary nosy sort of person to notice that it seems like someone always votes keep and do some investigation to see if it's essentially true or not, and a fair bit of chutzpah to bring it up to that editor. But that's a good thing I looked over the convos and I think Aaron was far less graceless than I would have been, had I chosen to bring it up. Maybe he could have worded it better, but I don't think it was "stalking" or "bullying", far from it! One of the reasons many of us are supporting Aaron is that he's an out of the box guy. We need some iconoclasts and freethinkers, and as long as enough of us with wifflebats follow him around he's a huge net gain as an admin. IMHO anyway. I'm sorry to see Tony changed his mind, I think his analysis may not be completely correct any more, but he has phrased his objections much more sensitively than Zero has, again IMHO. (and PS, I suppose I might get a note from Aaron soon that my support isn't helping! :-) ) ++Lar: t/c 16:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't see what was sensitive about it. I made an observation based on the anaylsis drawn from Aaron's comments. I believed them to be very incivil, something the recipeint of the messages concurs with. They were unwarrented in the fashion depicted and hence shoudn;t have been made at all. I don't deny users could use a note regarding theier contributions somewhat, but if you're appearing on a user's talkpage with comments that belitte contributive status, then it \s best to leave well enough alone. User JJay was not impeding the encyclpedia, nor was he harming other users in the process. What business is it of ous to rate another user based on our own POV...? That doesn;t make sense. And if Aaron cannnot word his comments differently and refrain from being "entitled" to such things, then there's a problem. Let cooler heads deal with this. -ZeroTalk 16:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

wikimarkup
I was going to reply to a nasty comment here to get the user to behave a bit better, but wikimarkup+RFA style makes it very hard to find particular comments back when there's a lot of them, at least in your browser. Any suggestions? Or should we make some changes for future RFAs? (Actually I was thinking of helping Aaron set up a different RFA style in future, so that's one solve hopefully. Any other ideas?) Kim Bruning 19:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Insert shameless plug for User:Linuxbeak/RFA Reform/Adminship nominee discussion. - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  00:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Even better: insert shameless plug for Wikipedia talk:Discussions for adminship! - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  00:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Who, specifically, is this the user? El_C 04:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Brenny, I'd presume.--Sean Black <sup style="color:#FC0FC0;">(talk) 05:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So pink... Must resist click-ing... Never presume, it lessens from the comedic quality (which the comedic quality? Exactly.) El_C 05:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Makes perfect sense.--Sean Black <sup style="color:#FC0FC0;">(talk) 05:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment on JJay
Given the distorted presentation of my record by Brenneman and some other users here I’d like to try and set the record straight before the end of this RfA. 40% of my total edits have been to AfD discussions- not over 50% or roughly 60%. That may be excessive, but the same could be said for my total participation (+5000 edits) during my four months at wikipedia.

I include deleted edits in my total because I deserve credit for the significant time devoted to RCP. Any admin can verify the hundreds of articles I’ve speedy/copyvio tagged by looking at my deleted edits. The barnstars and thanks ,  I’ve gotten for this may also be excessive. However, unlike Brenneman, I enjoy RCP and think all users should do it.

The comments from freakofnurture, Johnleemk and Lar are mischaracterization and deeply insulting. I have nominated 42 articles for deletion (o/w 41 were deleted), or an average of more than 2 per week. I have « voted » to delete hundreds of articles. The overall keep-delete breakdown of my AfD participation has been fairly evenly distributed, with at best a 10-15% advantage on the keep side. Thus Freakofnurture’s statement:


 * I suppose you think voting "Keep and expand" on every single AFD regardless of the topic's encycolopedic worth could possibly be done in good faith?

is false and he has no grounds to question my good faith. I would also note that freakofnurture did not seem to mind when I have "voted" delete in his own noms without providing much in the way of explanation,.

At times I could do a better job of explaining the thinking behind my Afd opinions (and sometimes I have not provided reasons). Nevertheless, the arguments I do make are often effective, , ,. Furthermore, the often endless discussions I enter into in these debates, involving sometimes as many as 15 or 20 posts, belie the claims by Johnleemk that I do not « make a case for keeping »,. I also devote considerable energy to improving articles while they are on AfD, to the point that the head of the schoolwatch page called me one of the « top, new school article improvers » - even though I am not a member of their group.

I therefore had no interest in discussing my contributions or listening to unfounded criticism from a user with dubious intentions who already knew that I disagreed with his approach. In my view, it was harassment when he repeatedly refused to take the hint that I had no desire to maintain this « conversation » with him. It was harassment when he wrote « I see you've got your back up, which is exactly why I started this ». It was harassment when he threatened wikistalking. It was harassment when he did a fake edit four minutes after I asked him to stop monitoring my contributions   (since I had noticed the order of his AfD participation was mirroring my contrib list)-  and despite his claim above I see no evidence that « fake edits » are common practice for this user.

