Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Peacemaker67

Peacemaker67's edit stats using X!'s edit counter as of 00:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC):

User ID:	15690513 User groups:	autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, user, autoconfirmed First edit:	Nov 8, 2011, 9:58 PM Latest edit:	Jan 30, 2016, 12:13 AM Live edits:	42,351 Deleted edits:	505 Total edits: 	42,856 Edits in the past 24 hours:	13 Edits in the past 7 days:	136 Edits in the past 30 days:	555 Edits in the past 365 days:	8,024 Ø number of edits per day:	27.8

Live edits: Unique pages edited:	9,736 Pages created:	1,657 Pages moved:	669 Ø edits per page:	4.3 Ø change per page (bytes):	extended Files uploaded:	54 Files uploaded (Commons):	35 (Semi-)automated edits:	1,243 Reverted edits:	165 Edits with summary:	41,017 Number of minor edits (tagged):	4,515 Number of edits (<20 bytes):	extended Number of edits (>1000 bytes):	extended Actions: Thank:	671 x Approve:	20 x Patrol:	400 x Admin actions Block:	0 x Protect:	0 x Delete:	0 x Import:	0 x Article: (Re)blocked:	2 x Longest block: 1 weeks Current block: – SUL editcounter (approximate):	latest ► enwiki	41,558	+2 minutes commonswiki	540	+27 days wikidatawiki	89	+23 days metawiki	3	> 30 days itwiki	1	> 30 days enwiktionary	1	> 30 days srwiki	1	> 30 days 43 others	0	> 30 days Total edits	42,193

Continued discussion of Mkdw's 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. Mkdw talk 02:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC) See page history of main RfA page for attribution. Esquivalience  t 04:49, 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)? Mkdw talk 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)