` :::If I recall correctly that conversation had a log, and if you wish to find the log of that particular conversation you have my permission to share it.  Since you have come to me twice regarding this, I will also comment that it is a narrowly framed question which appears to be founded on a premise that if I responded on the terms you set then the past would be settled.  :::Other incidents actually give me considerably more misgivings about your suitability for the tools.  One happened during late summer 2008: someone else in your home was also an editor and informed me, as they were making a routine edit, that your account was logged into the computer at that time and you were in the other room.  That person appeared to be unaware of the role account policy.  I promptly informed you both of that policy and its consequences: it was the sort of thing that leads to sitebans and I asked you each to be very careful about logging in properly when editing.  As far as I was aware that matter seemed resolved, until shortly afterward a checkuser caught you using two administrator accounts.  That news surprised me as much as anybody.  You had been warned very clearly about account sharing within about two weeks before ArbCom had to deal with it.  :::Then, when the checkuser caught you, you posted a claim onsite that you had never shared anyone else's account besides those two administrators.  That was untrue; you had shared another account.  Your claim compelled me to disclose the other incident to the Committee, and I discussed with an arbitrator another possibility: you might have persuaded those two administrators to lend you their account passwords after I warned you about the role account policy.  A comparison of the chat log to your login would have determined which came first, but it was never undertaken.  We hoped you had learned your lesson.  The account sharing incident at Simple Wikipedia was a disappointment.  :::In early 2009 you asked me to mentor you and I declined.  Shortly afterward an arbitrator informed me that the Committee was ready to bring you back to en:wiki early with me as your mentor, and the arbitrator communicated it as pretty much a done deal that only needed to be formalized.  Both the arbitrator and I were unpleasantly surprised: I had been entirely unaware that you were negotiating with the Committee, and they had been completely unaware that I refused to mentor you.  Your persuasive skills are admirable: although you had approached me shortly after I had informed the Committee that I would not undertake any new mentorships, they trusted your word and believed I would mentor you anyway.  If recollection serves, at least one of them even attempted to change my mind and mentor you.  Those circumstances obligated me to reply to the Committee that the deceptive way you had undertaken your appeal demonstrated that you were unsuitable for an early return and that you were unlikely to benefit from anyone's mentorship. It was also surprising that they assumed you were more credible than me about that, but to quote Robert Heinlein, ``A committee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain.``  :::These are circumstances which until now few Wikipedians have known.  They are not pleasant recollections.  You asked twice, you intend to run for RFA, and your way of broaching the subject does not inspire confidence that you have put those mistakes behind you.  Once trust is lost it has to be earned back.  I truly respect your skills as a content editor.  Writing as someone who has worn both hats, and made a share of mistakes of a different sort, I really think your best fit with this site is as a content editor.  Tens of thousands of people read your articles every month.  That's a lot to be proud of. '''' `