Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Peacemaker67

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Peacemaker67

Final (184/1/0); Closed as successful by ···

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)[reply]

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.

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. GAB^Hello! 02:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: Bit of a delay while I slept and then read the notability guideline for music. I hadn't ever looked at

WP:NSONGS before, because I've never edited in that subject area. It seems to me that, at the time the AfD was closed, the song did not meet NSONGS. Based on the comments alone, the song didn't appear to have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label (at that point it hadn't been released). I note that one of the IPs voted twice, and that IP and another had only one or two edits before becoming involved in the AfD. On that basis, I would have placed minimal weight on their !votes. Most of the keep !votes did not reflect NSONGS in any way, or were based on a much looser interpretation of the guideline. So, despite the keep !vote tally, the NSONGS-based "redirect and merge to the album" !votes seem to better reflect our policies on notability for songs (as things stood at that point in time), despite the fact that it was fairly likely that the song would be independently notable in the medium term. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

A: G'day and thanks. The GNG says that if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then it is presumed to be notable enough for a stand-alone article. Significant coverage mustn't be merely a trivial or passing mention, reliable means in accordance with

What WP is not still applies. Coverage that is not significant could be a trivial or passing mention of the subject, without detail. What passes as significant varies a lot from subject to subject, but in a general sense we are talking about coverage that addresses the subject directly and in detail. On en WP, we must always be conscious of the fact that some subjects might have detailed coverage in sources in languages other than English, and the blunt instrument of a Google Books search is not always a good guide. Two recent examples of articles that were close calls would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821-1863) which ended up as "no consensus" but could have been merged to a couple of targets, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricky Clousing (2nd nomination) which had more than a few passing mentions, but lacked significant coverage and was merged. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Additional question from Winterysteppe

10. I have seen some of your work. Pretty good. How far on a limb would you go to edit military history far from your comfort zone? Winterysteppe (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A. Thanks. Not sure what you mean. I have created or developed articles on ships and aircraft, occupied territories, military units and military personnel among other subjects. I've also reviewed and copy-edited military history articles well outside of my usual areas of military history, including American Civil War biographies, articles on Scotland in the mid-17th century, naval ships of all shapes, sizes and periods, and military vehicles, for example. So, while I might not create or develop many articles outside of the Yugoslavia in WWII area, I certainly am involved in helping other military history articles to be assessed and developed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Joy

11. Can you please elaborate a little bit about your understanding of

WP:ARBMAC

topic area, broadly construed - others might be confused by my perspective in this question, but because it affects me a lot I just have to ask - to what extent can the community expect you to help in problems that may need administrator intervention, but where you could be considered to be involved?

A: My understanding is that conflict of interest is construed widely by the community when admins get involved in a dispute, and admins must be conscious of that and avoid using the tools in such situations. I am familiar with User:Joy because he also edits in the Balkan space, and I am familiar with the effect

WP:INVOLVED can have on when Joy can use the tools. I would make a personal observation about this. I served in the former Yugoslavia in the mid-90s as a soldier, which means the Bosnian War in particular is too close for comfort for me. I very rarely edit there for that reason, and would consider myself INVOLVED in any disputes arising in that subject area, and would avoid using the tools there, except for completely uncontroversial matters. More generally, if there are disputes in areas or with editors where I am INVOLVED in that or the more general sense, I would need to avoid using the tools and bring the matter to the attention of uninvolved admins, via one of the boards. None of this would stop me from using the tools in matters where my only involvement in the article or with the editor concerned was in giving and explaining warnings, giving advice and suggestions etc. The same goes for dealing with blatant vandalism, but that has to be narrowly construed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Additional question from Gerda

12. What do you think of {{user talk before you block}}? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A: Seems like a pretty good philosophy on blocking. To me, blocking is an option of last resort, and reflection is needed before using it. It should only be used to protect the encyclopaedia from damage, disruption or misconduct and/or to deter future actions of that type and encourage acceptable conduct, so while I don't find the exact wording to my taste, I agree with the philosophy. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, support that! - My wording is - naturally - from the receiving end, not that I was ever blocked, but discussed at arbitration enforcement, where it was first created. Did you click to the image, - almost four years now? I prefer "peace" to "enforcement" anytime ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Sir Joseph

