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

My76Strat[edit]

Final (15/28/2); ended 12:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC) Non-admin close by candidate. My76Strat (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

My76Strat (talk · contribs) – Hello, I am My76Strat and I am volunteering for a forth time to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Each of my previous RfA's have been unsuccessful for different reasons, which I have taken the advice on board to better myself, and hopefully emerge successful. The reason I am offering to serve as an administrator is because I spend a significant amount of time on this site and have seen many opportunities where I could help. I feel I can be trusted to use the tools with a proper reverence for the impact of their use, and am aware of my own knowledge and abilities. I have no intention of abusing the trust I am asking the community to bestow on me. My76Strat (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement of withdraw[edit]

I'd like to thank everyone who participated to consider this request. Good day, My76Strat (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: Other than non-controversial maintenance that I am willing to do, my primary intention is to help out at UAA and AIV. During my recent changes patrols I do at times see an attack page created and I would CSD such a page although that is the extent of page deletions that I will do. I have no plans to close any discussions, primarily preferring to comment and observe the emerging consensus.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am most pleased with my contributions to Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders because I was moved by the story and wanted to do something, contributing to a proper telling of a worthwhile subject was within my ability, so I did collaborate, contributing my best effort. I am also pleased with WikiProject Record Production and Portal Record production because it was an under-served topic and considerable gains have been and are being made to improve in scope articles. I'm also proud of Connie B. Gay because it was the first in scope article created in WikiProject Record Production project space. I am also proud of Edna Staebler Award which started out like this because I created content for nearly all the winners and integrated the titles into their respective "Year in literature" page for both the year published, and the award year. I also included all writers on the list of Canadian writers. I created the template, ((Edna Staebler Award honorees)) to help in navigation. Now that all the winners are done, I'll be working to blue-link the entire group of shortlist honorees as well.
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, conflicts over editing, and resolved them with little to no stress at all. I have been stressed by other editors, mostly when I feel I am being misunderstood. In the past I haven't handled the stress well, but I've learned and intend to remember that Wikipedia is an online community and that none of my interactions can be personal.
Additional questions from GiantSnowman
4. Your last RFA ended only 5 months ago - what makes now the right time to nominate yourself again?
A: While it is true that my last RFA ended 5 months ago, it wasn't a situation where the community urged me to wait a specific amount of time, but rather that I concentrate on improving my communication skills. I feel like I'm ready to demonstrate that I finally get it. My76Strat (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
5. What's the most important thing you've learnt from your past RFAs?
A: The most important thing I have learned is that my style of writing can be very difficult to comprehend, and that it's more important to be clear, than fancy. I hope improved clarity will be apparent for everyone who reviews this request. My76Strat (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional question from Scottywong
6. In your nomination statement, you say that "Each of my previous RfA's have been unsuccessful for different reasons, which I have taken the advice on board to better myself..." Could you elaborate on some of the reasons why your previous RfA's have been unsuccessful, and what you have done to correct those issues? If possible, provide links/diffs showing instances where you have consciously made an effort to handle a situation differently based upon criticism from your previous RfA's.
A: My first RfA was unsuccessful because I was not ready to function as an administrator. My record of CSD nominations was poor and in too many cases they constituted a wp:bite to new users. My reports at wp:uaa were also questionable causing many to recommend I become more proficient in those areas. I think my improvements in those areas are apparent. My communication style was also criticized but I failed to improve that aspect by RfA2. My second RfA ended abruptly when I withdrew the request after becoming emotional at being portrayed as a lunatic. I did take that criticism too hard and overreact. My third RfA was doomed by my own comments. I made statements that reflected poorly on me. In one example I referred to FA contributors, as "the FA clan". That was rightly construed as a battlefield mentality and I think it would have been sufficient in itself to oppose the nomination. But I also reverted to my writing style that has been the biggest factor in turning support away. I'm still working to improve. I'm sorry but I really do not have specific diffs to support my answer here. My76Strat (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional questions from Fluffernutter
For this set of questions, I want you to pretend that I'm a new Wikipedian and that these events happened. Assume that I don't know much about what goes on here or how things work. You have no idea how old I am. How would you explain to me:
