Keepscases~enwiki (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
#Not competent to be an admin. —[[User:Strange Passerby|Strange Passerby]] ([[User talk:Strange Passerby|t]] × [[Special:Contributions/Strange Passerby|c]]) 04:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC) |
#Not competent to be an admin. —[[User:Strange Passerby|Strange Passerby]] ([[User talk:Strange Passerby|t]] × [[Special:Contributions/Strange Passerby|c]]) 04:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
# '''Oppose''' - You are not a fool and don't need an RfA for validation. Just be a great Wikipedian and leave the janitorial tasks for others. Nice work on the Chemical Weapons piece. At the first nomination it was mentioned that this user's big interests are mathematics and guitar, which is a 2 out of 3 match for K-Wolf. His oppose above is thus a double red flag for me; ditto Malleus and Ironholds, who each have a good sense for RfA candidates, in my opinion. Planets have aligned. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 06:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC) |
# '''Oppose''' - You are not a fool and don't need an RfA for validation. Just be a great Wikipedian and leave the janitorial tasks for others. Nice work on the Chemical Weapons piece. At the first nomination it was mentioned that this user's big interests are mathematics and guitar, which is a 2 out of 3 match for K-Wolf. His oppose above is thus a double red flag for me; ditto Malleus and Ironholds, who each have a good sense for RfA candidates, in my opinion. Planets have aligned. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 06:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
:Stop it. Ironholds is a fucking moron. [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] ([[User talk:Keepscases|talk]]) 06:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC) |
|||
=====Neutral===== |
=====Neutral===== |
Revision as of 06:42, 27 June 2012
My76Strat 3
(talk page) (16/15/11); Scheduled to end 08:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Nomination
My76Strat (talk · contribs) – Since joining this project in march 2010, The community has been my benefactor. I have incurred a debt of gratitude, and hoped to pay on that principle in service. I felt I was qualified, knew I was able, and thought that I should. I asked the community to confer their trust and allow me to serve. Instead I was shown as a fool. I disagreed with that characterization until very recently; realizing I had become fool's personification. I was shown where consequences of this stigma remain to this very day. To be very clear, I am not a fool!, yet this impression can not purge except through an RFA. I am determined to emerge this with slightly higher regard; sysop or not! I love this project, and I will serve with my best, if so trusted. More importantly, I will demonstrate respect even when the answer is opposite of my hopes. And I assure there will be no retirement associated with this RFA. My76Strat (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I will edit the encyclopedia exactly as I currently do; the difference will be when I encounter situations requiring action I will effect the appropriate action. I only intend to move against egregious and blatant examples. I will log actions at UAA, AIV. and CSD (again my logs will only be for blatant, unambiguous examples). I will perform non-controversial actions like page moves and author requested deletions as long as the request is formatted properly. I will avoid other actions where I am less familiar until in fact, I become familiar.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: My best contribution to Wikipedia was my edit of March 23, 2010. With that edit I joined the community and promised to obligate the best of my ability. I have not lessened that resolve. Everything else came after that most important edit.
- 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: I have had very few editing conflicts; maybe 4. All of them ended well. Any stress I have ever endured came from my error. As long as I remain composed, I am impregnable from outside stimuli. I shall remain composed.
- Additional questions from GabeMc
- 4. Which article, or articles, are you most proud of your contributions to and why?
- A.Chemical weapon because it is one of my first articles, and I could not believe I had found a subject of that magnitude, unpublished. – Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders because it is the product of nearly perfect collaboration. I would be less proud had I written the entire article myself. – Richard Landis because it spawned an entire WikiProject. My76Strat (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- 5. What was so "perfect [about the] collaboration", and why did the topic interest you?
- A. As I recollect, the main element was 5 or 6 people, each drawn to the topic for their own reason. The article was written during the first defendants trial amidst the daily flux of new testimony and subsequent publications. The reader base was global, and growing. And we were all of different schools. We had content disputes, and resolved them; we each had POV to constrain; and watchdogs to satisfy. Compromise was our saving grace, and we got the job done; well done. I was drawn by the horrendous nature of the crime which disturbed me greatly. I felt a duty to ensure an accurate and proper telling; as a tribute in memory of the victims. I wanted to do something and this was what I was able to do; and did. My76Strat (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- 6. Have you ever taken an article through a successful FAC? In not, why not?
