How would you differ any deletion of BLP from creating and AFD or nominating it for CSD under A7?

A:

General comments[edit]

• 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[edit]

• I'd like to make a general remark. I wouldn't really care otherwise except that I see a few users I generally regard well echoing praise at Ironholds for his outstanding manner of character determination. I simply take issue at the suggestion that I could transclude at 08:16, ((ec)) with Ironholds at 08:18, and then to see the summary of his evaluation at 08:20, giving a maximum span of 4 minutes which assumes some amount of time to ec at 08:18 and prepare the 08:20 summary. Exactly how much time does that actually give for this fantastic evaluation I hear so many; so willing to rubber-stamp? Wouldn't it be something if a bureaucratic discounted Ironhold and every per Ironhold as mathematically impossible? I know it won't happen, but it sure would be something. My76Strat (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'd just like to say that I'm glad I waited for My76Strat to answer a few moer questions before I !voted and I hope that some of the !voters will read through the answers and decide if their positions should be re-evaluated. They have, in my opinion, reasonable opposes, but My76Strat's answers to the questions helped me to decide on my opinion in such a way that I think it would be a shame not to take them into consideration. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I would like to put forth an additional observation. This RfA from the beginning has registered a fair equivalence of 50/50 across the board. I wonder if that reflects in anyway my lifelong endeavor; to be reasonable; and seek neutral ground in every manner. I may be wrong but I have consistently said, and then set ways; I am neither a Democrat or a Republican; I have no theistic alignment except to the truth. Blab, blab, blab, blab, blab blab blab. For if somehow it is. That would certainly be a fair reap. My76Strat (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• It is critical that I explain one element of my abomination that is being misconstrued. When I placed "To be very clear, I am not a fool!, yet this impression can not purge except through an RFA." it directly follows "I was shown where consequences of this stigma remain to this very day." I imagined it possible that a fair mind seeking astute clarification might associate a thing I was "shown" with a thing potentially interesting enough to want to see. Additionally I have enough capacity to anticipate the extent aspersions would be cast. I also have enough regard for decency to set a defense against slander, especially when human emotion other than mine would likely be affected. If it has not been said, I know it has been thought, and suspect it would soon be cast; that I !voted support for several people just to blab blab get their support here blab blab and the other stuff about gaming and cunning, deceit and clear intentions, and what else. How could I answer? Should they wonder if maybe? So here is the bottom line. I was editing exactly in the manner Kiefer Wolfowitz described as how he thought we'd agreed. in that manner I did support some candidates for exactly however I described that support. RfA3 was not even remotely a factor for me until the hour and minute I received an email from ArbCom. That being the thing I was shown and the thing I would have shown if there was a desire to be known. Since it was not, I will hold the line in favor of privacy. I will allow only the release of information in this very limited scope: ArbCom may confirm that I did receive an email, on the exact date and time (users can compare my editing before that date and time, and after for their own needs) and that the email specifically mentioned my RfA1 and RfA2 in direct relation to a decision. At this point I have no concern if someone rather believes this purging is a thing I needed for my own self worth or a thing I might have shown relevant, but I want no room for wonder if gaming played a role in my !votes; Absolutely not! And while people still hold my style against me, I plead guilty for every word I publish is chosen for some reason, by me. To all the people who like to brag about how many times they had to stop and say huh? I'd like to know how many of those times did you say unto me, huh? because I would have told you. Why am I in fact a GD fool? Because I write that way, and have proffered enormous effort to at times nearly write exactly what I was trying to say; "that way". A few Huh's along the way would have been complementary! Good day - My76Strat (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Ok, so here's the thing. I read that whole paragraph you just posted, just above. And my reaction was "huh?" You appear to be talking about accusations of vote-trading (which no one has made, as far as I can see), and an email to or from Arbcom about...something...but I literally have no idea what you've just spent quite a lot of words trying to say, so I have no idea whether it's good, bad, or nonsense. So now, here's your "huh?" request: Please rewrite the paragraph you just posted, in plain English, so that it's understandable to everyone. I would really, really like to understand what the worries (?) you're trying to express here are, and right now that's not possible. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Exact same reaction. I genuinely don't understand - can you not speak in a clear, concise manner, or are you simply refusing to? GiantSnowman 18:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• At this point, I think it's a combination of both... --IShadowed 18:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict):*:I understand, yes I'll clear some things up. I am sorry for being so confusing, it is a reflection of being confused. I'll clear my own thoughts and see if I can get them out there like I should. My76Strat (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I suppose this is sufficient. Put this one in the books and I'll see you all around. My76Strat (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Edit stats on the talk page. →Στc. 08:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support[edit]

1. 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)Reply[reply]
2. 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. Worm^TT(talk) 11:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. 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)Reply[reply]
4. 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)Reply[reply]
5. 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)Reply[reply]
6. 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)Reply[reply]

