User talk:Pedro: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:36, 18 November 2011

Crat threshold RfC

Hi Pedro. Hope you are doing well. I'm guessing you already know about this, but I wanted to keep you up to date, just in case. The bureaucrat threshold RfC went live while you were on a wikibreak. It can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Requests for bureaucratship threshold. All the best. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recall criteria

The last time you edited your Criteria for recall at User:Pedro/Recall was 20:41, 30 July 2009. In the interim, Dlohcierekim appears to have stopped editing, Giggy appears to have stopped editing, East718 appears to have stopped editing, Wisdom89 has declared themselves semi-retired, Accounting4Taste has retired, Barneca has retired, and Tanthalas39 has retired. Your initial list stated "Editors who leave Wikipedia will be removed from the list."

This is an informational request only - I have no intent of asking you to stand for recall, but as a student of the process, I'm interested - is your criteria the same? Do you intend to maintain the list of editors? Given that the initial list of 12 people required a 25% participation rate to trigger recall, and the currently active list of approved editors is less than 50% as large, would the number of editors require to trigger recall shrink automatically? If the number of active editors on the list was less than 3, would that mean that you were no longer open to recall? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have become less active on Wikipedia I have been inatentive about such matters. The list should be maintained because as you rightly point out if the list reduced to a very low limit it would make a mockery of the requirements. I shall give some thought to it, and add some editors under my general criteria of not being "wiki mates" but people who I trust not to make frivolous claims. Thanks for pointing it out. Pedro : Chat 07:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, pending editors accepting. Thanks again. Pedro : Chat 09:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Your G8 was probably a better tag than my R3, but I was focusing on a different aspect. My curiosity is the log of my move. How did I move a page over a redirect?[1]--My76Strat (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honest answer - I'm not sure. Something rings a bell about this though - that th elogs can record what look like admin actions to non admins in these instances - it's why the "list of administrators" generates hndreds of people with only 1 admin action. I'm sure someone clever can explain the exact reason - maybe WP:VP/T? Pedro : Chat 13:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a page over a redirect with only one edit in the page history is something ~~anyone~~ any autoconfirmed editor can do; it's moving a page over a non-redirect, or over a redirect with a history of more than one edit, that's limited to admins. And Pedro, how come I don't get to be one of your potential executioners? :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - a single edit and auto-confirm can do it. Well, there you go - thankyou!. And since you want to sit on th eboard of executioners you can. Black hat on standby please sir. Pedro : Chat 14:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done With appropriate sarcasm in the edit summary [2] :) Pedro : Chat 14:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<smile>. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RFA/Anomie

I went back to have a look at it after the suggestion it was a joke, but I am not going to move it back, simply because I'm not sure it is one:

the edit summary for its addition is merely "oppose", and the automatic section heading in the name suggests it was supposed be added to the oppose column;
and more importantly, it seems an odd way of making such a joke, given the nature of automated counting.

Of course, as a support !voter, I hope I will turn out to be wrong. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 11:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joke opposers often fudge with the section edit summary to startle people looking at the edit in their watchlist. Always best to query the participant rather than moving their comment.

Not sure what you mean about automated counting. The bot counts the hash marks in the sections, not the edit summaries or bolded statements. –xeno^talk 13:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

shrug* Well, yes, okay, point taken about asking. I still don't think it's a very clear joke though, and if it hadn't been me querying it, someone else would have -- maybe someone who would have reacted in a stormier fashion. (Apologies wrt to automated counting, I thought it took account of bolded statements.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 13:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's all moved [3] and as Xeno is a 'crat and is aware of the whole thing I think it's safely resolved. Don't get me wrong - it was a good faith effort by yourself and sometime these "joke opposes" cause more grief than any minor laugh they generate. Best. Pedro : Chat 14:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you recall

