My76Strat 3

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (5/1/2); 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Additional question from Achowat

6. 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:

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

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

Support

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]
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]
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]
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]
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]

Oppose

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]

   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]

   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]

   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]

   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]

   Oppose per Ironholds; answers to questions (Q3 in particular) are unsatisfactory. →Bmusician 10:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC) (!vote intended - →Bmusician 13:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Neutral

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]

   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]

2. 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, than 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)[reply]