   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)Reply[reply]

7. 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)Reply[reply]
8. 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)Reply[reply]
9. 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)Reply[reply]
10. Support and I sincerely hope you never change the way you write. Keepscases (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
11. 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)Reply[reply]
12. Support Great editor and I love his writing style. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
13. 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)Reply[reply]
14. 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)Reply[reply]
15. 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)Reply[reply]

    Weak 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)Reply[reply]

    I am still supporting because I think this candidate will be a benefit to the admin corps; however, the reply to Edison has greatly weakened by support. As a note, much of the flowery language used by My76Strat isn't even entirely grammatically correct. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I'll just watch, following my massive Huh? to the most recent comment in the Discussion section. If My76Strat wasn't such an established editor, I'd assume he was trolling. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16. Support- Anecdote- A Trinidadian I went to class with told us 'I don't talk with an accent, you listen with one.' Deciding to enjoy the way someone else communicates can be a pleasure unto itself, and if MyStrat76 has posted somewhere I'm browsing, I'm unlikely to skip reading the section. Committed to the project and qualified, even if he's the only editor who can't be understood, because they choose not to listen. e/r Dru of Id (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
17. Support Judging by the state of play, it's probably going to wind up being only moral support. However, I think he'd make a fine admin, he's very thoughtful.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Support...yeah, candidate does have a rather convoluted writing style, but I like the answers to the questions as they seem sincere. I have yet to see any major evidence that we could anticipate tools or position would be misused...MONGO 13:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Support The answer to Q11 was spot on and well thought out. It has convinced me that My76Strat has the ability to communicate clearly when in a tight spot. No other concerns, has my full support.--v/r - TP 13:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Not !voting anymore. Reply to Edison just destroyed the faith that was temporarily restored by the answer to Q11. I'm just going to sit the rest of this one out.--v/r - TP 18:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools.--rogerd (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
19. Support Meh. He likes to use big words. Big deal. We can't all be perfect; I'm sure we all have strange personality quirks. -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 17:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose[edit]

1. 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)Reply[reply]

   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)Reply[reply]

   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. Worm^TT(talk) 10:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   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)Reply[reply]

   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)Reply[reply]

   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)Reply[reply]

   Oppose per Ironholds; answers to questions (Q3 in particular) are unsatisfactory. →Bmusician 10:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC) (!vote intended indented - →Bmusician 13:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)) - Struck for clarity, per this edit Worm^TT(talk) 15:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2. 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)Reply[reply]

   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)Reply[reply]

   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)Reply[reply]

   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. Worm^TT(talk) 15:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   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)Reply[reply]

3. 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)Reply[reply]

   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)Reply[reply]

   Am I reading the edit stats correctly? Did he make 162 edits to that ArbCom case? Drmies (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

4. 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)Reply[reply]
5. Style of communication is too problematic. AGK [•] 16:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
6. 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)Reply[reply]

   Would you suggest he give it a shot in Esperanto? Drmies (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

7. 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)Reply[reply]
8. 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)Reply[reply]
9. 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)Reply[reply]
10. 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)Reply[reply]
11. 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)Reply[reply]
12. 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)Reply[reply]

    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)Reply[reply]

    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)Reply[reply]

13. Oppose I lost respect for this user after the whole retirement drama. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
14. Oppose per train-wreck of a nomination statement and lacking responses to questions. Not only do I think you are incapable of writing a clear and comprehensible sentence, I don't even think you want to. That's a major concern, and leads me to believe that you are not currently competent enough nor mature enough for adminship. I'm also concerned you feel that adminship is some sort of redemptive test (trophy...) and this too is disconcerting. --IShadowed 01:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
15. 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)Reply[reply]

    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)Reply[reply]

    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)Reply[reply]

    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)Reply[reply]

    Ironholds is now an admin and Strat's being shot down? Truly sad. Keepscases (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Behave. GiantSnowman 10:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    A comparison with an administrator that passed an RfA after repeatedly failing many is certainly a relevant and informative comment. I interpreted "Behave" as written in good humor and ironically, since administrators should not address editors as children, unless a child administrator is addressing another child of course.... ;p

    ArbCom member and administrator Hersfold's partial and intimidating nattering on Keepscases's talk page was largely (but not wholly) unwarranted. Worse, Hersfold has not reprimanded other editors for leaving hurtful or unkind comments about the candidate, when such remarks have long since ceased to add information to the discussion. Could we have more even-handed concern with civility, please, and focus enforcement first on popular editors siding with the majority rather than beginning and ending with contrarian editors, please? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16. Not competent to be an admin. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 04:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
17. 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)Reply[reply]