As far as I’m concerned, the net intent of all this was intimidation designed to destroy my enthusiasm for participation in wikipedia. Despite what Brenneman thinks, civility was not the issue here. Rather, it was/is a misguided belief that his role is to mold the behaviour of users he disagrees with into a form that he finds acceptable– using any arm at his disposition. This was never his role, not then and I hope not in the future. -- JJay 21:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In all probability any response I give will be the wrong one, but here goes: Instead of assigning motives, it's much simpler to just believe what's written.  It is true that I've "ceased to assume good faith" before, but only after much longer series of interactions than you and I have had.  I've also recently taken steps to attempt to regain my faith in that person.
 * I re-iterate: I observed from you a series of naked votes, contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the guidelines for participation in AfD. I attempted to engage you.  That's what we do here, we talk.  That's why articles have talk pages, that's why users have talk pages.  These talk pages exist to only for the betterment of the encyclopedia.  The link to user's contributions exist for the same reason.  Someone somewhere clearly thinks it is a good idea for us to be able to look over and discuss what other people contribute.  In fact, the very person who's opposing me for "stalking" you has explictly stated they would be watching me and that "I hope the fact that I'm observing you and will miss nothing may persuade you to modify your attitude, if nothing else will."
 * I've looked over the conversation again to see where I've "refused to take the hint", and it is still to subtle for me. You respond, I respond.  I placed three comments on you page in that thread, you placed three comments.  The complete quote of mine is "I see you've got your back up, which is exactly why I started this. AfD is stressful, and you seem to be mixing it up quite a lot. But that's up to you."  I find it difficult to see how this could interpreted as anything other than an expression of concern.  You seem determined to assign the worst possible motives to me.
 * brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c) 00:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the hints are painfully obvious. Furthermore, your actions and comments explain your “motives” quite clearly, whether it involves me or other editors. If you want to make a case for having pure motives, start by apologizing for this and for distorting my record-- JJay 01:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I can apologise for the insult you bear. While talk page conversations, like all wikipedia edits, are "public property" it's often a dificult balance between expressing yourself frankly and honestly with someone you're comfortable with and avoiding possible future offense of someone who goes looking through diffs.
 * I cannot apologise for examining another user's contribtions and asking for opinions on them.
 * I also cannot at this stage reply to you claims that I've distorted your record. I tend to be fairly careful about waving numbers around, and if I said 60% I almost certainly had a reason to do so.  This of course leaves open the possibility that I made a mistake.
 * I'd note that I've left you totally alone outside this very brief interaction, a total of perhaps twenty mostly positive edits, and that I've expressed no further opinon here as to the quality of your contributions.
 * I bear you no personal ill will, and am indeed sorry for the deep hurt that this appears to have caused you.
 * brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c) 01:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"I can apologise for the insult you bear."????..."I cannot apologise..."sorry for the deep hurt that this appears to have caused you"... Although quite gifted at turning a phrase, you are somewhat less gifted at admitting you are wrong. It also nice to know that you were being frank and honest with Zoe, unlike with me since we clearly never had a "comfortable" relationship, which is why your "concern" for my health and energy was entirely misplaced. Thanks for leaving me alone and good luck in the future. -- JJay 02:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's possible to think you're correct and still be sorry. It's possible to do the right thing in such a ham-fisted way that it becomes the wrong thing.  It's possible to use correctness as a sort of a club to whack someone with.
 * So, I've done all three of these things here. I've noted elsewhere that my last note to your talk page, with its detailed analysis of your interpretation of Interiot's tool results, was just short of a kick in the guts.  I know you still don't and perhaps will never believe it, but I am sorry.  I am full of wikilove for all creatures great and small.  My intention was not to stalk or intimidate you, but to try to talk to you.
 * brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c) 02:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Consider this: it's also possible to be wrong. It's also possible for you to be wrong and to do the wrong thing. It's possible for one of your actions to be wrong, from the get go, without having ever been correct. You are ever ready to admit that you have been "uncivil" or could have "phrased things a bit better", but never that you were wrong. I have yet to see you type a phrase along the lines of: "I was completely out of line"...or "I was so wrong it hurts". This seems to be one of your great failings- admitting and accepting that you are wrong. In fact, you are so utterly convinced of your correctness at all times, that you feel fully entitled to broadcast it and to use this belief as a battering ram.

In the interest of harmony, I accept that you think you are correct but are still sorry. I will assume that it is heartfelt and not an example of you being, to paraphrase your expression, "back in your box" for the length of this RfA. Since you also seem driven to have the last word, please respond, I will no longer post here. -- JJay 03:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)