Hi Pedro, if you were wondering what had happened to your recall criteria I've knicked them and put you on the list User:WereSpielChequers/Recall, hope you don't mind. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Touched that you saw fit to base yours on mine good sir. Pedro : Chat 20:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Please consider removing the second half of your comment per WP:NPA. That was poor showing, in my opinion. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're joking aren't you? That's a personal attack? Have you actually any clue on the backgroud of this (and bear in mind Iridescent went to some lengths to imply that they were female when they are actually male). Take your petty warnings away please. Pedro : Chat 20:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not joking, and I have no interest in the background. But that is a personal attack and completely irrelevant to the RfA, so I have redacted it for you. I suggest you do not restore it. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I have undone it. You suggest I do not restore it. On what grounds?Pedro : Chat 20:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have lowered my opinion of you. That's all — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actaully, since you are so keen I've just kept it to a simple oppose and removed the lot. Hope that satisfies - and I couldn't care less about the opinion of someone who refactors others comments without full discussion. Look to yourself would be my unasked advice. Pedro : Chat 20:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't opposing without a rationale just as bad as supporting without one? Alzarian16 (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question. Briefly - I would think so yes. Expanded - luckily for me, I'm opposing based on a simple premise. MSGJ seems to think that the candidate is fit for adminship (hence nominating) yet does not understand WP:NPA (as evidenced above, as my comments at the RFA where not personal attacks). Thus MSGJ's nomination must be treated with due concern. I disagree with MSGJ, hence I disagree with their nomination. An oppose without commentary implies I disagree with the nomination as much as a support without commentary apparently implies I agree with it. Given that I went to great lengths to provide comments when I supported, I'm now going to back-track to a default position that (apparently) has become acceptable. Pedro : Chat 21:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. That line of reasoning's rather convincing given that I disagree with the initial premise. I would argue that you're more than capable of judging the candidate for yourself regardless of what MSGJ or anybody else thinks, and opposing him based on his nominator punishes the wrong person, but I'm guessing you already considered that. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I (think) I agree, but one could argue that accepting a nomination from someone who thinks censoring commentary is okay shows poor judgement on behalf of the person accepting the nomination. A shame, really, as generally I find MSGJ to add a lot of value to debates on WP. This particular wholesale censorship of my comments on a flawed (indeed a discourteous) basis has led to a oppose of a candidate - yet reveals the candidates' jugement is quetionable. as well Pedro : Chat 21:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought about it like that. Maybe if there was evidence that MSGJ acted like this frequently that would be a reasonable conclusion, but like you said it seems out of character. I don't think it's fair to blame Redrose for accepting the nomination given that there wasn't any suggestion of anything like this prior to the start of the RfA, especially if we consider that MSGJ's nominated successful candidates in the past. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say Pedro that I really can't see opposing because of the nominator, or what you perceive to be a cock-up from the nominator, as an intellectually honest position. But for what it's worth I too think that MSGJ was wrong to play the ubiquitous NPA card, and even more wrong to revert you himself. Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more concerned about the daft "no experience of blocking" opposes, none of whom had any experience of blocking either until they managed to creep under the bar at RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Didn't want to screw up the count Thanks for the diplomacy - could have turned nasty! Leaky Caldron 21:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, jusy didn't want to refactor your intent (as opposed to other editors who apparently do). I find it ideal to ask and check, rather than discourteously revert or ammend edits. Pedro : Chat 21:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement of someone whose name is the joining of two others' fame

