Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/My76Strat 2


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

My76Strat
'''Final (8/5/2); ended 19:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC). Withdrawn by candidate. Regards  So Why ''' 19:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination
– I am putting this nomination forward because I believe I have learned the things I needed to learn which hindered a large contingent from supporting my first nomination, and I see areas where I believe I can further benefit Wikipedia by having the extra tools. What matters most, is whether or not a consensus will emerge demonstrating that the community shares these beliefs. My76Strat (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I wish this standard question was not so bold. Rather than what I intend to do, I hope to be trusted enough to be allowed to assist the admin corp in certain areas where I do participate, and have observed a need. UAA, and UAV AIV for example. At first I would only handle the most blatant examples, otherwise I would follow the lead of the more experienced participants, whom I would endeavor to learn everything they were willing to teach. Some clear examples of CSD surface during some patrols I do and again in the clearest examples I would act for the best interest of Wikipedia. I would not delete an article I have tagged, or one which hasn't been tagged, unless it was unequivocally clear that to delay would be counterproductive. And of course the non-controversial maintenance like userfication, when there is no indication not to, or deleting a redirect to make way for an AFC move. I would be willing to help at RPP, but only after being mentored to the satisfaction of an admin who regularly contributes there. I would also consider granting rights where requested in the presence of an illustrated need. I would approach every situation where tools might be used as a situation where it was my time to learn and not enter with any predisposition that I am uniquely more qualified than the involved parties. To these ends, my endeavor is that I should be a net positive to the project.
 * A: (short version) If successful I intend to mostly assist at UAA and UAV AIV. I have observed backlogs there and believe I can help. I will only delete articles when there is a blatant example of vandalism. Otherwise I will tag the article and monitor the actions taken by the more experienced participants. I will be available to perform non-controversial maintenance when the best interest of Wikipedia is served. And I will grant permissions where there is a clear qualification and need. Above all, I will always respect my colleagues and never act as though my opinion is inherently more valuable. My76Strat (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What is UAV?--EdwardZhao (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize for that. I meant to imply AIV and did not want to template the regulars or I would have noticed my error sooner. My76Strat (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Template the regulars"? What does that have to do with "UAV"?? - F ASTILY  (TALK) 17:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It means that I made a mistake. And the other concept was also out of context. But If I had marked up UAV, I would have noticed the red link and corrected it sooner. That's what I meant. My76Strat (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Honestly, I try to make every contribution the best I can muster in whatever given situation I am in. When I push the edit button, it is because I hope to add some level of quality to the page I am appending. I am currently most excited about reviewing GAN's, an area where I have found high quality collaboration. I actually recommend that every editor with an adequate measure of clue begin participating themselves, if they have not yet. Otherwise, I am most proud of Chemical Weapon, because it is the most important subject I have started, Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders, because it is a great example of collaborative effort, and most recently, Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/GA1, because I think GAN is Wikipedia's best kept secret, and this review gives a consolidated glimpse at what I believe are adequately concise statements, related to the task at hand.
 * A: (short version) I believe my best contributions to Wikipedia are the creation of Chemical Weapon, because it is an important article that did not exist, my contributions to Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders, because it was a collaborative effort which resulted in a GA class article, and most recently, Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/GA1, because I believe it clearly shows how I interact with others, and I was proud of the outcome. My76Strat (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 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: The biggest conflict I have ever endured was my first RfA, and that was a conflict I had mostly imagined. I was so vivid in my imagination that I produced a chemical imbalance which required medication to stabilize. The one thing I did not understand, which I do now, is that adminship is no big deal. It was a huge deal at the time, and it affected my normal skills at reasoning. It is better that I have learned this valuable lesson. And the other lessons which were enunciated by participants who expressed; I would be better situated for adminship after allowing some time to grasps the things being said. I have learned those things, and I hope to display the full consequence of what I have learned over the next seven days.
 * A: (short version) My biggest stressful conflict was my last RfA, and I brought the stress on myself. There is no excuse for my conduct during that RfA, but I did learn some valuable lessons. I hope to demonstrate that I have bettered myself by adopting the suggestions provided by everyone who offered advice. My76Strat (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional questions from Fluffernutter
 * 4. Your last RFA turned up some concerns about your communication style, as I recall. Could you please add a secondary version of your answer to question 1 above (and, optionally, your answers to 2 and 3) saying the same thing as your current answer, but in what you'd consider "plain english" (non-flowery, non-complex, the type of writing you might use if you had to explain something to a school-aged editor) so we can see if you're able to write in an easily-comprehensible manner?
 * A: I did provide a short version to each question as asked. I would like to say that the only reason I did answer in the long form first, was in keeping with the instructions which suggest "A detailed description is preferred." My76Strat (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 5. While no one has the right to ask for detail about your medical history, could you assure us that, regarding your answer to Question 3, your imbalance is now stabilized and/or you are able to recognize times when it is not and would refrain from admin tasks at those times if necessary?
 * A: You do have the right to ask. I suppose I also have the right to not answer, but I am not averse to your question. To be clear, I was already on medication during my first RfA. Because I did become obsessed with the RfA, to the exclusion of everything else, I started missing doses and the situation rapidly digressed to a point where I needed some fast acting medications to regain the balance continued use would have maintained. The resolution is easy, I am much more diligent about taking my medications on a daily basis. I still have the fast acting medication, specifically prescribed to take as needed and I am aware of signs that indicate when I should. I haven't had symptoms requiring the additional medication for quite some time now, but am glad they are readily available. And yes, if I ever feel these symptoms, I will not hesitate in taking them. And I will refrain from admin tasks unless I am fully confident in my own stability. My76Strat (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Professor Fluffykins
 * 6. I glanced through your contributions since your last RFA, and the majority seem to be huggling or welcoming new users. Can you discuss how you've worked to improve your communication skills, apropos of the concerns at your last RFA? (Maybe give some diffs of conversations you think were particularly clear?)
 * A: First, I try to consider who I am communicating with. I try to communicate at the appropriate level based on my understanding of their needs. For example, I do interact with many college student's and professors through the ambassador program. I am less concerned that they might require communication, at a lower level. It can be insulting to present a contrived humiliation of language, in such company. And while we interact, it is clear that the encyclopedia is best written at the broadest level of understanding. This is how I, and every Wikipedian I have ever mentored, writes in the encyclopedia. Or for this communication which I felt was perfectly clear, considering again the recipient of the communication. Secondly, I try to respond to direct inquires, and refrain from interjecting commentary where it was not solicited. The previous example is one where I probably should have kept to my self for this reason, but felt compelled.


