173.79.221.157 (talk) Add |
Undid revision 702487032 by 173.79.221.157 (talk) |
||
Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
#'''Support''', of course. I have personally interacted with the candidate and I think he would be a good, level-headed admin. --[[User:Biblioworm|Biblio]] ([[User_talk:Biblioworm#top|talk]]) 20:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC) |
#'''Support''', of course. I have personally interacted with the candidate and I think he would be a good, level-headed admin. --[[User:Biblioworm|Biblio]] ([[User_talk:Biblioworm#top|talk]]) 20:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''', good candidate, good answers to questions. <span style="font-family: sylfaen">[[User:Eman235|<font color="green">E'''man'''</font><font color="#6643d1">2'''35'''</font>]]/[[User talk:Eman235|<font color="brown">''talk''</font>]]</span> 20:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC) |
#'''Support''', good candidate, good answers to questions. <span style="font-family: sylfaen">[[User:Eman235|<font color="green">E'''man'''</font><font color="#6643d1">2'''35'''</font>]]/[[User talk:Eman235|<font color="brown">''talk''</font>]]</span> 20:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support'''', valuable milhist contributor, able to edit in sensitive areas, no objections. [[Special:Contributions/173.79.221.157|173.79.221.157]] ([[User talk:173.79.221.157|talk]]) 21:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
=====Oppose===== |
=====Oppose===== |
Revision as of 21:56, 30 January 2016
Peacemaker67
(talk page) (50/2/0); Scheduled to end 00:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Co-nomination from Nick-D
Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) – I’m very pleased to co-nominate Peacemaker67 as a candidate for the administrator tools. Peacemaker has been on Wikipedia since 2011 and has built up a very impressive editing history, including 15 featured articles. Significantly, the bulk of his work has been on articles relating to Eastern Europe (specifically the former Yugoslavia) where he has made a major contribution to improving the atmosphere and editing standards in that often-disputed subject area. The fact that many of the articles he’s worked on have been successful collaborations concerning controversial topics speaks for itself, but Peacemaker has also played a very constructive role in resolving editing disputes and responding to problematic conduct from other editors. While he has been blocked twice (not recently), the durations of both blocks were short, with the only lengthy one being rapidly lifted after he acknowledged he was in error.
In addition to his work as an editor, Peacemaker has made a valuable contribution to the “back end” of Wikipedia as one of the elected coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject. He was first elected by members of the project in 2013, and has since been re-elected in 2014 and 2015. In this role he has successfully undertaken a range of administrator-like roles, including judging the consensus in A-class nominations, responding to requests for advice and helping to resolve disputes.
All up, I think that Peacemaker67 has the experience with developing content, interpreting policies and handling disputes needed to be a very successful administrator. I recommend him to the community. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Co-nomination from The ed17
Alongside Nick, I'm very proud to present you with Peacemaker67. I've known Peacemaker for several years now, even profiling him for the Signpost in June of last year. Anyone that has interacted with the Military History WikiProject in the last three years has very likely run into him. He won the "Military history newcomer of the year" award in 2012, as voted on by his peers, and was elected to be a coordinator of the project at the subsequent election. He's been elected twice more since then, most recently in September 2015, and it's worth quoting the first vote for Peacemaker (from someone who was also standing for the position): "[Peacemaker] has been a fantastically prolific writer ... Working in a controversial area, he has gained considerable conflict resolution skills and has shown himself to be a very committed member of the project. Thank you for running again."
He has the admiration of his peers (in no small part due to his ability to learn from his mistakes and the humility to know when he's wrong), has significant article-writing experience in an area many of us would not touch with a 39-foot pole, and is a tireless contributor that is always working to fulfill our mission.