- A. No. I have reviewed around 6 or 7 GA's and enjoyed that experience. And 2 FAR's which I enjoyed less. The FA clan is a tight group that have a manner that ensures you will know if you've entered their house uninvited. I'm not expecting an invitation any time soon. On the other hand I can practically guarantee some will arrive here to oppose; My76Strat (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Additional question from Achowat
- 7. Can you elaborate on your answer to question three (of course without undue detail towards members of this community)? Could you talk us through a stressful situation and maybe what lessons you learned because of it?
- A:I deal with two forms of stress on Wikipedia. the first is the kind that occurs when we apply emotion to inanimate things; mad at the computer; The GD internet (which is really the network connectivity). The second is when we apply similar emotion to something we love already; our wives; righteousness; the Wikipedia experience. I've learned that the first form causes boys to break things while men of sound mind explain detailed consequences to computers. I'm no master of manner, but trying my best has served me well. In you need more information, I will follow on. Sincerely - My76Strat (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Additional question from Elen of the Roads
- 8. What would you do or say in the following scenarios. How would you communicate with the parties concerned? First - a user reports a variety of usernames that are either very marginal or not actually problematic, culminating in reporting User:PSidebottom. Second, User:SnottyThrottler is reported as an offensive username. On his userpage is an attempt to write an article about the band SnottyThrottler, which he has just formed with his schoolmates. Third. User:SimlaRailwayWorkersUnion is reported as an advertising account. There is no information on the user or talk page, but the editor is making good contributions to articles on the Indian railway system.
- A:
Very nice questions Elen. The answer comes in two forms. The first, answers in the spirit of my nomination. I would do nothing. neither of these are the blatant class that I described as the ones I would handle at first. The next part assumes responsibility falls on me and it is go time.
User:PSidebottom gets tagged as a non-violation with {{subst:uw-uaa}}; the user making these reports needs schooling; urgency depends. If this series was dumped in a small sequence and no other reports occurred for several hours, I'll get back to them after working through the reports. If their reports are coming in five minute intervals, I would send a level three caution with appropriate instructions and links; if necessary, level four, final, indef block.
User:SnottyThrottler is not offensive, if it is "second" on the "first users" list; that situation is handled, so I commence the review of SnottyThrottler. If it is puppy love fan cruft, SnottyThrottler gets blocked with {{uw-softerblock}} and the userpage gets (CSD G11) with WP:FAKEARTICLE added to the edit summary. If second also means a second user and this is a single edit, perhaps stale simply watchlist the page and see what happens. If there were a few others, I'd send a level one caution showing the {{uw-uaa}} information and links.
User:SimlaRailwayWorkersUnion is not a blatant violation, gets tagged {{UAA|ci}} or a better version I will have learned. If the user reporting has no other reporting to consider, whtchlist. Several others similar, a non-templated message covering the same points without the caution.
I'll continue monitoring the queue in case questions or comments need answering, which I would do. I would also be monitoring SnottyThrottler for unblock requests and assisting them in creating an appropriate account, if that is part of the request.
This has taken 20X more time to explain than it would have taken to clear the backlog. So now it is proper to dissect my prose and convict (or simply convict without the need to dissect) me for rambling; but I actually tried to answer the dang question. Thank you for asking it. My76Strat (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- A:
- Additional question from Cyberpower678
- 9. You exercised your right to WP:VANISH last August. 9 days later you returned. What happened and why did you want to vanish? Why did you return?