 * Thirdly, whenever I find my comments contain "I think", I normally don't even save them. Because it is a thing I have to "work" at, it frustrates me some. I did once post this quip which was me thinking out loud, (as I was "working"). I followed with this subsequent edit for clarification. Otherwise, I would hope Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/GA1 has examples of clarity, and Talk:Dolph Lundgren/GA1 which I am doing now, is a effort at general clarity, and I can produce other examples. Perhaps I should!


 * But for me there is always one other consideration! It resides in my soul as the more important thing, and that is for the response to be thoughtful. (which I mean as full of thought) I will admit, at some level, you have to want to understand what I am saying, to get the best of it. At another level, I am perfectly prepared to communicate with someone like this, or this, (that was right after I restored my computer, which had been down for about 3 weeks prior) or this conversation I had with a good faith editor I had reverted, or this one with a less genuine contributor I had reverted. My only hope, in giving the thoughtful answer here, is that the majority will see that I can rise to the occasion, which does at times require concision.


 * To one final regard, the bigger problem I had at my first RfA, was the compelling desire to respond to each participant. It was there where I lost most support over prose. One thing you will absolutely not see, is me interjecting comments under each persons !vote. But if you do ask the question, I reserve the right to give it my best answer, because I regard this audience of participants in high esteem. My76Strat (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

General comments
RfAs for this user: 
 * Links for My76Strat:
 * 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 his contributions before commenting.''