We would do a great disservice to not give Peacemaker the administrator toolkit. He has my full and unqualified endorsement, and I hope you'll join me. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
- I am a retired Australian soldier who spent six months in what was once Yugoslavia about twenty years ago. A bit over four years ago I decided that I would better understand what I saw and experienced while I was there if I knew more of the history of the place. I loved Britannica when I was a kid, so where else to start but with an online encyclopedia that I could contribute to myself? I was drawn to the World War II period because much of what I had seen and experienced in Yugoslavia seemed to have its roots in that time. Turns out it was far more complex than that…
- I have been an active member of WikiProject Military history since I started editing, and straight away started doing gnoming work around project categories needing attention, on top of my content creation. Since 2013, I’ve been on the elected project coordination team, and have contributed to organising backlog drives and administering our awards and contests. I’ve helped to promote over a dozen Featured Articles/Lists, 40-odd Good Articles and a Good Topic, but I’m most proud of the half-dozen or so articles and lists I have created from scratch and developed to FA/FL, and those that have been TFA/TFL. I’ve also reviewed about twenty FA candidates and over a hundred GA nominations. So I have a pretty good idea about how we build the encyclopaedia, including the practical application of our core policies of verifiability, original research and neutral point-of-view, as well other content policies.
- I’ve had autopatrolled, pending changes reviewer and rollbacker rights for nearly three years, and although I haven’t used them a lot, I also haven’t got into any trouble with them. When it was first suggested to me that I might request adminship, I really didn’t give it serious thought. But a couple of similar suggestions in the last year have caused me to take stock. I came to the conclusion that I have taken the backrooms of Wikipedia for granted. I get a kick out of writing content, and if I was entrusted with the tools, editing articles would still account for the majority of my on-Wiki time - but I feel an obligation to contribute to some of the work that keeps the wheels turning, and hope that the community will conclude that I can be trusted with the tools. I am grateful to those that have seen a potential admin in me, especially my co-nominators. I accept the nomination.
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Despite the fact that I have had a fair amount of experience at WP:AE and WP:ANI and have an awareness that not all admins are willing to put up with the drama, I don’t believe they are areas that new admins should get involved. Given the contentious nature of where I edit (mostly Yugoslavia in World War II), if I was given the tools I would also be mindful of any perceived or actual conflicts of interest when responding to any issues raised in that topic area. Initially I would be looking to help out with defending against vandalism through WP:RFPP, and I believe my policy-based WP:AFD contributions show that I know our policies on notability and can implement them there. I’d be happy to help out across the board eventually, but I reckon it would be best to dip my toe in with these areas first, and leave swimming the English Channel for later. No doubt I would get a feel for where I can most usefully contribute over time.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Firstly the FAs/FLs and GAs I've contributed to, but more particularly those that I have collaborated on with one or more editors. When I first started editing I got a certain sense of achievement from developing an article on a contentious subject into a NPOV FA largely on my own, a good example of which is Pavle Đurišić. I’ve subsequently found that it is actually far more enjoyable and fulfilling to put together a really top-quality and comprehensive article working with other editors, like Artur Phleps or 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg. I still do the former, but I prefer the latter.
- Secondly, the work I have done in helping the WikiProject Military history boat go faster, initially as a gnome and contributor to backlog drives etc, and latterly as an elected coordinator, administering our contests and handing out awards, determining consensus on assessments, welcoming new members of the project and contributing to internal guidelines.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: Sadly, conflict is common in the Balkans area, it has its own Arbitration case (ARBMAC) for a reason. Early on, I didn’t know how to handle it effectively, and used some sharp words. Nowadays, generally I handle it pretty well via talk page discussion, though I’m not perfect and definitely strayed from the path in the past. I have two blocks, the last in November 2014 (one week, but lifted after a day as I acknowledged my wrongdoing and apologised to the community), and another 24-hour block two-and-a-half years before that. I’m not proud of my behaviour on either occasion, but the 2014 block really was a wakeup call, and I have definitely learned from it. Since then, I have quickly moved to dispute resolution avenues like RfC if a difference of opinion seems intractable (see Talk:Bijeljina massacre), and have found that usually takes some of the heat out of the discussion by drawing in disinterested editors who can provide all parties with their perspective. Even on complex issues like that one, I’ve found that well-drafted RfCs can be a great way to break down conflict into manageable chunks and make some progress, even when there are a lot of issues to address and positions are entrenched. Some incidents and behaviours need to be reported to the drama boards and dealt with. It takes effort and precision, and a willingness to have your own behaviour scrutinised as part of the report, but sometimes it needs to be done in the interests of the encyclopaedia. Nevertheless, when it comes to conflict, sometimes the best thing to do is avoid it or walk away, so I’ve also learnt to do that when appropriate.