13 Being that I see you have edited in contentious areas, I was wondering how would you deal with this situation. There are times when I, and perhaps others feel like when we edit in a certain area the numbers of editors on the "other" side are far too numerous, and that at times of course exacerbates the situation and sometimes can be a one of the sticking points leading up or helping to lead up to a sticky situation. Other than bans or blocks or other sanction admin actions, is there anything else that you would do in a situation like that? Of course, in a situation where a 1RR applies, that would mean you have one person reverting and the other side has many people able to revert, while the other side has only one or two or three, so emotions flare and tempers build up. What can be done before something happens? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A: This can happen a lot in ARBMAC territory where I have experience, and in fact can be a situation about which both "sides" in a dispute complain of being outnumbered. Of course, if edit-warring is occurring, warnings need to be issued. It can be useful to protect a highly disputed page for a little while to allow frayed tempers to cool. Admins I respect have used that option effectively on occasion. One option that can be used alongside protection or instead of it is a well-drafted and neutrally-worded RfC. This tends to bring in editors from outside those immediately involved, and can add much needed perspective. The key is to keep in mind that there is no deadline, so just because one "side" might have temporarily got their version online, that doesn't mean that a different consensus won't be determined in the next week or two thanks to a RfC or other DR process. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Caballero1967

14. Thanks for offering your candidacy. I have been mulling about your record since you posted in the poll page, and have wondered about your transition from an involved soldier to what appears an impartial observer. You have shown a willingness to learn, and an inclination for good manners and respect, which are pluses for any candidate. But I have not yet been able to reconcile the sentence below with the impression stated above: “There were many victims there [Balkans] in that last 115 years, but in my view, not many good guys.” I have not seen this mark in other areas of your work. Could you explain? Thanks. ~~ Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 16:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A: My point there is a philosophical one about the nature of civil war in particular. Civil war, in my opinion, is rarely about good guys and bad guys, as much as the different sides in any conflict would like to be painted as the "good guys". For example, in the Bosnian War, all sides committed atrocities. No faction had a completely clean sheet. Some committed more and worse atrocities, but that doesn't turn the ones with less atrocities to their name into "good guys", unless they immediately and by their own motion brought those responsible to justice. No side consistently did that with their own people, and most had to be brought kicking and screaming to The Hague. Another example is during WWII. The most horrific of the atrocities in Yugoslavia during WWII were committed by the Croat (and Muslim) Ustashas against hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Jews and Romani people. The Serb Chetniks fought the Ustashas on occasion, collaborated with them at other times, but mainly fought for the exiled King and essentially for Serbian interests, which were royalist and anti-communist. And they also slaughtered thousands of Muslim civilians. Even the Muslims weren't only victims, as there were Muslim Ustashas and three Waffen-SS divisions consisted mainly of Yugoslav and Albanian Muslims that committed atrocities against Serbs and other civilians. Ultimately, war is replete with crimes and criminals, and also with moral relativism used to justify further atrocities and the protection of the actions of their own. Finding the "good guys" in any war is hard, and when history is written mostly by the winners, it can be hard to produce a NPOV article when dealing with such matters. An example in my work is my first FA, the Montenegrin Serb Chetnik leader Pavle Đurišić. Đurišić was responsible for some of the largest massacres of Muslims in Yugoslavia in WWII, including one on the same scale as Srebrenica, but involving the elderly, women and children instead of men and boys. He was also a feared and respected adversary on the field of battle. He was also awarded the Iron Cross by the Germans, with whom he collaborated closely. Some editors don't want to acknowledge Đurišić's obvious military leadership and fighting skills, others want to explain away or justify the crimes he committed or his collaboration with the Italians then the Germans. Our role on WP is to make sure that our coverage of Đurišić has a neutral point of view, reflects what the reliable sources say about him and doesn't contain original research. Like most of the major players in Yugoslavia's wars, he wasn't a "good guy". I hope that helps to understand where I'm coming from. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