Wanna bet he unretires? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That outcome would seem almost certain. Pedro : Chat 09:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have won your bet. He's already editing outside of his rants and accusations in his own userspace/talkspace, so (predictably) this looks to have been all a load of posturing for the sake of drama. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in other news, sun rises ... Pedro : Chat 14:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 seconds for being too sharp of a point. Please dull your tip during your block. Also, you need to think long and hard about what other bullshit I could have put here. (By the way, on my talk page, you used "you're" twice when it should have been "your" both times.) /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For delivering a two-second block you ought to be desysopped. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WTF.. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fine line between a 2 second block and Fetchcomms's five-finger exploding heart punch. ;) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Fetchcomms#Not_blocked_yet for background. And Malleus, a lot of people ought to be desysopped. Perhaps you should start with the ones who actually aren't trying to be funny when they block someone. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next time I want the five-finger exploding heart punch though. Pedro : Chat 07:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro, no punch could harm that big heart of yours, which has revealed itself again at the RfA. Well done, yet again! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hello, Pedro. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve - received but for the next week and a bit I'm travelling on business so no time. Sorry :( Pedro : Chat 19:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When will you be back? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I'm waiting for you. Don't think I can do this without you backing me. But I've decided to go ahead with it this time. Nothing to lose and all...us two will work on the details and let you know when we're ready. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know, poke us when you're back. I'm not chickening out this time. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven, apologies for the delay in reply and lack of effort - I've been "enjoying" some travel around our nation's "glorious" capital. :) I'll make every effort to do this tomorrow. P. Pedro : Chat 20:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. See these pages for more info. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback (Woe90i)

Hello, Pedro. You have new messages at Woe90i's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Motivations on the RfAR

I don't know if you will believe me here, but...

A. I wouldn't be going after another administrator "to get" Malleus. That strikes me as ridiculously unethical. Him being the subject of the block here is irrelevant to the underlying administrator behavior problem. This has happened a bunch, with many users.

B. While Malleus' conduct concerns me greatly writ large, I would not personally have blocked him in this situation. Warn, perhaps, symmetrically on the two users, probably on the talk page thread; not block.

C. I believe the discussion would likely have resulted in a proper, per-process unblock not that further in the future. Perhaps with disputed consensus, but with proper consultations and an administrator who's less involved and who consulted with all parties making the call. I don't think that would have been the wrong thing to happen, either. It might have taken another 15, 30, 60 minutes but would not have substantially extended the block.

D. I've tried to phrase the ANI filing in as neutral a manner as possible regarding Malleus and the underlying conduct. He was following Mkat's talk page and asked me to notify him if the case was filed, which I did out of courtesy. I didn't make him a party because he wasn't relevant to the admin action side of things, only the subject thereof. I kind of expected that some people on both sides will interpret this as a referendum on Malleus, but I didn't put it up that way and I have zero intention of adding him as a party or involving him further (other than the expectation that he will have his say, and that I predict he's going to interpret this as a referendum on him as well). I've been contemplating trying to say that on the RfAR page to discourage others from that aspect of it, and encourage Arbcom to take it up with a more narrow focus, which I think they're inclined to do anyways. I'm not sure how it will be taken if I call that out, though, so I'm being cautious about it.

I don't know that I can change your mind, and I'm going to be a bit more careful with the RfAR page discussion than I am being here (this is public, and if you chose to copy or quote it there I can't/won't stop you, but I hope not). But no, I'm not out to "get Malleus". Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my interpretation George, it's the reality; you need look no further than User:MONGO's statement, a user with whom I disagreed at the recent GAR on the 9/11 article coincidentally. FWIW I do believe that you weren't "out to get me" in starting this case, but it's almost inevitably going to end up that way nevertheless. And in fact I suspect that I'll have rather little further to say. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw his comments. It's my hope that the accepted case is scoped narrowly on the admin actions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be. But I still question whether you would have pursued this had it not involved me. Unblocks happen every day, why is mine so important to you? Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocks happen every day, but the "enabling unblocks" pattern does not. It does go back some time. It's been widely observed and criticized. They don't happen with non-controversial editors, in general, so it was more likely that you'd be involved in any test case anyways.

I might not have noticed another editor's block, I do have a tendency to go check out ANI sections with your name on it more than some other topics.

I'm not out-and-out trying to get rid of you. If I ever reach the point that I honestly think your negatives completely outweigh you're contributions you'll know; I'll tell you so, and then file a case or community sanction proposal if subsequent discussion doesn't work. I am paying attention to you, and working to curb your overenthusiasm, but "working" mostly means "reminding you how I feel about this, and that I'm still here, and trying to work civilly with you so you don't just tell me to sod off and ignore me".

I am concerned that your communications style could easily reach that point at some point in the future, and I think I've said so. But you also have moderated your behavior and are more responsive to constructive criticism than you let on. Your interest in building the encyclopedia is clear.