7. What do administrators do?
A:Administrators do a variety of task's associated with the smooth operation of Wikipedia. The symbol of an administrator is a mop, which indicates their responsibility to clean up any mistakes that are found. My76Strat (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you fairly assessed my answers to your questions. I deserve as much because the answers are badly contrived. I tried to answer the way I thought you would appreciate, and missed my mark. To be truthful, if a new account asked me "What do administrators do?" I would probably tell them that administrators perform a variety of services to maintain smooth and continuous operation of the site. I would explain that the position depends on having demonstrated competence and earned community trust. I would ask the user if there was a specific aspect he or she was interested in, and I would try to impart to the user that there were many things they would likely benefit from exploring. If they had not been welcomed, I would tell them that I posted some information on their talk page that may be helpful as they get started, and I would offer to help in any way I could if they had additional questions. That is in fact my manner as the following diffs may help to show: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8, 9, 10 My76Strat (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
8. Why did you just revert my copy-paste of my school's description from its website?
A: The text you copied is protected by copyright laws and Wikipedia requires all published text to respect these rights. You may have noticed the message when you edit that says "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Your copy-pasted text was a violation, and that is why it was removed. My76Strat (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
9. Why did you just delete my vanity article?
A: All articles on Wikipedia are required to meet a notability guideline. Your article failed to assert a credible claim of notability so it was deleted on that basis. My76Strat (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
10. What do I do if someone is being mean to me?
A: The best thing you can do is talk about it with the person. It is important to remember that the person may not intend to be mean, and that instead of accusing them of being mean, ask them to clarify what they are saying. If you still feel they are being mean, it is probably best to just ignore them and find better associates. My76Strat (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Optional questions from jc37
In order to help determine whether you meet my criteria (including your knowledge/understanding of policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship), please answer the following questions.
  • 11. How would you personally determine whether you are involved in any particular situation when deciding whether you should block (or unblock) an editor, and when deciding whether you should protect (or unprotect) a page.
  • A:The only accounts I intend to block are accounts I observe as vandalism only accounts, promotional accounts, or blatantly offensive usernames. I will evaluate these primarily from reports at UAA and AIV. If I see a rash of vandalism from a range of different IP's, I would consider semi-protecting the article for a short duration (3 to 5 days). I'll leave request's to remove protection to the admins who are regular at wp:rfpp, and I'll only consider removing a block if I placed it. That consideration will depend on the users request and how it conforms with Wikipedia norms and the terms of service.
  • 12. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for you to apply the policy to ignore all rules to a situation, while also explaining the interdependency between being bold and seeking (and/or following) consensus on Wikipedia.
  • A: The main aspect of wp:iar is to encourage editing without being overly concerned with knowing the appropriate policy or guideline in advance. Wp:bold editing depends on one's ability to trust that edits done in good faith will not draw immediate and harsh consequences. A similar consideration involves consensus. It would be overly cumbersome to research every probable discussion in advance of making an edit. This does not mean I would ever ignore a rule or a consensus once the matter has been brought to my attention. My76Strat (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 13. How do you determine consensus from a discussion? And how may it be determined differently concerning an RfC, an RM, an XfD, or a DRV.
  • A: Most talk page discussions reach their own consensus by the interested editors persuading each other until a reasonable compromise is reached. When the editors are unable to agree on an approach, an RfC can be opened inviting broader participation. Once the matter rises to an RfC, RM, XFD, or DRV, an uninvolved administrator must close the discussion explaining the consensus they recognize. The Administrator should weigh all comments in relation to existing policy, and established consensus in effect. The outcome is not determined by a numerical vote, and the uninvolved admin should never allow his or her own bias to result in a super-vote. It is reasonable that a majority of discussions will close as "no-consensus". My76Strat (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 14. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A: First I would look at the article history to determine the scope of the dispute. If either or both editors have exceeded the 3RR I would determine if they had been warned, or asked to cease edit warring. If they have been, I would likely block the accounts. If they hadn't been warned I'd issue a final or only warning, advising them of wp:3rr and the b.r.d. cycle, directing them to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. I would consider restoring the last stable version prior to the edit war so as not to favor one editor over another. If one of the editors was vandalizing in bad faith, the 3rr would not apply against the user who reverted the vandalism, and I would only block the bad faith account, and probably give a barnstar to the account reverting the vandalism. My76Strat (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 15. Why do you wish to be an administrator?