acknowledgment: It does make sense now, but only in the context of nationalistic factions bidding for the image of THE true virtuous fighters—much like with religious wars. As I said above, I had not seen in your work what appeared as a blanket statement for judging such a large number of human beings as evil, the true opposite of “good” in war. Thanks. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 01:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. Support - He's a master at Wikipedia Project Military History, and I'm certain he can be trusted to be a good admin.— ajeesh (talk) 00:25, 4 febrauary 2016 (UTC)
2. 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)[reply]
3. Strong Support per no biggie. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 00:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. 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.
   talk) 01:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. Co-nomination support
   [majestic titan] 01:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Co-nomination support Nick-D (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. 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)[reply]
8. 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)[reply]
9. 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)[reply]
10. 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)[reply]
11. Support DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
12. 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)[reply]
13. Support Sounds good --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
14. 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)[reply]
15. 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)[reply]
16. Support: Would be a good admin for the project.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 03:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support: for the
    MilHist Project. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
18. 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! -- œ^™ 04:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
19. 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)[reply]
20. 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)[reply]
21. Support Strong content work and would make a good admin. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support No issues.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
23. 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)[reply
    ]
24. SQL^{Query me!} 12:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
25. 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)[reply]
26. 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)[reply]
27. 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)[reply]
28. 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)[reply]
29. Support Gamaliel (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
30. 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)[reply]
31. Support – Well-qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
32. 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)[reply]
33. Support - seen him around, always appeared competent and intelligent.--Staberinde (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support – Clueful, careful, cautious editor. I see no problems here. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
36. 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)[reply]
37. Support I like all of the content work I've seen so far. Well deserved. JAGUAR  16:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
38. 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)[reply]
39. Support Excellent contributor. We collaborated on
    talk) 17:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
40. 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)[reply]
41. Support Quality contributor, can be trusted with the tools. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support: Great content work, appears trustworthy enough for the tools and to have learned from the blocks.
    HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
43. 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)[reply]
44. 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)[reply]
45. Support: Good contributor, should be worthy of being an Admin!
    talk) 18:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
46. Support Would make an excellent admin. clpo13_(talk) 18:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Absolutely. Katie^talk 18:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support no concerns. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support for a high quality contributor. Graham Beards (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
50. 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)[reply
    ]
51. Support, good candidate, good answers to questions. Eman235/talk 20:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support: Dispute resolution style is more than "block 'em all," took time to research my question, lots of great content editing. GAB^Hello! 22:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010^Talk 22:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support looks like good work in a tough area. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Fully qualified candidate. Courcelles (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support Good editor who has learnt from initial mistakes. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support – based on what I have seen from this candidate, I am inclined to support. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support no concerns. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support See no issues, we need more admins. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support
    missfortune 02:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
61. Support - I think that someone who is cognizant of their own potential shortcomings is someone who is going to be looking out to make sure those shortcomings don't come to the forefront. Appears to have learned and mellowed from his earlier days, and growth is also a good sign. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