Sure, there's a fair amount of internalized "What the @#$#$# did Malleus do now?" once a month or so when I see new topics on ANI or wherever. But the few times I ended up feeling that there was something I wanted to say about it after reading the details, I told you so. You should know by now that I'm perfectly happy to show up and let you know how I feel...

I don't like you, no. And I have concerns about your effects on the encyclopedia project as a whole. But I respect you enough to be honest and open about it.

As I said above - I don't know how to address this all on the RfAR without risking making it worse / drawing you in more. Which is not my goal at all. If you or Pedro feel that this should be on the record for the RfAR I can't stop you from referring to it or copying it over. But it's my hope to not make it more focused on you. I am considering a less detailed request that the scope be kept focused. I am listening here and if you want on my talk page or email if you have specific responses or suggestions or concerns on that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously we won't be agreeing any time soon, but I thank you for your honesty anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 10:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not Pedro I hadn't fully appreciated the depth of George's antipathy towards me, just goes to show. I find it rather sad in a way, but I'm prepared to believe he's doing what he thinks is right, even though he's clearly wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 10:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BN

I think we're actually in agreement. You may not have realized that my comment was directed at xeno. The threading doesn't make that clear, as WJBscribe replied to xeno as well while I was composing my reply. I don't think that there's anything uncivil or inappropriate about acknowledging that someone has already made a decision and isn't open to changing their mind. On the contrary, respecting the fact that someone isn't open to persuasion usually cools off the discussion. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Zhang's RFA

Regarding my oppose vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Steven Zhang, I won't comment at length because the discussion has closed and it would be unfair on the candidate to protract the issue. However, I accept that I worded badly that part of my comment that related to "nomination shopping". I respect you and Doug (to whom I have also posted this message), and I did not at all mean to imply what it appears I did. Regards, AGK [•] 22:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, appreciated. (Thanks to Swarm for the correction too!) Pedro : Chat 09:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any burn-out tonic?

I think you're not the person to ask (I gather you have similar issues), but... I'm quickly losing the desire to spend what little time I can here. Too many <redacted>s, on both sides of the aisle. Have any advice? Want to commiserate? heard any good jokes lately? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a little snifter and tonic that helps :). This place seems to be creaking at the moment, sadly. I find not selecting the "keep me logged in for 30 days" checkbox rather handy. No watchlist.... Pedro : Chat 22:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't; gout. Yes, I was thinking of deleting my watchlist. And yeah, I suppose one reason I come here is because it's easy. If I had to log on each time, I might just go to the next bookmark on the list (National Enquirer Online). Good advice, as usual. Sorry to not see you around much. I miss the old days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. A few years ago it seemed so much more fun. Pedro : Chat 22:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what it feels like to get old? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. The gout is what it feels like to get old :) Pedro : Chat 22:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Dad says "nothing makes you feel as old as you do when your kid gets gout". --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough my father suffers from gout, and has for the last few years been reminding me it is both heridatry and first occured for him when he was forty something (which is not that far away for me). Pedro : Chat 22:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I'm supposed to be calling it "the gout". As in, "I have a touch of the gout". Makes me sound more doddering. And if you're not forty yet, you're just a puppy. I'm not even sure you should be an admin yet. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barely an editor, so I figure none of it counts :). Off to bed. Speak soon my friend. Pedro : Chat 22:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It did seem more fun a few years ago. But maybe that's just nostalgia kicking in, for a past that never really happened. Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps; my memory is starting to fade, so I may not be remembering the Wikipedia of Old correctly. I'm pretty sure there were dancing bears fornicating with unicorns, though, right? Nobody just imagines dancing bears fornicating with unicorns. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And every 200th edit resulted in free beer being shipped to your home by the WMF. Pedro : Chat 16:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did they stop delivering yours? I still get mine. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I get champagne now. I'm teh adminz don't you know? Just didn't want to mention it in front of you plebby writers. Pedro : Chat 22:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do me a favor..

