Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aaron Brenneman

Aaron_Brenneman (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the situation

When I self-nominated for adminship I said that after three months I'd open a Requests for comment and if I didn't have the community's trust I'd step down without a blink. So here it is.

Statement of the desired outcome

This shouldn't have to be a re-vote, and I'm nervous about how to handle it at all without it being a waste of everyone's time. I believe strongly that administrators should be held acountable and that it is way too hard to "reverse the process" once someone has been promoted. And I like to actually try things out as opposed to the endless talking we sometimes do. So my desired outcome is not only to ensure that I do still have the goods but also for us to collectively talk about "request for dead-minning" for those less compliant than myself.
brenneman ^{L} 00:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse the above principle

Mailer Diablo 18:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of the worst things about Wikipedia is that we have empowered some editors and that power is unchallengeable. All too often we read "but other admins can undo their actions" but in fact there is a consensus that they should not! Even if there was a deadminship process though, someone like Aaron would not lose his bit, because he tends to abuse his powers in small ways rather than one big way, so although he spreads dissatisfaction and discontent, he is doing it reasonably slowly. And we will never have such a process because some of the more empowered editors, most beloved by the other more "senior" editors -- we all know who they are -- would be first to be punished by it. If they were convinced they were doing the right thing, they would not fear it. Justice poses no threat to the honest man.Grace Note 00:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Xoloz 17:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC) See comments below also.[reply]
MartinRe 11:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC) See my comments in WT:RFA#Provisional_admins.3F to try and address the problem that, in rfa, all we have to go on is a person's history as an editor, and we cannot know for sure how they will deal with admin tools until it's too late. I also think that adminship should be time limited, so that long term admins don't lose the perspective of "normal editors". MartinRe 11:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I voted oppose in Brenn's RfA, but I support his status as a sysop now, based on what I've seen since then. I also applaud this move. -lethe ^{talk +} 09:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is great what Aaron is doing, more admins should start a self-RFC regardless of if there's been any complaints. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 23:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specific Incidents

Some things that may bear discussing:

Deletion of Brian peppers
Deletion of HAI2U
Deletion of Dominionist political parties
Deletion of List of themed timelines AfD.

Observations by Carnildo

Looking at the block log, two things really stand out: the indefinite blocks of 89.138.53.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 141.154.156.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for spamming. In general, the only IP addresses that should be blocked indefinitely are those that host open proxies. Since IP addresses can be re-assigned to other users or computers, IP addresses should only be blocked for limited periods of time, so as to not inconvienience someone who gets the address in the future.

The deletions of HAI2U, Brian Peppers, and Dominionist political parties seems perfectly reasonable to me. I can't tell one way or the other about "List of themed timelines": I suspect there's something I'm not seeing.

In general, keep up the good work. --Carnildo 06:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Observations by Haukur

You're doing fine. You've made some difficult calls but you always outline your way of thinking clearly so that even those who disagree with you at least understand where you are coming from. I agree that we need more effective methods of holding admins accountable but I'm not sure how we can move towards that. Haukur 20:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Observations by Elkman

What's a skerrick? And also, I saw you got blocked for this edit -- a block which was unnecessarily heavy-handed. I think that other than Tony Sidaway, you've done a great job of mediating conflicts and getting along with people. And I don't think Tony Sidaway is beyond criticism, even if he is a clerk. (I hope I don't get blocked for saying that.) There's no way an admin can never be expected to get into conflicts with people. You've earned my trust, and I think you're a model other admins should aspire to. --Elkman - ^(talk) 20:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Observations by Grace Note

I thoroughly regret supporting you for adminship. I don't want to discuss it but I'll say the following. I have never seen you show any sign of actually applying a lesson from a discussion. You're one of the editors here who "talks things over" as a means of avoiding doing the right thing rather than as a means of ascertaining what it is. If we had any process for deadminning, I would without question vote for you to have the bit flipped. Getting a queue of other admins to tell you what a great guy you are is not actually going to be a route to becoming a great guy, by the way. Grace Note 00:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any examples of this? Any specific differences, or situations where this has happened? Sometimes, "talking things over" can be more beneficial than just going out and applying a block, or whatever other strong action is being considered. It might prove educational to people to discuss why what they did is wrong. If nothing else, maybe you can educate the rest of us as to situations where "doing the right thing" is more important than "talking things over". By the way, I'm not an admin. --Elkman - ^(talk) 18:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also regret that Grace Note supported you for adminship. I'm glad I did, though. Nandesuka 19:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Observations by Lar

