User talk:Peacemaker67

G'day. If you have got something to say, pull up a pew and say it (but please be civil).

Informal portrait of the editor as a young man

Question

Hi, I have a concern about the outcome of a discussion on this article's talk page. I see that you commented there near the end, but following that, there just doesn't appear to be any kind resolution. There was a debate, involving several editors, that started in December of last year, and despite a consensus, a single editor, basically chasing everyone away by bludgeoning them with persistent, circular and at times off-topic and even non-sensical comments, basically asserted his own will over the consensus. I'm just wondering how the project can tolerate such an outright refusal to engage in any kind of meaningful and cooperative dialogue while asserting such blatant page ownership? Is that the lesson here? Just wear everyone down until you get your way? I'd like your thoughts on this. Thanks. - wolf 10:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

G’day wolf. I would initiate a neutrally worded RfC on it, as I suggested. That is how we resolve these types of disputes, get a wider community view. It still may not resolve it, but at least you would have given it a go. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Module talk:Infobox military conflict RfC on result parameter

Hi, you may have seen the close of "no consensus". I may have this wrong, but "no consensus" is not the same as "consensus against". In "no consensus", the result is to default to the existing consensus. The problem is that the proposition was phrased to determine support of the status quo. I would doubt if the OP would view "no consensus" as defaulting to the status quo without some resistance. Your thoughts on what it means and how to deal with it would be appreciated. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject World War I Op-Ed Series

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		In recognition of the role you played in cleaning up my God-awful spelling and grammar in the World War I Op-Ed series published by the Military history WikiProject's newsletter The Bugle over the last four years, I hereby present you with this teamwork barnstar. It is thanks to so many different editors like you who took the time to copyedit the nearly four year long series that it ended up being as successful as it was, and I am grateful for your help since spelling and grammar are not my strongest suites. Yours sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. My contribution was insignificant compared to your consistent and excellent work in bringing WWI to life. Well done on the whole project. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Involved close

I don't think this was an appropriate course of action: [1] & [2]. You either close or comment, not both (including to disparage me). It's not a coordinator's role to clerk discussions that they are involved with. Please undo and let someone else close the discussion if they deem necessary. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a project page, I'm the lead coordinator, and I made a coordinator decision to circumvent a disruptive and pointy thread that was clearly out of process. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It almost sounds like you don't wish to see your own words quoted back at you... --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It is in the archive if you wish to quote me later. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I meant this portion:

The discussion included the sentiment, apparently echoed by others, that alleged anti-Nazis were a "problem" and that "all coordinators [should] keep a weather eye out for this behaviour": Thread.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It is also there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

That's why you archived it so quickly, because it was "pointy", and not because it involved you? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It’s almost like “casting aspersions” without evidence wasn’t a finding in the arbcom case. Parsecboy (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• I went ahead and unarchived it. The action seemed premature; a subheading shouldn't be moved to the archives separately from the rest of the section, especially an active one, and it doesn't seem to have made it to the archive. It ended up in archive 148 –dlthewave ☎ 01:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? I archived it straight away, because it was disruptive, pointy and out-of-process, and to leave it there would have perpetuated the disruption. I also didn't see my username mentioned, and thought it was about Sturmvogel_66. We've already had one editor leave the project after reading your negative thread. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

And Dlthewave, your action was inappropriate and perpetuated the disruption and out-of-process nature of the pointy thread, which had nothing to do with me, so far as I was aware. I have re-archived it in 159 (which the bot created after I archived it the first time). Leave it there. I created a new and neutral thread about the name of the award, which was the non-disruptive part of K.e.coffman's thread. BTW if you don't like the actions of a coordinator, you can appeal to the rest of the coord team to overturn my decision by starting a thread on the coord talk page, we are also all subject to recall by members of the project, or you can vote for others when the time comes. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Disruptive threads are not typically archived immediately, especially when they are a subheading of an active section. Normally the thread will be closed and collapsed, then archived along with the rest of the section after it has been inactive for some time. You became involved when you made a comment just before closing. –dlthewave ☎ 01:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)