You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are also forbidden. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.
- Additional question from GAB
- 4. Your mention of the Balkans gave me an idea for a question. How would you deal with a long-term and IDHT tendentious editor who has created a battleground scenario, such as in the Battle of Berlin case (check the talk page history, you'll see what I mean) -- where an editor debated Red Army war crimes for a very long period of time? This is a serious problem that Wikipedia has encountered over the years. GABHello! 02:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- A: Sorry for my tardiness in responding, I just wanted to make sure I had read all the relevant talk page archives. Here's my take on such situations. Developing and maintaining NPOV in controversial subject areas can be really difficult. It is critical for the health of the encyclopaedia that significant opinions are summarised, and that fringe theories are given their due weight. Difficulties arise in deciding what constitutes a fringe opinion, and this is often where battlegrounds can develop. I've found that inline attribution and judicious weighting of reliable sources is often enough to address these types of problems, and failing agreement on that, a well-drafted RfC can open up the discussion and provide perspective. On occasion, tendentiousness and battlegrounding can get to the point where they scare off casual contributors and make editing a chore for all involved. Some editors refuse to acknowledge our policies on reliable sources and NPOV, and it is important for the community to reinforce our policies with them if they are to be a net positive. That is what ANI (and in relevant areas) AE are for. They are fora of last resort to try to correct long-term and tendentious editing which is disrupting the encyclopaedia. Unfortunately, bringing someone to them is a blunt stick approach, and often hurts rather than heals. Closely targeted topic bans have been used to positive effect to address just this type of thing, but it is important that they are finite and the opportunity is given to affected editors to demonstrate they can be a net positive elsewhere in their areas of interest. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Additional question from Allthefoxes
- 5. What is Eventualism to you? What will be your legacy to Wikipedia? --allthefoxes (Talk) 03:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- A: I don't really think about Wikipedia in those terms, and (assuming that is what you're driving at) I don't have a philosophy I apply at AfD. I hope that I approach all articles on their merits, and apply our policies to them as objectively as I can. So far as a legacy is concerned, I really only think about my content creation in that way, and even then only because you've asked the question and I've thought about it today. Perhaps that I'll have contributed in a modest way to WP's coverage of military history? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Additional questions from Andrew D.
- 6. When you were blocked in 2014, your unblock request said "I submit that the length of the block is excessive in the circumstances..." This was a block of one week. Please explain your thinking on the duration of such blocks.
- A: At the time I added, "...considering the severity of the behaviour and my lack of past history of the behaviour in question". But our blocking policy is about preventing damage or disruption to WP, and not about punishment. By referring to severity and lack of past history, I was attempting to address something that was not actually relevant, but I wasn't really aware of that at the time. I had demonstrated that I knew why I had been blocked, had unreservedly apologised, and had stated that I would not repeat the behaviour, and that is why the block had become unnecessary in a preventative sense. So far as the duration of a block for the behaviour I had engaged in, I think it was about right. If I had not responded in the way I had, the admin concerned would most likely have upheld the block in order to prevent disruption to WP. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- 7. Until quite recently, your sig was "Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)". Please explain what this meant and why you have changed it. Andrew D. (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- A: I was told that my signature wasn't compliant with the AfD tool (which I understood would be used to assess my competence in applying our policies at AfD), so reverted it to the standard one. Crack... thump is a military colloquial phrase (at least in Australia) that refers to the sounds made by a supersonic bullet as it passed. A sharp crack is the first sound you hear - the sound of the bullet breaking the sound barrier, and it is followed by a thump, which is the sound of the ignition of the cartridge in the chamber of the weapon. Knowing this sequence can help you to work out which way the bullets are flying, and can help keep you alive. It was a (albeit extremely obscure) reference to my former life as a soldier. If I remember rightly, before that I had used a similarly obscure reference to military radio procedure, like "send... over" or something. I intend to keep my signature simple from here on out, to enable new editors to easily find their way to my talk page. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Additional question from SSTflyer
- 8. You mentioned that you are interested in AfD work. How would you have closed this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)?