- A: RfA1 and RfA2 were both emotional train-wreaks for me. I threw up a retired tag feeling fully rejected. I changed it to semi the next day and got on with it. RfA2 sucked as bad and I knew this username was basically trashed. The reason I included the statement that no retirement will be associated with this RfA is because I know a user can point to it as concerning. The community, or portions of it may have to see me endure and not retire, so if that is the choice I'll abide by it. Both of these RfA's were poorly handled by me and they are the actions of the fool I admit being. All of that is valid. I had hoped RfA3 would be considered but I can't control what is discussed. I do want to make a correction to an error in your question. I requested RTV but it was not granted. Had it been I could not have returned as I did and My76Strat would be no more. There might instead have been a user:MyRiff76 who didn't write very much. It is an important distinction because every time the subject comes up it usually begins with people suggesting I violated that policy. If you have concerns I did not address please ask that I clarify or follow on. Thank you. My76Strat (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Additional question from Kim Dent-Brown
- 10. You recently made this edit on a user talk page. Would you be willing to try and redraft it in a sandbox as an exercise, based on the feedback you are getting here about your communication style? I chose it because it was very recent, not because it was particularly hideous. On its own, it's no reason at all to oppose. But I'd lean towards support if you could use half the words to convey the same message with more economy and clarity.
- A:
- Additional question from Skinwalker
- 11. Why do you write like that?
- That's a lovely userpage you got there, Skinwalker. Rotorcowboy talk
contribs 04:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC) - A:
- That's a lovely userpage you got there, Skinwalker. Rotorcowboy talk
- Additional question from Maxviwe
- 1. Are you familiar with creating WP:AFD ? How would you differ any deletion of BLP from creating and AFD or nominating it for CSD under A7?
I am asking you because you seem to have never participated there.
- A:
General comments
- Links for My76Strat: My76Strat (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for My76Strat can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support - I like their passion, and understanding that without human beings seeking knowledge, this 'pedia is all meaningless code and red tape. We need some philosophical admins for balance of perspective. ~ GabeMc (talk) 10:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support - My gut feeling for this RfA was that it was going to fail, based on the past two RfAs. But that was before I looked at how much hard work My76Strat has put in since his last RfA, almost a year ago. He's one of the 25 largest (non-bot) contributors at UAA and is a prolific contributor to AIV. These are two areas where we could do with more knowledgable admins. What else has he been up to? Pretty much single handedly running Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Production, building articles, general wikignoming and offering helpful suggestions behind the scenes.
I do hold similar reservations to Ironholds, My76Strat's communication style can be difficult to read and I believe he could do with some work in using more consise terminology. However, overall, I believe he would be a positive addition to the administrator team. WormTT(talk) 11:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC) - Support. Last time, I supported you and I see no reason not to do so again; I believe you'd be a net positive, if granted the tools, but please remember to go slowly and to ask other more experienced admins when in doubt. And, if you can, to be a tad less... Magniloquent. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support I'm unpersuaded by Ironholds rudeness. From my observations, My76Strat has a level head and he is productive, and trustworthy. I don't look for perfection in candidates, just common sense and a willingness to learn from past mistakes. My76Strat easily qualifies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Like Ironholds, I'm not a fan of the writing style in answering some of these questions, but I don't see that as a reason to oppose. I think that you could be trusted with the mop, and I think your viewpoint, as GabeMc said, would be a welcome addition. Besides, we need more admins. Specs112 t c 13:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support. My76Strat does indeed have an interesting style of writing, but human languages are immensely creative and we should delight in their many forms. On a more serious note, I've seen My76Strat doing a lot of great work over the past year or more, including work in areas like UAA and AIV, and I'm confident he has a good understanding of policy and of practice, and can be trusted to use the admin tools well. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Support per Boing!, as well as his userpage. He's showing a black banner in honor of a banned Wikipedian, Δ, which shows that he's not afraid to stand up for what he believes in, a quality that I think all admins should have. I'd much rather have an admin that does this, and will likely ignores all rules, than one who simply follows the policies because they're there, even though they're (in my opinion) all up for debate all the time. Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 14:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Moved to oppose. Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 01:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support - I have worked with Strat for a long time at ACC and has always shown clue, integrity and a willingness to help anyone who is in need. In my opinion My76Strat getting the mop would definitely be a net positive. Mlpearc Phone (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support Like most Wikipedians, he is not perfect--but I vaticinate that he will use the tools correctly. I think he's been doing some pretty good work lately. I must object to the floccinaucinihilipilification occurring in the Oppose section--Rfa has become a brobdingnagian challenge of late. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Conditional support You're persistent, I'll give you that! Please tell me, though, that you will work on improving your communication skills. Perhaps it would help to reread what you write to other users before submitting it, or even have someone else read it to make sure you don't sound, well... asinine. In any case, I wish you the best! Rotorcowboy talk
contribs 19:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC) - Support and I sincerely hope you never change the way you write. Keepscases (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support because My76Strat is clearly a competent user. People who want to bitch about his writing style haven't had the misfortune of reading my academic writing, which has a tendency to exude copious quantities of hifalutin, sesquipadelian prose. Hell, after you read James Joyce or William Faulkner you'll never complain about florid writing on the level of My76Strat's, and after reading Ernest Hemingway, you'll never complain about too many details, if you catch my drift. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support Great editor and I love his writing style. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support. My76Strat is thoughtful, considerate, and willing to consider opposing views with a rational demeanor. His language skills are somewhat unique and different and are sometimes difficult to parse. In my own experience, I've found that for some users, speaking aloud is easier than writing words, and My76Strat might benefit from using speech recognition software. Viriditas (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support; My76Strat is honest and hardworking. I recognise that their communication style is not perfect, but it's relatively clear what they really mean and what they're thinking, which is not as common a trait as you might think. I believe that enmopment would be a net positive for enwiki, and that the extra tools would be in safe hands. bobrayner (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support - I've been familiar with this user for nearly a year. From their contributions, they would seem to be an excellent candidate. SwisterTwister talk 02:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support I struggled with this nomination for a bit. I have held My76Strat in high esteem for a long time. Surprisingly, I haven't interacted with this editor much recently. I was initially very concerned about Strat's (you don't mind if I call you that correct?) use of language that can often lead to confusion. In fact, in the past, many of Strat's comments have required multiple rereads on my part; however, I feel like I see an improvement in this RfA. My76Strat has a habit of writing slightly more than is necessary at times, but that is part of his personality and I feel like he has channeled it into an acceptable, understandable form. Specifically, I am impressed by the prose in response to question 9. It wasn't modified from Strat's traditional style, and I wouldn't have expected otherwise, but it was written in a way that was clearly understandable. Aside from the prose changes, I like the answer to question 2. It is something I haven't seen before and I don't believe it is fake. Pointing to one of the earlier versions of his userpage shows that the user is here for the right reasons and really impresses me. I am slightly disconcerted by the answer to question 3 in that I still don't believe it was answered fully; however, the end of the answer and the answer to question 7 makes me believe there has been a lot of emotional maturation since his last RfA. The reply to question 5 was beautiful and while it is easy to become swayed by those words, Strat made 81 edits to the page in a 6 day period. His edits continued on the talkpage after his edits to the article were completed which shows his ability to effectively work with others. I also like his attitude towards adminship that is clear in question 8. Strat plans on introducing himself to the admin tools slowly, making sure he is clear on policy and experience prior to diving into more contentious issues. I think he is correct in the unwritten idea that knowing policy is no substitute for experiencing the process. No matter how this RfA results, thank you My76Strat for your contributions and for your pure desire to improve the encyclopedia. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
