User talk:Samwalton9/RfA/Ad Orientem

October 2015

@Ad Orientem: Per almost all advice pages for RfA, it's best to get any possible points of concern in your editing history out in the open before the votes come in, to show that the candidate has nothing to hide, and to give you a chance to talk about them in full and on your own terms. You've got a pretty spotless record but if I had to pick one thing that might come up it would be this and whatever happened before it, leading to your editing break. It doesn't seem particularly concerning to me, but I think it's a subject that it would be worth you explaining and talking about in your opening answers (question 3), rather than have someone bring it up, misinterpret things, and cause an oppose pile-on before you get a chance to defend yourself. Sam Walton (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually hoping to post something of an opening statement of my own in which I could address some of the potential issues that might provoke some oppose votes. There are a couple that probably can't be helped like the content creation. There I think all I can do is to state plainly that I respect those for whom content creation is at or near the top of their criteria for RfA and that I understand some will have a hard time supporting me. The long wiki-break is not that big of a deal, at least in my mind. It was a period in my life when I was under some considerable personal stress, my father had recently died after a long illness, and adding to that a handful of editors, with TRM being at the top of the list, had been using every ITN nominated incident of gun violence in the US as an opportunity to climb on their soapbox about our gun laws. Beyond which TRM at times seemed to have a bur under his saddle about America and he was seeing institutional bias (not always wrongly) on lots of discussions and with lots of editors. I and some others had been complaining about it with little effect for some time and my general stress level had reached the point where I knew it was time to step back for a while. As I was posting a template to that effect on my talk page TRM dropped a particularly infuriating comment on my page and I basically said "enough!" and decided to go. At the time I was doubtful that I would ever be back. But time does heal or at least dull emotional pain and anger and happily I did return. Oddly enough TRM and I get on much better now, and while I don't think he will ever be the kinda guy who throws in any sugar when expressing his opinions, I do think he has mellowed a lot. On which note I was very surprised and not a little encouraged by the strong endorsement he posted on my talk page. Honestly it may have pushed me over the edge in deciding give this a shot. Somewhere in my talk page history there is another incident where I got into it with an editor. Neither of us behaved well and I have always been embarrassed by it. All I can say about these, I believe isolated incidents, is that contrary to the opinions of some, I am not a human iceberg.

On a side note, do you know of a quick and dirty list of some of the more relevant Arbcom cases or decisions? While I do have a clue, I don't have a degree in wiki-law and if I have ever had even a passing interaction with Arbcom I can't remember it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am going to be busy for a few hours, but I should be back on later this afternoon (US EST). -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More than reasonable, sorry to hear about your father. The wiki-break itself is of course not a big deal, I just wanted to clarify what had led to it in case someone were likely to come along and point to diffs from that time in an oppose vote, because I couldn't quite parse what had happened. And it would take the patience of a saint not to get into any arguments on Wikipedia! I actually had a quick search through Arbcom pages to see if you'd ever been there (using Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index) and came up empty. And don't worry about time - I tend to want to write things down before I forget about them, thus my quick replies; take as long as you like. Sam Walton (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: I'd recommend expanding on your answers to Q1 and Q2; take a look at some recent RfAs to see the typical length. Answers looks good otherwise! Sam Walton (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. I think that after today I am going to stop working on anything not RfA related until it's over. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I have expanded my answers. Let me know if there is anything you think I omitted or if I any of it is too long or detailed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! No concerns from me :) Sam Walton (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost there

Ok, are we good to go? I think the three standard questions have been adequately answered. If anyone sees any unaddressed issues let me know. Otherwise feel free to post this on Sunday whenever you get around to it. I think we are in different time zones. Ping Samtar -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to be online at the same time you post this in order to accept the nomination? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: You can move your answers over and accept the nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ad Orientem and then one of us can transclude etc. on Sunday. If you wanted to make sure you're online/available when it goes live you can do it, or I'm happy to if you're not concerned. Sam Walton (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK give me a few minutes to copy the answers over and you can post it whenever you want. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied the question answers over. Take a look t make sure everything looks right and if it is then you can launch this at your convenience. It's Sunday already on Wikipedia. That's good enough for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need Samtar's statement? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, waiting for him move it over to the RfA page when ready. Sam Walton (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done and dusted - excuse the brevity, the Main Page is not my area of expertise! You've got this though, and I'll !vote a little later so I can address any concerns anyone has had -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 00:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let's do this. Win lose or draw I appreciate everything you both have done. Thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]