  • A: I have offered to serve as an administrator because I am often available to clean up certain messes that I have observed at times when many admins are unavailable. I am content to ease into the role, but in unequivocal cases where I can minimize the disruption, I will be glad to have had the ability. My76Strat (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 16. In your previous RfA, there were those who expressed a concern about your communication with others, and how you come across in your communication style. Since communication is an important part of adminship, in particular to explain or clarify to a query concerning an admin action you may have performed, please select any currently open WP:XfD of more than 7 contributors where the discussion is not unanimous or even near unanimous, and pretend you have "closed" the discussion, and then explain your closure as if someone asked for clarification. (You can paste your closure and explanations here: /Closure.) Thank you. - jc37 18:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I will answer this question very shortly, please pardon me for skipping it for now. My76Strat (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optional questions from Sue Rangell
  • 17 Four RfAs is a lot. For the life of me I do not understand why you would put yourself through this so many times. What would you say to somebody who feels that you want the mop too much?
A: To be honest, if they didn't directly ask me a question, I wouldn't say a thing. In fact I believe it has already been suggested in this RfA. That was another big mistake from my past request's. I commented far too often to statements made and I learned to avoid that practice. Naturally I think it could be a legitimate concern for someone to have. I'm not sure where the presumption of nefarious motives came from, but my hope is that my record of doing good things on this site will support my desire to assist for a common good. If I can not prevail on my record. I'll be content in my current capacity. That doesn't mean I'll never try again, but it might mean I can never succeed. My76Strat (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support Solid editor, and unlikely to abuse the bits. Supported last time, this time too.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support for now. I've seen this editor around and don't recall getting a bad impression. AutomaticStrikeout (Evidence) 17:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support Great and clueful editor. Seems to have taken the comments about his writing style seriously and shows improvement in this RFA. My full support.--v/r - TP 18:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support for now. Flowery language doesn't bother me, unless lack of clarity engenders more hostility (as it may in a blocking situation). The nominee seems to be fully comprehending the need to be clear. Personally, I like book-learnin'. Guðsþegn (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are you suggesting those of us who object are...anti-intellectual, I guess? :p. Ironholds (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No need to stick your tongue out. ...and, no, I'm not. Guðsþegn (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support I like the cut of your jib, and we're desperately short of good editors willing to do the donkey work at AIV and CSD. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 20:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support - I'm not convinced that the candidate's vocabulary idiosyncrasies are as big a problem as many are making them out to be. Also, the candidate's stated areas of interest (in Q1) don't include any areas that rely heavily on communication (e.g. patrolling ANI, closing consensus discussions, etc.). I feel that opposing because the candidate likes to use big words is a bit nit-picky. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 20:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support – Let me get this right, the major reason in the Oppose section is that “…He's unnecessarily (and uncomfortably) verbose.” Not that (s)he is Un-commutative –Abusive – or Uncivil. Nor are there allegations of mis-tagging – vandalism – being blocked or untrustworthy with regards to the tools. Just supposition that (s)he is longwinded. I guess the requirements for the sysop tools go way beyond just doing a good job but now require the ability to “speak in tongues”. Good Luck. ShoesssS Talk 20:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The ability to communicate clearly is an important one in an admin. I'm not convinced the candidate demonstrates this ability. Make sense? --John (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. (edit conflict) Effectuating adminship responsibilities is paramount to furthering his capabilities in editing Wikipedia. Sorry had to try. In all seriousness, I think that bestowing adminship responsibilities upon users who can use them effectively is a net positive to the project, and for that reason and that reason alone, I am supporting this editor's candidacy. Go Phightins! 21:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support: Per Wehwalt. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support I'm not strict when evaluating candidates, except when they intend to work with CSDs.