    Are you aware that Ironholds went through RfA six times (as best I can recall) until he passed? Keepscases (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Actually, he went through Rfa seven times.See here. Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 09:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18. Oppose Any serious contributor to the project needs to communicate clearly and effectively. As an admin, you may be expected to explain your actions to a frustrated user in a manner that is easily understood on a regular basis. Though you claim that your "style of writing considers first the audience", your style of writing feels out of place on Wikipedia (to me, at least). Your contributions are generally fabulous, as is your enthusiasm, but at this point I cannot support handing the mop to a user whose chosen method of communication is to engage in such a manner. Sorry. — sparklism ^hey! 10:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
19. Moving from Neutral to Oppose - his dig at, and dismissal of, the "FA clan" is not nearly appropriate for an admin. GiantSnowman 12:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
20. Oppose - Has had two chances now (Questions 3 and 7) to explain a stressful situation and the lessons he has learned. The candidate has, twice, dodged the question and not provided any real information. If I was a new user who's first contributions were CSD'd and I got a response similiar to the one I recieved on my question, I'd just be more confused and frustrated. Achowat (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
21. Oppose – not only is their written style confusing (i.e. detrimental to communication), as others have pointed out, but I also have concerns about their reasons for wanting to become an administrator. Their nomination paragraph suggests that they think of adminship as a TROPHY, and Q1 especially is entirely generic ("I would perform uncontroversial deletions at C:SD" etc.), suggesting that they do not really want to use tools so much as obtain a title. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 13:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
22. Oppose. An administrator needs to demonstrate clarity of thought and ability to communicate. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
23. Frustrated oppose. I was really, truly hoping to be able to move my vote from "neutral" to "support" when Strat answered the latest questions, because I thought he'd begun to understand the language concerns people have expressed previously. Instead, I'm facepalming and moving to oppose, because it seems to me that he just...doesn't...get it. It's not that your language is more creative than usual, Strat. That's not the problem. This is not about anyone trying to censor your creativity, or force you into a meaningless box, or make you toe the line. It's about meaning. "I have just returned from labor" doesn't mean the same thing as "I've just returned from work" to most English speakers, and if you swap "labor" in there to mean "my job, but also toil and ass bustin' and tiredness and resignation and satisfaction and an ice cream sundae" and expect that your readers will be able to intuit all that subtext, rather than them just blinking in confusion and wondering if you've just had a baby or been put on a chain gang, you're misguided. Part of both the beauty and the frustration of English is that its vocabulary hosts far more shades of meaning - by virtue of it having begged, borrowed, and stolen words from so many places over so much time - than many other languages. Because there are these shades of meaning, you can't just...swap out words for bigger ones and think people will understand what you mean, because far too often for comfort what you mean and what you've said are two different things, when we can figure out what you've said at all (things like "could come across for that simply change" aren't just borked word meanings - they're not comprehensible English in the first place). It's one thing to write floridly, or to have a habit of nesting clauses to the point where eyes cross (mea culpa!). But it's another to be told multiple times, "Look, we can't understand you. Please write more clearly!" and reply "This style tenor of writing formulation is perfectly good congenial, and I think you're just trying bidding to to censor bowdlerize my creativity perspicacity!" As I said, I'm sorry to be coming down in "oppose" over this, but as long as this doesn't seem to be getting through your head, I can't support giving you a job that's going to have you talking to people who mostly don't have degrees in historical English literature.

    I'm also concerned that, as a few other commenters have pointed out, your nomination statement seems to say that you're here because you think this RFA is a way to shore up what you perceive as weaknesses in your reputation. The truth, Strat, is that your reputation is just fine. You've got tons of people in both the "support" and "oppose" camps here who are leading their votes with comments about how good your contributions are and how firmly they believe you're an asset to the encyclopedia. The only thing running an RFA to "fix" your reputation does is make those people, who think you're so sensible, wonder why you're so concerned about your reputation. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