Discussion

 * I have labeled this as my third RfA because this RfA was called RfA2 even though it was removed as an April fools joke. I accepted some severe criticism for having done this thing, and I apologize to anyone who found it offensive. Based on the things I better understand today, had I that understanding then, I would not have done it!


 * I would also like to clearly enunciate that I am voluntarily willing to submit to a recall if called for that purpose. And that I will not accept being grandfathered by tenure, any future requirements that might arise because of changes in policy, even if a grandfather clause is included.


 * To anyone who believes I have not allowed enough time since my last RfA, I only wish to say that I took the consensus admonition to wait three to six months literally. And I strongly feel that I have adopted the main elements of opposing counsel, which was to practice clarity and concision, and to slow down the tagging of new articles which often sends negative sentiments to a new user.


 * I respect the emerging consensus, It would be best for all concerned for me to withdraw now, Thanks for the candor. My76Strat (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * Support You can be trusted with the tools from what I have seen in your contributions.  Puffin  Let's talk! 11:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can no longer support after what Fastily said below. Move to oppose. Sorry.


 * 1) Support Have seen the editor's work in account creation in the ACC tool interface and have been thoroughly impressed - the editor stands currently as the 16th highest new account creator among active editors handling requests coming through the tool interface (the remaining 15, leave one, are all administrators on either the Interface or on the English Wikipedia) and 26th highest since the English Wikipedia Internal Account Creation Interface became active. The editor has assisted over 340 users in opening new accounts with the English Wikipedia and I view that as one of the sincerest examples of dedicated contribution to the advancement of Wikipedia. Would love to have My76 as an admin.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  11:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support  I can't remember if I supported you the first time, but I do remember your RFA in general and what happened after wards. I think you have progressed since then, and therefore see no reason not to give you the tools.  T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 11:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak support. I sampled My76Strat's most recent UAA reports and I see nothing unreassuring there, unlike the last time, which is good; however, checking My76Strat's CSD nominations, I still see some weird tags: this A1, this G4 (the article had only been speedily deleted before, whereas G4 only applies to articles deleted after an WP:AFD), this A7 (the article only contained the word "Yay") and this G1 (for a related discussion on My76Strat's talk page: CSD nomination of Panda The Panda). Despite these mistakes, I believe you'd be a net positive; please, just remember to do things slowly and to ask for advice whenever unsure. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 11:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support with the caveat that you never change. Keepscases (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - no reason to believe the tools will be misused. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) I've noticed a marked improvement at UAA and I think My76Strat is ready.  ceran  thor 16:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Net positive. Good luck!--EdwardZhao (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) / ƒETCH  COMMS  /  17:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose based largely on communication issues. My76Strat's commentary is commonly impenetrable, needlessly and often incorrectly using phraseology that prevents clear understanding. A great deal of administrative work requires accessible communication with editors of highly variable English-speaking abilities. That this pattern continues after it was a major point of contention in the last RFA suggests My76Strat does not think this is a serious concern. &mdash; Scientizzle 14:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a few recent paragraphs, or even sentences, that you perceive to be "inpenetrable" and/or incorrect? Keepscases (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are ample examples in this RFA alone. From Q3:"And the other lessons which were enunciated by participants who expressed; I would be better situated for adminship after allowing some time to grasps the things being said. I have learned those things, and I hope to display the full consequence of what I have learned over the next seven days."This mess has an inexplicable semicolon splicing a mass of varied tenses and improperly used wordforms (e.g., grasps, consequence). It also uses two sentences to convey very little information (e.g., no mention of specific "enunciated ... lessons" that were adopted). When asked to rewrite the answer in short form, the meaning of this jumble of becomes clearer."I hope to demonstrate that I have bettered myself by adopting the suggestions provided by everyone who offered advice."Since it is obvious that My76Strat has the full capacity to express these ideas in a form that does not obscure