—cyberpower ChatOnline 23:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support - I appreciate that this editor has made a significant number of contributions, demonstrates a capacity for growth and has the courage to endure the RfA process again. I have little doubt that they will continue to improve in their ability to communicate clearly and will make productive contributions as an admin. - MrX 02:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Rather strong support. A diligent and idealistic editor; answers to questions sound. I particularly like the response to Questions 10, 11, and 13, which should give an idea of this candidate's potential as an admin. dci | TALK 03:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support - Yes, sometimes he uses too many words. Sometimes some of them are long ones. I see a huge improvement in communication style versus the previous RFAs, though, and I have no difficulty with his comments here (other than a couple of trypos). What I also see is a long term contributor, very keen to help. Helping is what admins are supposed to do. I'd rather have an admin with passion to do the right thing than another "head prefect" type wikilawyer. I think we have enough of those. After review I find absolutely no evidence this candidate would abuse any tools, and his commitment and experience demonstrate to me he wants to make things better, and can. Lastly - he's back here after his previous experiences, and has made great efforts to address perceived faults. That's a sign of commitment, right there. I offer him my respect for the way he has handled himself here. Begoon talk 03:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support as per AutomaticStrikeout. Am not persuaded that his communication is so poor as to make him incapable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support - I named him Awesome Wikipedian on 10 June 2012 for expressing something simply, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. I hate to be the first person to do this or say this, but quite frankly I find it very difficult to understand what My76strat says. He's unnecessarily (and uncomfortably) verbose, which isn't a big problem in normal editing but is a substantial one when it comes to communicating to users why they are blocked, interpreting unblocks, so on and so forth - areas where he says he'd like to work. Now, I brought this issue up last time, and M76S says he's worked on the issues brought up, but I really don't think so. This RfA and his statements in it are certainly more easily parsable than his comments 5 months ago - but the same is not true of his recent statements anywhere else. Barely 3 weeks ago he opened with "Greetings IRWolfie-. I am interested in proffering a compromise that frankly, I would discard unless it is a matter you would be willing to support. An issue gave impetus to an epiphany that probably would have been a better choice in relaxing Iantresmen's topic ban than the 1RR ultimately enacted. Preliminary regards are apparent on his talk page." Similarly florid prose can be found here, here and here. I'm not seeing a permanent change in approach (or, if there is one, it's kicked in very recently) - I'm seeing a deliberate effort to tone it down for this RfA. Ironholds (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are his comments in this RFA that hard? Seems he has shown a ton of improvement in this RFA. At the very least, he has shown he can dumb-down his usually verbose language.--v/r - TP 18:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If I didn't think his comments in this RfA were parsable I wouldn't have explicitly noted that they were in the comment you're replying to ;p. And I don't think it was ever in doubt that he could do it - simply whether he wanted to, and whether he was willing to do so consistently. I agree that he is capable - I simply disagree that he is willing. People are expected to improve on the issues previously raised about them uniformly, not just "in my next RfA". Would you argue that someone who is consistently bad at CSD tagging has shown, by the one article they tagged accurately, that they are capable, and should therefore get the bits? :p. Ironholds (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I actually rather enjoy his/her employment of vocabulary. It's like watching The Big Bang Theory - makes me realize that, even though I wouldn't use words like that, I'm smart enough to understand what's going on. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose for temperament concerns. While My76Strat does some good content work, he has tended to get extremely upset after each previous failed RfA, including an aborted attempt at vanishing after RfA #2, and this after RfA #3. Also, coming back so soon after the previous failed attempt, which was pretty solidly against the idea of adminship, gives me further concern about wanting the rights a little bit too much. —Torchiest talkedits 18:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Regretful Oppose, per Ironholds. This editor seems pleasant and helpful, but other than the toned-down prose here on this RFA, I see no proof that my communication concerns from the last RFA have been addressed. Reading My76Strat's comments elsewhere is far more difficult than it should be. Sorry. OohBunnies! (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose. I've seen far too much of the incomprehensible prose that Ironholds alludes to, some of it quite recently. This exchange, in which M76Strat expresses his contempt for what he sees as my lack of aspiration to improve the editing environment, because he'd failed to read an email reply I'd sent him, happened just over a month ago. Malleus Fatuorum 18:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose due to temperament concerns. TBrandley 18:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose per above. The candidate's obnoxious communication style is not compatible with adminship. Skinwalker (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose. Ironholds puts it so well - I'm far from convinced that the communication issues (i.e. the willfully over-florid writing style) are a thing of the past, despite the considerable improvements demonstrated in this RfA. — sparklism hey! 19:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose temperament concerns. Torchiest has presented some pretty hard evidence that you IMO will never be right for adminship. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 19:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose per Ironholds. And it isn't a question of "dumbing-down"; Malleus points out an instance where his unclear communication style actually exacerbated a situation unnecessarily. As a language freak I wasn't charmed by the two glaring errors in the nomination statement either. Use language clearly and well; we know your intentions are good. Come back after a few months of talking clearly and simply to others and you may get a different result. --John (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose. The communication style, whilst toned down for the purposes of this RFA, still defies comprehension (Your comment belies a tangential relation, actually elucidating the core of this request. Being aware of a potential for sanctions does not imply one would know they are encroaching the "event horizon".). This is a basic failure to understand policy. This is not the sort of thing I expect to see in an administrator attempting to resolve a situation. I could go on, but I do not wish this oppose to become a character assassination. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose - weak answers to my questions meant I was going to 'Neutral', but the diffs presented by Torchiest show that Strat still does not yet have the temperment to be an admin. This RFA is far too soon after the last - what's the rush? The language thing also remain an issue, as always. GiantSnowman 20:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. (edit conflict) Oppose - I don't think that the candidate has the low-drama nature that an admin needs. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Communication still often hard to understand. Temper issues. The "IAR." thing was apparently meant to sabotage or confuse people looking for IAR. Strat does a lot of good things around here, but making him an administrator would clearly be an unacceptable risk to the project and its volunteers' time. Townlake (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Oppose - Whatever the merits of this editor's contributions, the fact remains that administrators are required to explain their actions when challenged and justify them if necessary, especially when using the contentious delete and block buttons in the areas that Strat intends to work. It is clear from the diffs above that Strat is simply incapable of effectively communicating with a large section of the editors on this project. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 21:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Woah, "incapable" is pretty harsh. I think it's reasonable to assume that he is capable of using smaller words when he wants to. Just look at his responses to questions above. And I'm not particularly worried about the diffs above, as those can easily be cherry picked. I think we all go out of our way sometimes to use big words and florid language depending on who we're talking to. For instance, I do it sometimes to inject a little humor into a conversation with some editors, and I do it every time I give a barnstar. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, mine were cherry-picked, insofar as they were the first revisions I really found if I looked at his contribs and discounted automated postings. Ironholds (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Oppose per communication issues brought up by Ironholds. Being able to communicate clearly and understandably to users is very important for Administrators. SpencerT♦C 21:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Oppose, unsurprisingly, since it's less than a month since this charming exchange. Pretty much the last person I'd want explaining the ropes to a new user who's made a basic mistake, or trying to calm a heated debate. Mogism (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Oppose per the communication issues. The answers to questions 7-10, especially 8 and 9, seem to be too short and don't really explain things. WP:IAR. is also something which I don't think it's appropoiate for a potential admin to be doing. Dpmuk (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Oppose My76Strat's pompous and ostentatious verbosity is amusing (at least to the mind of a particularly cynical person) but ill-fitting of a gentleman so desirous of the mop.