24. Oppose. The candidate's grating and McKittrick-esque communication style - which appears to be intentional - is not appropriate for an administrator. Skinwalker (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
25. Oppose Mostly per Fluffernutter. The communication issue held me back from supporting last time, and there does not seem to be have been much improvement on that front since then. As he stated he would work to improve this last time around, I can only assume that this is something the candidate cannot change. Similar to a talented pilot who fails an eye test, communication is just too important for this role. I like the editor and I hope he realizes he is no less an asset to the encyclopedia without this particular user right. With regrets, The Interior (Talk) 16:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
26. Oppose. Sorry. This use of language is not creative, it's impaired and its application is stubborn. So many times here and elsewhere has it been pointed that this word choice and syntax are problematic, and while the candidate says they put their audience first, that's obviously not the case or I wouldn't be at the bottom of a long list of opposes. A recent comment in this very RfA, "It would be great if a few good faith mis-charactorizions were clarified true and set to your manner of extenuation", is indicative enough: it's not English, simple as that. Admins can't talk like that. Candidate also hasn't addressed their intentions and behavior at the above-mentioned ArbCom case (no one corrected me, so I assume they did indeed make a whopping 162 edits there). Drmies (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
27. Oppose. I don't really want to be here, not when you seem like a good-natured person and a really good editor. I certainly wish I wasn't here over something as seemingly inconsequential as writing style. However, being blunt, sometimes I can't understand what the hell you're trying to say. Admins especially need the ability to tone it down, make it simple - like when explaining complicated situations or policies. I'm sorry for opposing, but you need to make your point and be easily understood by fellow editors, which includes people without English as a first language, younger people, dyslexic people, etc etc. Currently, I am not confident you could do that. OohBunnies! (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
28. Oppose, sorry. When even experienced Wikipedians have problems trying to figure out what you're saying, newbies and editors unfamiliar with the guidelines and policies admins are supposed to explain/enforce have little hope of doing so. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
29. Oppose Moved from neutral. Drmies' summary above works for me. Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
30. Christ, I thought the verbose answers were down to nerves, but if this is really how you communicate then I don't think admin work is right for you. — foxj 18:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
31. Wow on the reply to Edison, this is probably a not for a long time oppose vote. It's a shame as this editor has potential to be a excellent administrator, and I was going to recuse myself because of that. I understand RFA is the most stressful, most horrific thing you have to go through in Wikipedia but that's not how to react. This isn't 2006 RFA. Secret ^account 18:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
32. Oppose per the answers to Q3, Q6, and Q7 in particular. There is a sore lack of communication skills present here. --MuZemike 18:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
33. Oppose. The first time I came across My76Strat's writing style I thought that it must be some kind of experiment on the lines of the Sokal affair, and nothing has since changed this opinion. I'm quite honestly amazed by some of the attempts by other editors above to dismiss this as a problem. There's no problem with using a wide vocabulary, including "big words", but the problem here is with the misuse of both vocabulary and grammar to the extent that most of what is written is either meaningless or ambiguous - the very opposite of academic writing, which some people seem to believe this is similar to. Obscurity and ambiguity may be fine for literary or comedic effect, but are totally inappropriate for communication with colleagues in this workplace. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutral[edit]

1. 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)Reply[reply]

   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)Reply[reply]

   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)Moving to support--v/r - TP 13:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   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) Moving to oppose. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   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)Reply[reply]

   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)Reply[reply]

   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)Reply[reply]

   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)Reply[reply]

   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)Reply[reply]

2. 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)Reply[reply]

   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)Reply[reply]

   Moving to oppose. GiantSnowman 12:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   There's plenty of room, Ched and Snowman. I'm waiting for Bugs to join us here in the peanut gallery. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   No one said there'd be peanuts.--v/r - TP 16:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3. 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)Reply[reply]

   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) Moving to oppose in response to some of the candidate's replies here. Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

4. 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)Reply[reply]
5. The questions above need answering, preferably in clear, comprehensible English. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
6. 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)Reply[reply]

   Too risky a candidate to support, but I cannot put myself in the same section as those opposing for his style of writing. — foxj 09:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

7. The communication style of this candidate at first made me think that he simply is not that fluent in English, but on further study, he seems to be trying for a whimsical prose style. If the purpose is purely entertainment, like writer James Joyce, or "double talk" comedian Irwin Corey, then more power to him in an appropriate literary or comedic venue. But clear communication is important when one conducts administrative actions, and the habitual obfuscation seen in this candidate's writing gives me pause, and keeps me from supporting his candidacy at this time. I would not want him issuing warnings or explanations to other users with intentional malapropisms or obfuscations. Also, it is troubling that he says "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!" Wikipedians are all too ready to call a sysop a fool, a troll, and worse, when he gets in their way, and there are precious few instances where admin work leads to higher regard. Otherwise he seems like he could be a good administrator. I hope he continues to work to improve the encyclopedia, and resists the temptation to play games with words. If he does this I might support his candidacy in the future. Edison (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   I love the way you explained your position. It would be great if a few good faith mis-charactorizions were clarified true and set to your manner of extenuation. I will say this. If everything premised in your writing was true, your writing would be irrefutable. I applaud that measure of clarity and lament my own inability to be as clear. For when I write the feedback is consistently off the writers target. I think "resists the temptation to play games with words." to be the worst possible conclusion any reader could reach from my prose, yet half, consistently will. If you are at all interested in clearing the fallacy in your premise, I am exuberantly willing to discuss the matter with you; perhaps on the talk page. In any regard I salute you and commend your masterful presentation above. It is so nicely written, I am going to call the Doctor, because this is encroaching a literary breakthrough. And before anyone so disposed shamefully calls this "meat"ing a thing vile, blab blab blab and go !@#$ yourself. My76Strat (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.