62. I think the candidate's answer to Andrew's question, and the way he responded to Mkdw's oppose, were enough to push me to support. That said, I would strongly advise the candidate remembers his username (and tries to live up to it) when he gets passionate or angry about an issue, or even if he strongly disagrees with another editor's concern. When an editor reasonably raises a concern, the response should not aggravate things or be memorable for the wrong reasons; I trust Peacemaker will not repeat that isolated mistake if ever a concern were raised in respect of an admin action or some other conduct issue in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support -FASTILY 07:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support - Solid candidate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Good editor, will make a good admin. AIRcorn (talk) 08:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support: good answers to questions and no recent red flags. BethNaught (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 10:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support Quality contributor, level-headed, no issues. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support. I was unfamiliar with Peacemaker67 before I saw this RFA, because I don't work in the same areas. Now that I've had a look over his contributions, I see a calm, measured, and extremely helpful approach to Wikipedia's collegial-style of development. I'm also very impressed by his answers to questions, which show clearly that those earlier blocks (which were not so egregious anyway) are now ancient history (where "ancient history" is a state of mind rather than something measured on a calendar). So, an editor of this quality, working well in such a contentious area as Balkan history, volunteering for latrine duty? Grab a shovel and get stuck in! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support I've no issues with Peacemaker67 being an admin. Boing! said Zebedee sums it up quite well too. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support It's such a pleasure to support an editor who understands what it's like to be in the trenches doing quality work so an article can be promoted to FA. I would support having at least 6 GAs or 2 FAs as the minimum requirement for admnship. Two blocks? Meh. I know full well how that can happen to editors who strive for accuracy, and that's what I see in this editor. I think he will bring a refreshing new approach where it's badly needed. Atsme^📞📧 13:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support. Editor does good work, has answered the questions thoughtfully and well, and has clearly learned from their blocks. Ancient history, as Boing! said Zebedee notes above. /wiae /tlk 14:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support. I don't see any real cause for concern here. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support —BorgHunter (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support No issues. Ceoil (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support. I have no objections to a strong admin. who is straightforward with their responses. There appears to be an underlying honesty and integrity to their efforts here which I feel would benefit the admin. corps. — Ched :  ?  16:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support. Happy with the answers. Blocks don't seem too concerning. & contrary to the opposing argument, an admin who has doubts in conducting the role is tenfold better than a maverick. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 17:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support because there's no reason to oppose. Kharkiv07 (T) 18:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support I think he will be even more helpful to the project as an admin. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support → Call me Razr Nation 21:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support; an asset to the project, and will have use for the admin toolset. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support, behavioural self-reflection is a positive characteristic to possess. Stephen 22:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
85. The candidate has "peace" in his username and yet he works in military topics? Of course I will support this guy. epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support. It is a rare editor who can add high-quality content and navigate the shoals of Balkan conflicts, and Peacemaker has done an excellent job of it. His earlier reluctance to become an admin only underscores the fact that he understands its importance. Constantine ✍ 23:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support. I want to show my support for an excellent editor. Someone who can navigate through trouble and come out on making some good edits. Winterysteppe (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support No concerns here, as I have always respected the work of the user.
    talk) 01:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
89. Support likely to be net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support per ability to self-reflect and to look at their own actions. Clue matters. Montanabw^(talk) 04:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support. Peacemaker67 is a great content contributor but also has shown that he can cooperate and interact with other users on a civil and productive basis. Good answers. I have no concern that he expressed some doubt about being an administrator some time ago. People can change their mind or be persuaded to take up a task they might have viewed off the top of their head as troublesome. His change of mind, in my view, is another expression of his commitment to the project. User:Anotherclown and User talk:HJ Mitchell have persuasive statements in support. User:Happysquirrel and User:Montanabw have good summary statements with which I agree. Donner60 (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support Guns suck. Give that dude a mop and a bucket instead. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support Well-rounded candidate who would do well with the tools. Spencer^T♦C 05:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support The candidate's answers to the questions and responses to the opposes convinces me that the tools will not be misused. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  06:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support for all the reasons I've already stated recently at another talk page. I have other questions about involvedness, but I don't want to badger the candidate who I already know I trust to be able to work out any details as we go along. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support, per continuous good interactions and nice answer to my question, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support, a good editor, who seems to have a good handle on how to work things out on this site. Harrias ^talk 10:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support. Raises average IQ of admin corps. IHTS (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support. Looks good! Deryck C. 11:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support Great candidate. Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support Has been around since 2011 and has created 127 articles with over 42K edits through there were issues in the past going through the 99 support votes before me the consensus is to apply
     WP:FORGIVE and the user is a clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
102. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support The candidate's cautiousness and sensible answers leads me to believe they will use the admin tools wisely. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support - no concerns, meets most of my factors at User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards. Bearian (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support Thparkth (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support per plethora of positive contributions, CLUE as demonstrated in Q's #3 and 4, the ringing endorsements many, including but not limited to HJ Mitchell and Boing!, and the philosophy that nobody's perfect. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support after reviewing this editors contributions and, especially, past efforts at dispute resolution, it appears that they would be a net positive as an administrator. --Ahecht (TALK
     PAGE) 16:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support, per nom, and my general rule about always granting the administrative tools to good editors who ask for them, and have no glaring deficiencies. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 17:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support based on previous observations of the editor around the Wiki and a modest review of contributions. --joe decker^talk 17:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support. A editor who has taken the time to second guess their own abilities if they were to become an administrator, and then after a period of doing so participates in an RFA as the end result, gets my support. Self-reflection and analysis is a positive in this case. Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support -- A great editor who contributes a ton; whether the tools are absolutely necessary or not, the project would be helped by having Peacemaker have the ability to help out in admin related areas. I do like that the editor wasn't absolutely sure about having the proper temperament. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support - have worked with PM extensively over the years, and I have no concerns about him getting the extra buttons. Parsecboy (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support -- Great editor, no serious concern over his past behavior.--Catlemur (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support Good answers. Why not? --John (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support I was leaning towards support and then I read his excellent FA Bill Denny, which sealed the deal for me. I hope that the candidate will continue writing outstanding content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support Seems like a good candidate to me. I like that the candidate has expressed interest in broadening their areas of interest. P.s. this is my first time voting for an admin, so let me know if I have done something wrong. Andwats (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support That the candidate's actually been blocked for a short while means to me he was active enough to make mistakes, and that he continued here after that humiliation to be an experienced and valuable editor shows he cares about wikipedia. I'm thinking his experiences here will give him the broad perspective to be an excellent admin. loupgarous (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support, seems ready for the mop and the flamethrower. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support ... GELongstreet (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support No concerns — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support per BSZ --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 16:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support Happy that giving him a few extra buttons and the responsibilities that go with them will be of benefit to WP. Good luck.
     Bencherlite^Talk 18:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
125. Support. Good opener, addresses previous blocks, appears reserved. Glrx (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
126. Support. Impressive content contributions. Trusted user. I don't find the oppose rationales convincing enough. utcursch | talk 21:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
127. Support: Easy. A productive editor who has worked well in a contentious arena.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
128. Support Have seen him often by my side when I was working the neutrality of Balkan articles (usually, when faced with a POV-pusher) The Banner talk 22:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
129. Support Unlikely to abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 00:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support Deserved, seems to be appropriate...Modernist (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
131. Support No issues for me. There are only a few opposes, and their arguments do not really hold up in my eyes. In addition, many editors that I trust have supported and given good reasons for doing so. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 01:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support All good and ready to swing the mop! FiendYT 03:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
133. Support No concerns here. RadiX∞ 03:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support: it seems good to vote him to become a new sysop. 333-blue 04:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support. I have been in touch with Peacemaker67 for several years and he always came across as clueful (for me, the most important trait) and restraintful (but not so much to be unable to call a spade a spade when necessary). I even contemplated making this (co)nomination myself, (along with
     No such user (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
136. Support. Seems to have made a valuable contribution to a controversial area and learnt from mistakes in the past Billlion (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
137. Support - a look through their AfD votes, talk page, created articles, and answers above give me the impression that Peacemaker67 is more than trustable enough for the admin tools. Sam Walton (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
138. Support - No problems found. Ayub407^talk 17:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
139. support -- Piling on, the MilHist project has been blessed with great editors but I can't think of another who more quickly made their presence felt as an intelligent contributor to article-building (and in a difficult area), discussion, and admin-style chores. This is a no-brainer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support - Excellent and prolific editor who seems to have a good grasp on WP policy and procedures. I take issue with the logic behind the (as of right now) sole oppose !vote; despite my squeaky clean block log, I feel there is no reason someone on the receiving end of the stick should not ever be trusted to wield it. Peacemaker67 has my complete trust as he showed that he understood the reasons for both of his blocks and has refrained from any such activity since. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
141. Support without reservations, should make an excellent administrator. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
142. Support No problems with this editor. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