I totally think I did the right thing in supporting you for adminship. You're thoughtful about the meta-pedian aspects of WP and have been doing a good job, in my view. Your one weak spot as I see it is that you have a tendency to get into rows with Tony and you both should know better by now. I think you can tell a fair bit about a person by what sort of enemies they have (as well as friends) and... you've got a lot of the right enemies. (see above) ++Lar: t/c 02:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An observation by Mackensen

Frankly, I'm concerned about your civility towards other users, admins in particular. You seem incapable at times of realizing that other people might have a valid complaint. You've repeatedly shown bad faith when remarking on the actions of others, going so far as to insinuate that certain admins act like jack-booted secret police. In the discussion over signatures, you seem unable to resist the opportunity for cheap shots ("flavour-of-the-week") even though, by your own admission, a number of people have complained about these four- and five-line sigs (which I find very hard to read). I suspect part of this derives from the involvement of Tony Sidaway; I don't understand what it is about the two of you, but dislike of a specific user is no excuse for incivility and assumption of bad faith, particularly when other users have agreed, independently, with his point of view on a matter. I don't like coming here to criticise: a voluntary RfC after three months of adminship is a noble precedent, if acted upon. I'm concerned, however, about what the future may bring. I've found you a difficult colleague so far, and not because I disagree with you, but because every time I come away from a discussion I fell as though I've not been heard. Mackensen (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My first direct response!

I am deeply sorry to see that you feel this way. While I know what you're refering to with the "flavour" and "boot" comments, could I ask that you provide some diffs for others? I say this because in the example you brought to my talk page, we clearly saw things very differently: I had in no way intended the bit you perceived as "pointed" to be so. Diffs would help me to see what you're saying.
I opened this not just because I said that I would, but because I'd like to be better at my "job" here. Grace Note's comments, for example, I value just as much as Lar's. So please do stick it to me, and tell your friends there are free kicks going here.
Reflecting on Grace further, that's now two times that "He doesn't listen" has been stated, in different forms. More on this later, after some rumination. Could I also ask you to look again at our interactions, and see if a second reading leaves you feeling the same way?

Thank you,

brenneman ^{L} 13:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead-minn

Grace wants it, Mailer Diablo wants it, almost everyone wants it. So let's make a process for doing it. The only question is how to balance giving a voice to people that feel disenfranchised and wasting everyone else's time. I'd favour a deadly-simple method: Get six guys (with some arbitrarilty large number of edits, say 500) to say "Yoink, you must run again!" and you must. Everything after that is window dressing. I know everyone screams "Trolls! Don't feed the trolls!" but until we actually give it a shot we'll not know just how bad it is or is not.

For myself, although I barely squeaked in the first time, I reckon I'd do better this time around. And let's be frank: If I don't pass, doesn't that mean I shouldn't be an admin? The vast majority of admins would never get called out, they are 100% uncontroversial. Of those who kick a stink, I believe that the almost all of them would be get re-upped. But for those last few... I'd love nothing better than to scare the pants off of anyone who feels just that bit too confortable in their cushy chair.

brenneman ^{L} 02:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse the above statement

Xoloz 17:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Amen! If there ever was an unspoken wiki-gospel, it is that adminship is too difficult to revoke; the procedures for doing so are arcane, and not sufficently community-oriented. I will stand for deadminship any day, although I already offered to resign if any Wikipedian feels that I've abused power (which is, of course, a different thing than making a mistake, I do that 5000 times an hour.) A good administrator must first regulate himself before helping to impose order outside himself.[reply]
Al 22:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC) I strongly endorse the above. The problem is that it's not hard to become an admin, yet nearly impossible to have that sysop bit cleared afterwards. This sort of tenure removes any sorts fo checks and balances that would keep admins honest. I would suggest that admins serve limited terms that automatically expire when the period ends. This way, there is no need to actively convict an admin for bad behavior. Rather, if someone is not a good admin, their next attempt to regain adminship will fail. More to the point, we can hope that the recognition that their adminship is temporary will encourage admins to be more fair and transparent. Al 22:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MartinRe 22:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC) I also think that adminship should be time limited to ensure that admins do not lose the perspective of "ordinary" editors. The truism that admins can get away with behaviour that would fail their rfa, is sadly too true in my view. Allowing editors to behave badly just because they are an admin is very divisive and reduces trust all around. MartinRe 22:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following from that thought

I've created Category:Administrators open to recall. So, maybe the people who most need to get done won't sign up. Too bad. Do I spend all my life waiting for the other guy to do the right thing first? - brenneman ^{L} 07:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]