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

Final (34/37/11). Closed as unsuccessful by WJBscribe @ 22:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

My76Strat (talk · contribs) – As an individual, I am from the United States and live in the southern state of Georgia. I have a wide range of interests, in particular mathematics and guitar. I am a veteran of the US Army and gained multicultural experiences and appreciation for having served. I was born in Alaska, lived in 7 different US states, and spent 3 years in Germany. I believe in tolerance, loath discrimination, and respect opposing views. I do appreciate a measure of reciprocation when dealing with others, but do not insist upon it. As a wikipedian, I am fulfilled by my association. I could never have been whole prior to my first edit, and involvement is integrated into my way of life. The journey has been a privilege I feel fortunate to have traveled and there is undoubtedly much more to come. There are so many areas which satisfy my interest that I have considered implementing some kind of actual structure. Random articles on Monday, NPP Tuesday, work on articles I have written Wednesday, PC patrol Thursday, AfC Friday, creation log and UAA, Saturday, and for the day of rest, a potpourri of anything goes. So far every day is Sunday so I just follow my wiki mood and do any of these things at any time. And the IRC is a constant backdrop of watched and stalk word pings. I like creating accounts at ACC because of the impact I might have on some new users first impression of Wikipedia (endeavoring for the positive), and the cohesion of a well functioning group of individual wikipedians coalesced by a unified goal. I have several successful DYK nominations, and try to make sure if I have an opinion that mine is also heard. Wikipedia has given me a gift of the best kind, you know the kind you never even knew you wanted. I would never have imagined myself enjoying these kinds of things, today I can hardly imagine not participating. I am happy to offer my self for consideration to become an administrator. I would be proud to emerge this RfA with the consensus support of a community I respect and admire. My76Strat 15:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 say that if I am bestowed the trust, I want to assist in areas of current interest. I enjoy participation at UAA and hope I can work with other admins in that arena. I also monitor AIV and would like to assist the admins there as well. At first it would be my intention to handle some of the more blatant examples until I refine my own skills and learn what my peers are willing to teach. I also enjoy doing RC patrols and would assist in CSD requests as appropriate. for the most part these areas of anti-vandalism would be my primary area of interest. Upon request other aspects like userfication and page deletions to facilitate a page move would be within my purview. I do contribute at AfC and have often wished I could accomplish these noncontroversial deletions to move a submission into article space over a redirect for example. And I am open to serve in other areas where a need might arise.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I think my best contributions to Wikipedia are in areas where I am able to help other new users. I endeavor with passion to promote our core values while molding a new user to reach their potential in becoming a valued contributor. I serve as an online Ambassador for the outreach program to attract well qualified contributors from various fields of study. This helps increase the base of our experts from a variety of scholarly disciplines. And I enjoy assisting new users with their submissions at AfC. I have observed the coming of age of many contributors who upon learning the criteria, coupled with the basic markup and code have become competent contributors. I populate several IRC channels and enjoy the real time contributions that occur regularly via this means. I don't mean to offend anyone by coupling IRC with Wikipedia. I know this question regards Wikipedia contributions and IRC is off-wiki. I also respect that some of the community disregard IRC and may have even formed a negative opinion. I include it with my best contributions because there have been significant accomplishments, demonstrated in real time, for the betterment of Wikipedia and new users. I have probably written as many lines of text there, as my written contributions to the encyclopedia. Much of that text finds its way back and into the encyclopedia, but by the hands of some whom I am proud to have collaborated with. Of my content edits, they are mostly spread thin and given to some other editor by an example, and then in small part echoed by their subsequent efforts. And of course a significant amount of my content work is the patrol and vandalism monitoring I described above. Lastly, regarding creative content of my attribution, I am proud of a few articles, not so much for what the have become (they are all still works in progress), but also for the Wikipedia experiences and milestones that they endear (mostly to me). Chemical weapon was one of my first, and my proudest facet of this entry is the utter jubilation I experienced in finding the subject did not have an article. Imagine that! I acknowledge that this article needs to be an FA. I'm a little late in making that happen. Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders is a collaboration of which I am most proud. It really is a textbook example of people coming together from different walks, to collaborate on a high profile story that deserved the benefit of a proper telling. Even when you review the talkpages you can see dispute resolution and cooperation which manifest in a pretty good telling of a particularly hard story to tell. And I am attached to my contributions to 56th Field Artillery Command. I served in this unit and wanted to see it's story. When I first visited the page, there wasn't even a mention of the signal battalion, which was the unit I served with. Well that just didn't sit right. So I got involved with Wikipedia and am now better for it. All because an article wasn't telling the complete encyclopedic story, and I decided to do something to make it better. Of course that put me on a fast track to learn some Wikipedia policy. I first learned, in short order, that you couldn't just say something because it was true; It had to be verifiable. Between the milhist project and the RC patrols, I wasn't going to be able to say anything I knew to be true unless I could back it up with a reference. I ended up filing a freedom of information act request, and now have an archive for this unit that would make a unit historian proud. In one particular issue of content dispute, the attached reference substantiated the entry, but I knew it to be false. I contacted a high level historian at the Institute of Heraldry with my dilemma and felt much vindication when my position was substantiated. This was a particularly proud edit regarding that contribution. BTW it was a great learning experience working under the diligent watch of Gadget850, a fact I never told him, but a fact no less. Please forgive my long winded manner. I don't mean to annoy and I hope I have answered the question.

