Ihardlythinkso call Dennis Brown out on his talk page for being full of himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... honesty.22
Dennis responded by doing something I've seen him do before. He claimed he didn't experience an emotional reaction but rather his accuser imagined it. It's Dennis Brown SOP. Notice below how many times Dennis compliments himself when he replies to the person who found fault with him. Dennis is a rising star.
Dennis also explains what the truth is. Somehow in his truth he is "universally considered a civil person." On another occasion he stated others label him tolerant to a fault. I know editors in good standing that have openly expressed disagreement with Dennis on those two points. Why doesn't Dennis remember those disagreements?
"Fear of honesty"
I realize you were personally disappointed because of History2007's RfA, but do you really think it warrants making the post-RfA remarks you've made regarding opposers having lack of comfort w/ "honesty", etc.:
"I personally like your style [...]. It appears others have trouble dealing with that kind of honesty."
"I think you just scared some people with your honesty and independence, even if they won't admit it."
"... most that opposed you, are indeed wonderful people that are just not used to seeing common sense being used as a blunt instrument."
You can know, this particular editor for one (who opposed) doesn't have any "trouble dealing with honesty", nor is "scared" by same, nor is "unused to seeing common sense being used bluntly". (If you'd say those things of me, I'd resent it!)
But you probably weren't referring to any particular opposer with your remarks. (But that raises the question, what opposes caused you to form the opinion, that resulted in your remarks? I've read through all the opposes carefully, and can't find even one that contains even a trace that the opposer harbored lack of comfort regarding issue of honesty, or bluntness, or "independence". [Did you know all the !voters specifically, to be able to know they were aptly concealing what they "really thought"?] What I do see, is consistent disapproval of answers from the nom, that were either incomplete, not good, evasive, or non-answers, and a disinclination to care enough about it, resulting in concern as to what it might mean as Admin when concise and collegial communication becomes a premium. So I really don't understand how you arrive at your opinion which resulted in your remarks, and they seem irresponsible to me.)
I understand you may have had a temporary mini-emotional "blowout" due to disappointment. But you are Admin subject to "a higher standard", and should realize such remarks coming out of emotion or bias without factual basis, can be offensive when applied to group of editors. (Sourgrapes remarks might make you and/or the nom "feel better", but the "feelings repair" sessions don't exist in a vacuum, but on very public WP Talk spaces.)
Thanks for your consider. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I respect your opinion and appreciate you taking the time to kindly word it, but I would have to stand by my original statements. No blowout was experienced, even if passion was involved. Perhaps my statements aren't being seen in the full context of my experiences with the editor, the well documented troubles with RfA in general, as well as my own frustration with admins who take themselves too seriously. They were more directed at the flawed system of RfA than any individual. While I obviously disagree with your position in the RfA, your comments weren't the basis for my later observations.
RfA is a rediculously demeaning guantlet, one which I've been active in trying to change for some time. I discussed some of my concern with one opposer at User talk:Bbb23, whom I disagree with often, and hold in very high regard. Actually, many of the opposing votes were by people I know and respect. Some of them I work with on projects here on a daily basis, but I still think they were mistaken. As I said, most of the people are wonderful people "not used to seeing common sense being used as a blunt instrument", as History2007's application of common sense IS a bit "in your face". I value independence as the most important trait in an admin candidate, and use common sense more often than policy when making admin decisions myself.
As to your ideas of admins: Admins shouldn't take themselves or having the admin bit very seriously, only it's use. We admins are not super-editors, our !votes count only as 1, we are not the leaders, we are simply the janitors. We mop up and we fix problems. We serve the community, we do not rule it. [emphasis mine] Being an admin, however, is not a bar to participate fully in discussions. I would suggest that in any discussion, you never give an admin's comments any more weight than those of a non-admin, and simply judge the comment on its merits. You probably do not know me very well, but one of my goals is to insure that non-admins do have the same voice here, and that admins don't become a separate class "above" the average registered editor. This is why I prefer voting for admin candidates who I think won't be clique-ish or develop "group think".
Thank you for politely expressing your concerns. While I wasn't acting as an admin in this event, and only as a fellow editor, I will always try to take the time and explain when someone has a genuine concern. I'm universally considered a civil person, yet there are times when being polite but blunt is a better option. [emphasis mine] My comments shouldn't be taken so personally by anyone, as they were a statement on the system rather than any one person. While this might not be the answer you were looking for, it is the truth. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