143. Support without reservation...he has shown at MILHIST that he can and will handle the responsibilities of office. Cuprum17 (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
144. Support Proven good judgement. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
145. Support. A strong track record of content creation, smart answers to questions, a willingness to learn from past experiences and no tendency to claim invincibility, patient and (despite the military history, or maybe because of it) not given to shoot from the hip. I trust this candidate to deal fairly with editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
146. Support unnecessary pile-on. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
147. Support level-headed contributor, will make a good admin. Jim Carter 06:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
148. Support A prolific content creator who understands NPOV very well. He will make a fine administrator. AmericanLemming (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
149. Support Has clue, unlikely to abuse tools, good content created, stale block log.
     Keri (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
150. Support Great asset to Wikipedia and
     WP:MILHIST and likely to value from becoming an admin. My full support. Aeonx (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
151. Support: Will make a great admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
152. Support Leadership, diplomacy, clue. Should be a fine addition. Buster Seven Talk 14:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
153. Everyone knows Australians make the best admins. Jenks24 (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
154. Support, per nom, and because I've observed and researched the candidate, seeing nothing at all that suggests we should not grant these tools, and a great deal that says we really should. So, also per Opabinia regalis, really... Good luck. Begoon ^talk 15:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
155. Support Seems like exactly the type of person I would want for an admin. Don't let it ruin the fun of content work for you (staying away from ani and ae are definitely good decisions in that regard). ~Awilley (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
156. Knows his strengths and, more importantly, knows his weaknesses and has the sense to stay away from situations he can't handle. Will likely be an exemplary admin, and come December would probably make an excellent arb also. ‑ 
     Iridescent 19:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
157. Support Clueful individual. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (soliloquise) 20:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
158. Support No concerns. Gap9551 (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
159. Support – Clueful, careful, cautious, ever courteous editor. My occasional dealings with him have always led me to think of him as a significant asset. Exactly the sort of person I would want for an admin. Pincrete (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
160. Support: It is my pleasure to support you. By report and actions you are courteous, patient, diplomatic and quite experienced. I am very fond of your username. What a person decides on for a monikor is to me a part of their personalty expressed outward. All the way support. Fylbecatulous talk 00:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
161. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
162. Support Good article writer-- a key requirement in my mind. But also bring people together, through intellectual content in articles and human interaction and leadership. Few can cast an online persona that conciliates people animated by profoundly passionate subjects like religion and nationalism. Who found this editor? Where did he come again? Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 03:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
163. Support After reading through the opposes, including the parts struck out and the related discussion and based on my observations of them I am confident to support this candidate. HighInBC 04:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
164. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
165. Support As above, and from the good replies I saw in a quick look at some old talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
166. Support Excellent candidate which will make for a fine admin. Please keep up the good work.
      — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
167. Support - No concerns.--Infinite0694 (Talk) 11:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
168. Support Well-respected content contributor with no problems. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
169. Support. Indeed, we need more people that perceive the difference between a war in real life and yet another tempest in a teapot here, at wikipedia, the so-called editwars. Moreover, having Peace Maker as a name is a great reminder of the admins' duties. Pldx1 (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
170. Support Content creator who works in an area that is often tendentious, and manages to stay out of difficulty. And doesn't live on the drama boards... We need more candidates like this! Scr★pIron^IV 14:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
171. Support Good content work, obvious reasonableness, and clearly a net positive to the project as an admin. This is an easy support. Good luck. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
172. Support Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
173. Support Congratulations, and thanks for your hard work.--TMD Talk Page. 17:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
174. Support -- I've spent a little time on Balkans articles, and even that little time was far too much. Anyone who can spend much time in that part of the encyclopedia and stay out of trouble and strife is likely to make a pretty solid admin, imho. --Stfg (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
175. Support Would make a great admin, I see no problems here. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
176. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
177. Support - I'll pile on. Impressive group of supporters, indeed. Best wishes in your adminship! Jusdafax 18:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
178. Support The consensus are very high, no opinion. SA 13 Bro (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
179. Support Will make an excellent administrator. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
180. Support TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
181. Support per ScrapIronIV. C679 23:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
182. Support Based on a review of contributions and comments in this RfA, I am convinced that promotion in this case is of benefit to the wiki.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
183. Support, I don't see any reason to believe this user would misuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
184. Support. An excellent candidate for admin. -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]