the meaning of the prose, I think it's clear that s/he is writing in this contrived manner for deliberate effect. I'm not asking for perfection in English, merely that effort be taken to consistently communicate with clarity. As for further examples, it is trivial to find similar writing in My76Strat's recent editing history: nearly every discussion page edit I've seen from My76Strat suffers from the same deficits. If you really want more examples, I'll take it to the talk page. &mdash; Scientizzle 17:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But the meaning *is* obscured. The first answer indicated that the candidate took time to digest the advice that was given, and hopes to demonstrate his suitability over the full running time of the RfA--both perfectly valid, meaningful points, and both cut from the more succinct answer.  I certainly admit My76Strat has a unique writing style, but I enjoy reading his contributions and I personally never seem to have any problem interpreting what he has to say. Keepscases (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I believe that you have not left enough time since your last RfA. I also find it alarming that the experience brought on in you symptoms that required urgent medical attention, and that the role of administrator may not therefore be in your best interests. Malleus Fatuorum 17:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose Absolutely not. In short, My76Strat is mentally unstable, prone to personal attacks (calls me "quip", calls me "FastQuip", Attacking other users at his RfA: "An ass by anyother name is still a donkey" - when questioned, he responded with this), and more troubling, is incapable of communicating comprehensibly (,, Also, see responses to !votes and questions at Requests for adminship/My76Strat).  Upon the failure of his previous RfA, My76Strat was found to have both an egregious understanding of policy and an inability to handle even the most minor scrutiny without having a meltdown.  For a good length of time after the previous RfA, his user page consisted of a childish mockery of mine: .  I had to personally request it's removal.  For the record, all this happened no less than four months ago.  Sorry, but you do not have the qualities I look for in an administrator, in fact, I see quite the opposite.  I'll be boarding a plane soon, so I was unable to post as many diffs as I would have liked to.  Should I have time, I'll add more later.  Sincerely,  F ASTILY  (TALK) 17:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Per evidence of persistent personal attacks.  Puffin  Let's talk! 17:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per April fools/April Fools' Day 2011/My76StratRFA. That RfA began as one of the joke RfAs of April Fools' Day 2011 on Wikipedia, but Strat decided that if some users ignored the day and seriously !voted, that he would treat it as a serious RfA. If not, it was a joke RfA. That major lapse in judgment concerns me as well as the constant commentary and grieving from Strat regarding the outcome of his previous RfA at any RfA-related discussion. Strat's mental state troubles me, especially after one former admin (whom I will not name out of respect) was banned by ArbCom for his mental instability a few months ago. Finally, the communication issue is severe enough to make me oppose alone. As Reaper Eternal says in the neutral section, I think you are a great editor, and I wish you luck in your future endeavors on Wikipedia.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  19:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I have to end up here. While I like My76Strat as an editor, I don't think he would make a particularly good administrator. I looked through his contributions, and found that he still has the propensity towards loquacious and occasionally incoherent paragraphs when he should have used only used a couple sentences. However, that would be easy enough to fix, especially if you were to apply Tony1's method on removing redundancies to your talk page posts. However, I am far more concerned about your instability. After your first RFA, you retired multiple times, posted pages of text that made me concerned about your sanity, and generally triggered a massive amount of drama. Additionally, your parody of Fastily's userpage was silly. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm joining RE here. I too like him as an editor, but feel that 'perhaps not yet' is the best policy at present. His wording has improved from the sesquipedelian to merely slightly verbose (with patches of startling clarity), and he has a sense of humour that I think some miss. (Unless I'm missing something...) (Don't answer that.) To be honest, I can read Fastily's first two diffs as being somewhat complimentary, but can see how they can also be interpreted the opposite way too. I've read them three times, and still get an ambiguity. However, ambiguity is not a good thing when dealing with angry customers (unless you're a used car salesman about to start a fortnight's holiday). My advice would be to keep cool, keep improving the clarity and simplicity, and keep working in the admin fringe areas to gain respect and reputation for good work. And to remember that Wikipedia is only a life and death matter for the spammers who haven't yet made the grade and this is their last chance (they think...). For the rest of us, it's a hobby. Peridon (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.