Come over to my apartment and smash my computer with a lead pipe to ensure that I can retire from Wikipedia permanently. I don't have the willpower to do it myself. Also, it's been too long. How's it going Pedro?Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think he went to bed. I suppose we could talk about him behind his back while he's gone, tho... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, pity. Well, I'm a patient man. Do you have a lead pipe? Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just one, and I'm afraid I have to keep it in case I decide to knock some sense into myself and retire too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see your name pop up Mr Wisdom! It's all the same as ever here; wether that's good or bad who knows! I'd go for the screwdriver through the hard drive method :) Pedro : Chat 16:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Request

When you find the time, I would like your input as my readiness for WP:RFA. I've been here 5 years, have 12k edits that cover a wide variety of areas of Wikipedia. I took an extended wikibreak some time ago due to simply being burned out from heated debates, so I could re-evaluate how I can best contribute here. Never an admin action or threat of such against me, and I've learned to avoid areas where I have too much opinion or any bias, for my own mental health. My main focus of late has been new article and vandalism patrolling, as well as very general tasks across the board. Because of my experience with copyrights over the last couple of decades, I'm learning to contribute more in the copy vio area. I'm also working toward increasing my knowledge of the more technical aspects, wikicode and such (I've coded html since HTML v1.0, and play with Perl, PHP, etc.). I can provide contact info if you would like more personal information than I prefer to publish in the open. I've other experience that some may consider useful for admin here.

My reasoning for considering admin is to contribute in the areas I have mentioned above. My strong suit isn't dealing with dispute resolution, although I've gotten better over time and it is my goal to develop these skills to a higher level, so I would be very careful about jumping into these situations for a while. My experience is more on the technical side and I would like to think I exhibit reasonable judgement in less controversial areas. More importantly, I think I have a good understanding of my own strengths and weaknesses and understand that with the ability to use the tools comes responsibility. Please take the time to leave a msg on my talk page at your earliest convenience informing me if you are willing to consider this request. There isn't any rush on actually completing my request, but if you are too busy I would ask someone else to review my history and offer guidance. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 157: / Line 157: @@
 :::Just one, and I'm afraid I have to keep it in case I decide to knock some sense into myself and retire too. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 22:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 ::::Good to see your name pop up Mr Wisdom! It's all the same as ever here; wether that's good or bad who knows! I'd go for the screwdriver through the hard drive method :) <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 16:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
+== Personal Request ==
+When you find the time, I would like your input as my readiness for [[WP:RFA]].  I've been here 5 years, have 12k edits that cover a wide variety of areas of Wikipedia.  I took an extended wikibreak some time ago due to simply being burned out from heated debates, so I could re-evaluate how I can best contribute here.  Never an admin action or threat of such against me, and I've learned to avoid areas where I have too much opinion or any bias, for my own mental health.  My main focus of late has been new article and vandalism patrolling, as well as very general tasks across the board.  Because of my experience with copyrights over the last couple of decades, I'm learning to contribute more in the copy vio area.  I'm also working toward increasing my knowledge of the more technical aspects, wikicode and such (I've coded html since HTML v1.0, and play with Perl, PHP, etc.).  I can provide contact info if you would like more personal information than I prefer to publish in the open.  I've other experience that some may consider useful for admin here.
+My reasoning for considering admin is to contribute in the areas I have mentioned above.  My strong suit isn't dealing with dispute resolution, although I've gotten better over time and it is my goal to develop these skills to a higher level, so I would be very careful about jumping into these situations for a while.  My experience is more on the technical side and I would like to think I exhibit reasonable judgement in less controversial areas.  More importantly, I think I have a good understanding of my own strengths and weaknesses and understand that with the ability to use the tools comes responsibility.  Please take the time to leave a msg on my talk page at your earliest convenience informing me if you are willing to consider this request.  There isn't any rush on actually completing my request, but if you are too busy I would ask someone else to review my history and offer guidance.  [[User:Dennis Brown|Dennis Brown]] ([[User talk:Dennis Brown|talk]]) 16:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)