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Morris (talk • contribs) 23:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Unhappy to oppose, but doing it anyway. While Strat's answers to my questions do a decent job of de-thesaurus-izing his usual writing, they fail to actually explain anything in a way that would be adequate for a new user. Communication doesn't only require using the right words; it also requires being able to use the right words to communicate full meaning. I'm very pleased to see that Strat has made progress on half of that, but I think the other half is still too lacking for an administrator. I am also concerned about his temperament - the post-RFA ragequit (which I was pleased to see didn't last long - RFA can be a bitch and a half and I don't begrudge anyone the right to take a breather afterward, but the less dramatic the better) looked like he wasn't in control of his emotions, and the behavior over the IAR essay (which wasn't half-bad as an essay concept, otherwise) didn't speak well for his impulse control. My impression is that Strat's emotions always dwell close to the surface, and that while he does his absolute best to be helpful and constructive, it just doesn't come out right sometimes, especially in confrontational or high-stress situations. I'm truly unhappy to have to oppose yet another RFA for him, because I continue to feel that his intentions and heart are absolutely in the right place and I had high hopes for his communication skills to catch up to those, but until they do, I guess here we are. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. I hate opposing My76Strat. I've seen his name pop up a lot in recent times and he comes across as very sensible and productive. However, Torchiest's links are enough to convince me that he does not have the composure to be an administrator at this time. My advice to the candidate — think of an unsuccessful RfA not as a failure, but as a learning experience, something in which to gather helpful feedback and an opportunity to reassess your approach. Be true to yourself, and have an open mind. You do that, and I will support you next time around (although I suggest applying no earlier than April-May 2013). Kurtis (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Oppose The IAR link was a) a horrid lapse in judgement and b) their comments related to its proposed deletion show a communication style incompatible with adminship. The fact that we're here a mere 5 months after his previous RFA shows he's too power-hungry - besides, who in their right mind would run for RFA less than a month since the IAR fiasco? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Oppose Problems with communication and poise make the candidate clearly unsuitable. -- Scray (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. The user's recent remarks at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 5#Wikipedia:IAR. show how the user is wholly unsuited to be a sysop as well as the user's stance on IAR, which is a valued and necessary policy. As a side-note, I don't find the examples provided by Ironholds to be very problematic and have no issues with verbose language. Snowolf How can I help? 07:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Oppose, not to pile on, I just noticed this late. Verbosity doesn't bother me, as we all have different ways of communicating, and it's not easy to change that. It's MyStrat's temperament that greatly concerns me. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise in the future, but probably not sometime soon. Many apologies. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Oppose Normally I'd expect to do a little more of my own research before making a decision at RfA. But in this case the very recent deletion discussion for 'Wikipedia:IAR.' is enough on its own to send me straight to oppose. Sorry, but this sort of discourse appears completely incompatible with the way admins ought to conduct their communications. I've not found obvious evidence of any prior provocation between the candidate and User:Mogism, which leaves me flummoxed. I'm also amused by the irony of the statement I will instead ignore the wisdom within the rules (etc.)[1] when compared with the essay Incorporate all rules. I'd like to see the candidate continue their good work here, while working to demonstrate tangible development within the suggested areas of improvement before considering reapplying. -- Trevj (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Oppose His behaviour at the recent clarification request for Civility Enforcement was inexplicable. He should just accept that he is not going to be an administrator, just as I have accepted that I shall not be a Fields Medalist. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Oppose - sorry - but No! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 11:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Oppose. Concerns over communication style. Also some poor judgement issues. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral. Answers to GiantSnowman's questions are pretty essential. Neutral until then. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Moving to oppose. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 21:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Neutral for now. Leaning towards oppose, but I hope to convince myself otherwise after further review. The "IAR." thing, from November 5th, make me wonder whether the language and/or temperament issues are really in the past. The essay, and especially its WP:IAR. redirect (note the period), were either pointy or misguided and absurdly verbose, and either way, I don't think it bodes well. Could've been a a one-off thing, though, and this RfA itself is a lot better; more research needed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Neutral. Waiting on answers to questions, but I still have concerns about this editor's prose style. Given the number of issues we've seen lately regarding poor communication on the part of admins, I think a clear writing style is now more important than ever. Intothatdarkness 18:54, 27 November 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.
Category