- A:
- Additional question from Dirtlawyer1
- 9. Hey, Peacemaker. I spent 30 minutes reviewing the military-related content you have created, including those Good Articles and Class-A articles for which your work was primarily responsible for their promotion. It's an impressive body of work, and speaks well of you as an editor. As an administrator generally, you will have to make various determinations of notability and suitability upon which a decision to keep, delete or merge an article may depend, including, in particular, determining the consensus of AfD discussion participants. So, I have one question in two parts for you. First, the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG are the starting point (and often the end point) in determining the notability of an article subject; can you please discuss your understanding of the general notability guidelines per GNG? Second, the concept of "significant coverage" is key to understanding the GNG standard of notability; can you please describe what coverage is not significant, what coverage is significant, and provide an example or two of what you believe are close calls? Thanks and good luck with your candidacy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- A:
Discussion
- Links for Peacemaker67: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Peacemaker67 can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Support
- Support - I have no questions, but only the utmost respect for Peacemaker67 that goes back years. He's been a mainstay at Wikipedia Project Military History, and I'm certain he can be trusted to be a good admin.— Maile (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support per no biggie. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 00:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support - my encounters thus far with this editor have been quite positive. His counter-vandal work is of particular note to me, and a cursory glance through his contributions and mediations convince me of his competence. Dschslava (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Co-nomination support Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Co-nomination support Nick-D (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support - In return for all the help that he has done in my years in the free encyclopedia. Arius1998 (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Abso-bloody-lutely! Despite a couple of lapses, which are ancient history now, Peacemaker is one of the most patient and helpful editors I've come across; I had the pleasure of serving alongside him as a Milhist coordinator for a while. He always impressed me with his ability to give and take advice, and to get stuck into some of the more monotonous tasks. Given that adminship is mostly about boring, repetitive tasks, I have no doubt he'll do fine there and when it comes to judgement, I trust Peacemaker to make sensible decisions and to seek advice when he gets stuck. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support easily. I've encountered this user many times and always found them to be thoughtful, mature, and even-tempered. --Laser brain (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Fully qualified candidate as per HJ Mitchell. Examination reveals no causes for concern and the block log is old-hat and not part of today's equation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support A top-notch editor. I thought that Yugoslavia-related topics would be a minefield, but he has handled them brilliantly. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support Sounds good --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support I have reviewed the material from the 2014 block and don't think there's any recent examples of such behavior. I recall our amicable resolution of a matter at Talk:Waffen-SS/Archive 2#Logo as a good example of his capacity for reasonable, fact-based discussion, exactly the quality needed for admin work. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support: I have worked with Peacemaker quite a bit over the past couple of years and have been impressed with what I have seen. I believe that if he obtains the necessary support, he will be a positive force as an admin. PM: thank you for putting up your hand to help out the encyclopedia once again. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support: Would be a good admin for the project.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 03:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support:
for the Australian of the Year awardWrong site, oops. Has certainly shown deep consideration for disputes between editors and has a distinguished history with editing despite two small blemishes to his block log - though considering the subject area that Peacemaker67 often works in, this is a very clean block log indeed. Seems to already know how to be an Admin from their prior experience as a Coordinator of the MilHist Project. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC) - Support. Amazing content editor. Can be trusted with the tools. Here's hoping he will apply that same zeal for military history towards wielding the mop! -- Ϫ 04:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support: I have worked with Peacemaker67 on quite a number of occasions (including as a MILHIST co-ordinator, but also as an A/GA class reviewer etc., and on a few articles as well) and have found him to be a highly collaborative editor with a strong work ethic, and a commitment to advancing the cause of the project on a broad front. In addition to a solid record of content creation at FA/A/GA he can be counted on to assist with many of the more mandrolic admin processes that keep us moving forward, often doing much of the heavy lifting for backlog drives and other tasks. Since coming on the scene in 2011 he has shown himself to be a quick learner, developing a thorough understanding of both policy and process. He is often involved in discussions on a range of topics and regularly provides thoughtful and considered advice / opinion on the basis of policy (and common sense). In my experience PM completes any task with obvious competence and attention to detail and I have no doubt that he would be more than suitable as an Admin. Anotherclown (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support Some reading of their talk page interactions shows great patience and knowledge of policy. They also seem to have the rare knack of de-escalating conflict and formulating clear and neutral RfC. I definately trust them with the tools. Happy Squirrel (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support Strong content work and would make a good admin. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support No issues. Philg88 ♦talk 09:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I trust this user to be able to avoid using the tools whenever he feels uncomfortable doing so. sst✈ (speak now) 10:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- SQLQuery me! 12:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support I've not directly interacted with the candidate, but I've seen them interact with others on multiple occasions, and liked what I saw. Has sufficient tenure, seems to have clue and is unlikely to abuse the tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Undoubtedly, more admins are needed in this area, and with this users history, I'm landing here on this. Previously saying he doesn't have the right temperament over 9 months ago doesn't sway me - maybe he didn't at the time, but I don't think AfD's should dig that far back into everything people have said. Mdann52 (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support Editor's achievements speak for himself. As for whatever may have been said regarding temperament, the proof is in the pudding, and the proved ability to work with others to create valuable content is to me a much more valid means of measuring the candidate.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Seen this editor around, and all I've seen is great work, well done. No doubts. Orphan Wiki 13:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support Gamaliel (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support, strongly. His impressive work on the controversial topic of Yugoslav WW II history speaks for itself.--Saxum (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Well-qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support – I know him from the WikiProject Military History and from review of GA articles. Well-qualified as stated above. Kierzek (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support - seen him around, always appeared competent and intelligent.--Staberinde (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Clueful, careful, cautious editor. I see no problems here. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support Excellent content and a strong track record of working on contentious topics, and has clearly expressed remorse over the events leading to the block. I said everything else I needed to at the pre-RfA poll. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support I like all of the content work I've seen so far. Well deserved. JAGUAR 16:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support of the *second* MilHist candidate :-), with good content work in tough areas. Admins are not (yet) required to be automatons, and a reluctance to enter the meat-grinder which RfA has become is a sign of intelligence in my book. Miniapolis 16:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support Excellent contributor. We collaborated on 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg and brought it to FA, and brought a couple other articles to GA as well. I have a lot of respect for the way he transformed Wikipedia's coverage of the Balkans. Definitely worthy and deserving of adminship. 23 editor (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support I'm seeing nothing that concerns me and lots of good reasons to have you as an admin. Hobit (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support Quality contributor, can be trusted with the tools. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support: Great content work, appears trustworthy enough for the tools and to have learned from the blocks. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support: Contributes good stuff, project would be better if they had the tools. Also per no big deal. --allthefoxes (Talk) 18:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I don't recall interacting with Peacemaker67, nor do I have a distinct impression of them from the noticeboards, but after going through their stats everything looks fine, so unless something comes up to change my mind, I'm happy to support this nomination. BMK (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support: Good contributor, should be worthy of being an Admin! Class455fan1 (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support Would make an excellent admin. clpo13(talk) 18:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support Absolutely. Katietalk 18:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support no concerns. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support for a high quality contributor. Graham Beards (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support, of course. I have personally interacted with the candidate and I think he would be a good, level-headed admin. --Biblio (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support, good candidate, good answers to questions. Eman235/talk 20:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose In March 2015, the editor said "I definitely do not have the necessary temperament" when talking about running for RFA. The editor was more than welcome to disagree with concerns I had brought up, but they, in my opinion reacted very poorly to it. Telling me my comments were "an attempt to maintain the aggressive and insular RFA cabal" and then went on to say "
what really should be happening here is a close examination of every edit Mkdw has made in relation to RFA's. Every single one. In nauseating detail. Reaching back to when they joined WP... How's them apples, old mate? Squeaky clean, are we? I bloody well hope so... Never hit the enter key too early? Sheesh...