- oppose; holy Victorian prose, batman! Quite frankly, nobody is that florid in real life. You want to admit you've accepted your errors? Fine. Admit it. Because when I look at your nomination statement and answers at the moment, they come off as insincere, and I'm not at all convinced you get why the previous RfAs failed. Ironholds (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Note that this is not to say I don't think you're a great editor - you are. But the tone you're taking in answering these questions suggests to me you haven't actually internalised where you went wrong in previous nominations. Ironholds (talk) 08:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I can name 3 friends I had as a student who were at least as florid, if not moreso after a few pints... perhaps it was the academics I spent my time with. WormTT(talk) 10:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ironholds, you are being uncivil IMO. There's no need to be rude, or to berate the nom. Show some class. ~ GabeMc (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Let's not start a civility fight here. Ironholds has maintained this opinion and the candidate's style of language has not changed. If it were not a legitimate concern of his, he would not continue to hold the opinion.--v/r - TP 13:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry my comment comes off as insulting; best not to write when tired, I guess! I think what I'm trying to get at is that the language renders your intentions ambiguous, and renders any discrepancy between intentions and actions ambiguous; to be blunt it's hard to tell if you're really, really enthusiastic or fronting. And either way, it can be difficult to understand what you mean. So the end result is that I'm not sure if you get the problems with past RfAs, and whether you are or aren't, I'm not comfortable that the people you have to interact with as an admin will understand what you mean. Ironholds (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Let's not start a civility fight here. Ironholds has maintained this opinion and the candidate's style of language has not changed. If it were not a legitimate concern of his, he would not continue to hold the opinion.--v/r - TP 13:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ironholds, you are being uncivil IMO. There's no need to be rude, or to berate the nom. Show some class. ~ GabeMc (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Opposeper Ironholds; answers to questions (Q3 in particular) are unsatisfactory. →Bmusician 10:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC) (!voteintendedindented - →Bmusician 13:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)) - Struck for clarity, per this edit WormTT(talk) 15:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I had thought we had agreed that our efforts were better directed elsewhere, and that we would not have RfAs. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I m sorry but this is not a proper rational according to me. This doesn't state that why are you opposing particularly and if it is just because you shared similar views in past but not now, then it is not enough nor a good thing to write. Please at least provide diffs or links where you feel that candidate isn't ready for admin rights. Regards, →TSU tp* 15:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Kiefer, I don't recall us agreeing any such thing as abandoning RfAs.... Was I asleep that day?The diff mentioned below clarifies, thanks. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)- TSU, there is currently no "rules" as to how a person can vote, and any reason can be accepted. I generally prefer candidates to be given feedback which they can work on, but this is a perfectly reasonable oppose, especially when you know the discussion history. I've always admired that discussion, the way KW handled the whole thing - and though I'd forgotten it, I believe KW's reason for oppose is persuasive. WormTT(talk) 15:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I believe that the additional stressors are harmful for the nominee, who should enjoy the respect and affection of his fellow editors without seeking this office. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I m sorry but this is not a proper rational according to me. This doesn't state that why are you opposing particularly and if it is just because you shared similar views in past but not now, then it is not enough nor a good thing to write. Please at least provide diffs or links where you feel that candidate isn't ready for admin rights. Regards, →TSU tp* 15:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. The candidate's malevolent and misleading contributions to this ArbCom case indicate to me that he is unable to communicate clearly, and is prone to fanciful invention when it suits his purpose. Malleus Fatuorum 15:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Whoa. I hadn't seen those comments in that interminable case which you appear to be somewhat familiar with. They leave me saying, "huh?", to quote the Lady (below). Honestly, Malleus, I am not even sure that I could call them malevolent, they are so incoherent and out-of-the-blue. I had a little back and forth with him somewhere in that case, and I thought he had come around some. I don't know if that was before or after these odd contributions you linked to, but the very fact that they make no sense at all (even setting aside the possible malevolence) and that they weren't so long ago is troubling enough. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Am I reading the edit stats correctly? Did he make 162 edits to that ArbCom case? Drmies (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but my sense is that too often Strat's words leave people saying, "huh?" That's a problem. LadyofShalott 16:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Style of communication is too problematic. AGK [•] 16:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Seems like a good contributor, but communicating effectively and clearly is incredibly important as an administrator. Michael (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - User comes across as pretentious. The nom statement and answers to the questions are eye-rolling. No thanks. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - Huh? I would love to say how the user write shouldn't come into it too much so long as the message and intention is clear enough. The problem is after reading the self-nomination statement and user talk comment linked to in Q10, I'm not so sure that I would be able to communicate with My76Strat at all if needed, never mind effectively. That style of writing is certainly perfectly valid, but it's not for me I'm afraid. KTC (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. At the time of this AfD, My76Strat's claim of CSD A7 was incorrect. This AfD was presented with inappropriate reasons. With this AfD, My76Strat should have proposed a merge, not deletion. Vague justification in this AfD. (I commend My76Strat for actions during this AfD.) Bad CSD tag here, although quickly corrected by My76Strat. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose According to his nomination statement, My76Strat wants to improve his image/standing within the WP community and another RfA is the only way to purge a fool. At least I think that's what he says. Anyway, the non-answer to Q2 is a typical sample of My76Strat's Patented Treacly Fudge and that to Q6 seems to blame some imaginary clique rather than his lack of quality content contribs, and the absurdly florid prose persists. My76Strat either cannot or will not accept that his singular manner of communication - littered as it is with elementary mistakes, incomprehensible phraseology and pretentious word-salads - is inappropriate. Whether that is due to an inability to achieve basic self-awareness, or just stubborn awkwardness, either way is not compatible with adminship.Plutonium27 (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose One of the many things admins have to do is clearly communicate with other editors. For almost all admin actions, making clear the reasons why you are acting both when doing so and if challenged afterwards is extremely important. The way to do this is to write plainly and clearly rather than in a forced and pretentious style. Such a style does you no favours: very intelligent people don't actually need to write like they've had an enema from a thesaurus. Read some Bertrand Russell or some George Orwell. Simple, clean ordinary prose does the job: Wikipedia needs it in both articles and in the project and user talk namespaces. In addition, despite two previous trips on the RfA rollercoaster, the candidate seems not to understand the point of question 2. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm wary of a candidate that makes RFA into a battleground with the response to Q6: "The FA clan is a tight group that have a manner that ensures you will know if you've entered their house uninvited". Also, "On the other hand I can practically guarantee some will arrive here to oppose" is either a lack of good faith or a harbinger of future personality clashes as an admin.—Bagumba (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't participate in FA's for that exact reason. An observation based on experience is not indicative of a lack of good faith. His statement sounds like an honest response from someone who was brushed off by a clique. It sounds like you would like your candidates to dispense with honesty in favor of calculated, political answers that don't tell us anything. Thankfully, that's not my type of candidate. I salute My76Strat for telling it like it is come hell or high water, and that's the kind of person we need—a straight shooter who is willing to speak his mind. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, some candidates can game the system with sanitized responses. As well, some candidates might be loose cannons in what should be a non-combative environment like an RFA and only have it exacerbated when they are given sysop tools in a real escalated situation. Personally, I prefer a candidate that displays diplomacy, hopefully sincere. In any event, being civil, even if not "honesty", is a helpful skill to have to diffuse certain situations. You pick your poison, and I'll pick mine. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't participate in FA's for that exact reason. An observation based on experience is not indicative of a lack of good faith. His statement sounds like an honest response from someone who was brushed off by a clique. It sounds like you would like your candidates to dispense with honesty in favor of calculated, political answers that don't tell us anything. Thankfully, that's not my type of candidate. I salute My76Strat for telling it like it is come hell or high water, and that's the kind of person we need—a straight shooter who is willing to speak his mind. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I lost respect for this user after the whole retirement drama. Logan Talk Contributions 00:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per train-wreck of a nomination statement. I can only echo Ironholds and tommorris on this one. --IShadowed 01:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I have to agree with Logan, and IShadowed. Retiring and coming back 9 days later is very iffy, and even though very formal language is appropriate sometimes, it's generally not appropriate in Wikipedia, outside of policies where it must be clear and unambiguous. Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 01:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- So they took a nine day wikication, big deal. Way too much is being made of this, and I suspect, for everyone holding emotions against the candidate, that they too, in the right circumstance may have, or may yet say or do things they wish they hadn't. It's ancient history and to poison the well with it now, at this RfA, is weak and lame, IMO. Indeed, that they should be getting opposes for taking a break from wikipedia is ridiculous, and I hope any said opposes that base their !vote on that rationale be weighed appropriately. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Are you people kidding me? Strat has proven his worth time and time again and I think his writing style is lovely. Should this RfA fail, it is most certainly a black mark on Wikipedia. Keepscases (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- It speaks to the competence of the user in question. Drama has no place among admins, and communication skills are vital and necessary for a mop. His style of writing is pretentious at best, unimpressive and unpersuasive. I can't imagine him trying to correspond with a confused, frustrated user -- My76Strat appears to have a knack for saying a lot without really saying much at all. I think the concerns expressed are entirely valid and certainly a basis for opposition. --IShadowed 05:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ironholds is now an admin and Strat's being shot down? Truly sad. Keepscases (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- It speaks to the competence of the user in question. Drama has no place among admins, and communication skills are vital and necessary for a mop. His style of writing is pretentious at best, unimpressive and unpersuasive. I can't imagine him trying to correspond with a confused, frustrated user -- My76Strat appears to have a knack for saying a lot without really saying much at all. I think the concerns expressed are entirely valid and certainly a basis for opposition. --IShadowed 05:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Are you people kidding me? Strat has proven his worth time and time again and I think his writing style is lovely. Should this RfA fail, it is most certainly a black mark on Wikipedia. Keepscases (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- So they took a nine day wikication, big deal. Way too much is being made of this, and I suspect, for everyone holding emotions against the candidate, that they too, in the right circumstance may have, or may yet say or do things they wish they hadn't. It's ancient history and to poison the well with it now, at this RfA, is weak and lame, IMO. Indeed, that they should be getting opposes for taking a break from wikipedia is ridiculous, and I hope any said opposes that base their !vote on that rationale be weighed appropriately. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Not competent to be an admin. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 04:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - You are not a fool and don't need an RfA for validation. Just be a great Wikipedian and leave the janitorial tasks for others. Nice work on the Chemical Weapons piece. At the first nomination it was mentioned that this user's big interests are mathematics and guitar, which is a 2 out of 3 match for K-Wolf. His oppose above is thus a double red flag for me; ditto Malleus and Ironholds, who each have a good sense for RfA candidates, in my opinion. Planets have aligned. Carrite (talk) 06:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Stop it. Ironholds is a fucking moron. Keepscases (talk) 06:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral for the time being. I've seen this editor around at AN and AN/I where the contributions have always seemed sensible. But I'd like a little more detail in the answers to the three questions currently noted above - agreed, its no big deal to be an admin but it would be good to see a bit more preparatory work going into the nomination. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 08:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is a fine line, between being under-prepared and over-prepared. After my "pre-RFA", I expected to wait a couple of months but instead was only 3 days, leaving me less prepared than perhaps it seemed. I'm more cautious with those who are too prepared, but that is just me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral Language to me is not a reason to oppose. My76Strat is a great editor and I've never personally had a problem with him. However, after looking at the previous RFAs, I begin to see where Ironhold's concern lies. The language is only an indicator. My advice to My76Strat, if your self nomination statement is your preferred style of casual communication, then that's fine and don't change who you are. However, if you are trying to depict yourself as well versed, educated, and wise through the use of language you would not normally use, then I strongly recommend you just talk to us on the same casual level that you would if you were in the professional atmosphere talking to some peers. Talk to us on the same level that we talk to you. We don't need the show, we've got an entire contributions log to judge you on and you don't need to prove anything to us with your use of phrases and classy words.--v/r - TP 13:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral for now. I share Ironholds's concerns about your language, My76Strat. There's "writing complex prose" (which I'll admit to being prone to, personally!), and then there's "writing prose that's so 'thesaurus-barfed-on-the-page' that even people who can understand complex prose find it off-putting." My experience with you has been that you tend to write in the second style, not the first. It doesn't help that your nomination statement is written in that manner, which makes me wonder if you've quite assimilated that as a sysop, you're expected to be able to make yourself understood to everyone from PhDs to second-graders, and writing the way you tend to will shut out those with a lower reading level, making you a less effective admin. However, your question-answers are much, much better in this regard, so I think maybe you do understand that flowery writing isn't always useful or called for. I'd like to see more of your interactions here before I come down with a solid !vote. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hope you don't mind a comment here (in response to these latest two Neutrals). In everyday talk, I think My76Strat is fine and quite natural - it's just that when he has to sit down and write some "formal" words, or things like that, he perhaps tries too hard. In talk page discussion, etc, he appears to me to communicate just fine, and to me that's what counts. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- At my RFA, Drmies said of me: "I'm reminded of students who totally screw up their writing when they're writing English papers because they think "OMG I'M WRITING AN ENGLISH PAPER". I try to tell them that their normal style of writing is probably fine and that nothing is gained by getting all verklemmt." While it might be less than optimal prose, it does show that they are taking it serious. My RfA was recent enough I remember the uptight feeling, so I can empathize with him, and overlook it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't get quoted often, so I thank you. Yes. I have the same issues with Strat's language as I did before: I want an admin to speak authoritatively and in a natural tone, and the tone adopted in these communications is not that. But at least with Dennis I understood perfectly well what they meant--with Strat I don't have that. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- At my RFA, Drmies said of me: "I'm reminded of students who totally screw up their writing when they're writing English papers because they think "OMG I'M WRITING AN ENGLISH PAPER". I try to tell them that their normal style of writing is probably fine and that nothing is gained by getting all verklemmt." While it might be less than optimal prose, it does show that they are taking it serious. My RfA was recent enough I remember the uptight feeling, so I can empathize with him, and overlook it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- As someone in the midst of a Ph.D, I can say that needlessly pompous prose is as looked down on in the research seminars I attend as it is on Wikipedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hope you don't mind a comment here (in response to these latest two Neutrals). In everyday talk, I think My76Strat is fine and quite natural - it's just that when he has to sit down and write some "formal" words, or things like that, he perhaps tries too hard. In talk page discussion, etc, he appears to me to communicate just fine, and to me that's what counts. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going to park my tush here for a moment to get some answers. Strat, do you really think it's a good idea to pre-antagonize the "FA clan" and basically invite them here to oppose? Why would you come out with blazing guns like that, assigning blame for an as yet unknown offense or mishap? Drmies (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Pulling my "tush" up next to Drmies' for the moment. Similar reasons. I like My76 a lot, but between the communication style and what I perceive as a tendency to post impulsively combined, I fear could lead to some mis-understandings which could be fuel to a drama fire that perhaps would be best avoided. I have no doubt that My76 has a great heart - and a wonderful desire to improve the project; yet "admin" requires a bit more in my view. Or at least a "good admin." does. I've gotta think about this one; I'm not the easy touch for a "support" that I was years ago. — Ched : ? 15:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Also gonna tush it up with the two above me. Has anyone ever watched that episode of Friends where Joey discovers how to use the thesaurus on his computer, and changes every single word in a letter he is writing, with hi-larious results? It kinda reminds me of that. Sorry. It's not enough to oppose but I can't see anything else to help me get over the feeling and support either. Three RfAs in 2 years is also slight overkill. Take your time. GiantSnowman 16:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Posteriors and snacks notwithstanding, I, too, feel divided between concern about communication style, and my perception that the candidate is a very nice person who really cares about the 'pedia. Please think of this as "moral support". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral for now, but I am also deeply concerned about admins who have poor communication skills. The heart may be in the right place and the intentions good, but if the message can't be deciphered all that goes for nothing. Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Waiting to see if the answer to my question demonstrates that the candidate has strategies for communicating successfully with a diversity of users. His worst ting in a twost episodes seem to be when he's talking about himself, so hopefully the question gives a chance to show how he talks to other folks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- The questions above need answering, preferably in clear, comprehensible English. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Saw the results of the last one and wondered WTF happened. The user seems very tuned in to some areas but I can see where some of the opposes come from. Waiting for the answers to the rest of the questions. - UnbelievableError (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)