". Editors are going to do and say things that the candidate may not agree with and may even think were totally uncalled for, but I simply have to agree with this candidate's own assessment of themselves, in that they do not have the temperament for the role. Mkdwtalk 02:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)- I certainly respect your oppose, and in response I contend that my comments were an accurate reflection on what RfA was like at the time, even if they were made in a rather forceful manner. I have been pleasantly surprised by the atmosphere of RfA in the recent past, and with a couple of notable exceptions, have felt it has become less of a process of finding reasons to oppose. That improvement in atmosphere is partly responsible for my decision to accept a nomination. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- You say RFA has changed, but aside from asserting your comments were accurate, presumably even the ones directly about me (and not RFA), then how has RFA changing has made you less "cranky for admin work"? Running for RFA and being an admin are different phases of things and once past one, you could move onto the other. Was there anything about "being" an admin you didn't think you'd be able to do (even if you were to pass RFA)? Mkdwtalk 02:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- No, there wasn't/isn't. My comments to you were intended to draw attention to an issue of people in glasshouses not throwing stones, and a related observation that none of us are perfect. My comments about "admin work" when adminship was raised with me were very off-the-cuff and dismissive, as you might sense by some of the banter that went along with one of them. They don't represent my considered opinion of my suitability for adminship, which I have thought about a lot since it was first suggested. And which led me here. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'd add that the tone of my comments to you isn't representative of my usual standard of discourse. It wasn't my best day. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- No, there wasn't/isn't. My comments to you were intended to draw attention to an issue of people in glasshouses not throwing stones, and a related observation that none of us are perfect. My comments about "admin work" when adminship was raised with me were very off-the-cuff and dismissive, as you might sense by some of the banter that went along with one of them. They don't represent my considered opinion of my suitability for adminship, which I have thought about a lot since it was first suggested. And which led me here. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- You say RFA has changed, but aside from asserting your comments were accurate, presumably even the ones directly about me (and not RFA), then how has RFA changing has made you less "cranky for admin work"? Running for RFA and being an admin are different phases of things and once past one, you could move onto the other. Was there anything about "being" an admin you didn't think you'd be able to do (even if you were to pass RFA)? Mkdwtalk 02:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I certainly respect your oppose, and in response I contend that my comments were an accurate reflection on what RfA was like at the time, even if they were made in a rather forceful manner. I have been pleasantly surprised by the atmosphere of RfA in the recent past, and with a couple of notable exceptions, have felt it has become less of a process of finding reasons to oppose. That improvement in atmosphere is partly responsible for my decision to accept a nomination. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Why should I trust an RfA hopeful who has expressed serious doubt regarding their own ability in the role? Wisdom89 ♦talk 05:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Because that means they will likely be cautious, which is infinitely better than a candidate who arrogantly thinks they know everything. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'd rather have somebody who reluctantly gets drafted up to adminship than a hat-collecting teenager who can't wait to "test" the block button. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- It may show that he has learned and has the ability to learn and change. Dunning Kruger effect. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'd rather have somebody who reluctantly gets drafted up to adminship than a hat-collecting teenager who can't wait to "test" the block button. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Because that means they will likely be cautious, which is infinitely better than a candidate who arrogantly thinks they know everything. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Neutral
General comments