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: Because I gave the long answer above, I will try to give the short answer here. All conflicts have been very minor, In fact they would better be described simply as discussions. I trout slapped two colleagues in my early tenor and concluded that I wished I hadn't. Once I stated an inclination (could have been construed as a threat) to take an issue to ANI. The issue hadn't escalated to any where near that level of necessity. I retracted and apologized. I have twice labeled a colleague as ignorant, but only after they had insulted me. Even though I knew they would likely be offended by this characterization, I did believe they were commenting without the benefit of adequate research. That is not typical of me, and I was speaking frankly with a peer. Even then, the better me would have turned the other cheek. The only stress I encounter regarding Wikipedia regards my wife when I regret presenting her with my divided attention. For stress relief, I simply walk away, regain a balance, and return. The wiki can wait, and it is in good hands while I am gone, So it works.

The above question takes new significance in many ways. The stress mentioned in the question, I did not know, and having seen first hand a fuller significance, I see as clearly as anyone, it impacted my abilities. So I do accept all the valid observations. I do not need to be an admin. At this point of the answer, I could better use pointers on coping. If you see where I handled the stress badly tell me if you have ideas on how to handle it better. Not with a future run in mind, just in general. I do not plan for a future run at all. But if you must reinforce the theme, that is fine. I only hope some good can come out for everyone. I had the stress breakdown, it is known, observable, and measurable. To some extent I felt steady build up and things began to feel like attacks against me. That doesn't justify a thing, only opens the door for honest feedback. I have some information regarding my feelings at why I felt offended by a thing you see no obvious agitation. At least I could answer that, if there is interest. My76Strat (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Additional question from Keepscases[reply]

4. Do you believe bHffcXPrQQlHwKXwvRCxP is an allowable Wikipedia username? Why or why not?

A: Sorry for the delay answering, yes it is an allowable username. It is confusing but that is not a reason for a block. I could say more but I think that answers it. My76Strat 09:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from 28bytes

5. This morning, Fastily made this comment:

"Had a closer look, and it seems there was no move waring. Nonetheless, that does not, and will and justify this. Good day."

You posted the following to your talk page in response:

"I certainly disagree. And now that you have admitted an error on your part, thus removing the shroud of hallowed sanctification, it becomes that much more likely that my interpretation could emerge as correct. While it is not your fault that prior to my RfA I held an unrealistically high opinion of you, it is exactly a consequence of our interaction, primarily the conduct of your actions, that I now hold your opinion on par with my own (in some cases below). I am not going to clutter your talkpage with a bunch of unsolicited commentary, but I have copied all of the relevant text to a section of my own talkpage where I intend to parse the entire content for validity (at my leisure). Your last post is rot with fallacy, even while being concise. I hold with contempt, any person of the class who invoke a response, having no authentic desire to evaluate any subsequent, perhaps obligatory, reply. Simply by choosing (assuming you chose your words carefully, and for effect) the word "justify", You are invoking a response. Assuming you meant "and will not justify" where you posted "and will and justify" (a reasonable assumption to me), implies you are already predisposed to the only view you are willing to entertain. The day you invoked unto me the acronym ASAP, regardless of your intention, you set me to a task which was to be accomplished according to your time-line, irrespective of my own. And then your voice is heard in the unholy choir singing repugnant praise to the observable consequence. Bravo to you sir, it was rather effective. The character flaw you did document, while used to reflect on my skills in decision management, time management, and prioritization, is more accurately attributed to an unwarranted level of respect I had for you. In spite of everything that has transpired, you did not relegate yourself from esteem, unto the masses, until you appended these utter-able words: "Consider yourself lucky I didn't start an ANI thread on your behavior" Idle threats are perhaps the lowest form of arrogance, and the point where I diverge. The last remaining vestige of regard I am willing to hold on your behalf, and the reason I did post this message, is the assumption that you are sufficiently mature as to not incline prejudicial against me for having appended this candor. If I am again wrong, and even this is higher regard that you warrant, so be it, it would be the last positive assumption anyway. But if I am right, I will see you appending support at my next RfA. I say that because I intend to eradicate any valid opposition, by correcting my own shortfalls. Nothing in this comment is meant to imply I am blameless in the debacle of my current ire. I simply prefer focusing on the areas where I did make mistakes, while forgoing the drama associated with false and defamatory, accusations, and characterizations. Your conduct included these, and sentiments remain. And a good day to you as well."

Do you see any problems with this style of communication? Will you continue with this style of communication if you are made an administrator?

A: That's is a good question. I could not answer such a question in general choosing from yes or no. In general it would only sometimes be appropriate. The second part of your question would end up being sometimes as well. I definitely overused prose in this RfA. That is clear. And I blew the opportunity to demonstrate concision in areas where brevity was more appropriate. So indeed, I intend to change my methods. But I do not intend to adopt a position that it would never be appropriate to respond in such a way. Specifically regarding the post you've shown, I think that is a perfect example where depth is appropriate. On the other hand I do not agree with your decision to republish that communication here. Simply because I get no satisfaction from high visibility, regarding a communication that was composed with a single audience in mind. Because communication has been a subject of contention during this RfA I welcome any comments related to this question, where people have insight they are willing to share. Thanks for asking this question. My76Strat 16:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reminded of a fact I failed to consider in answering this question. That single fact changes my outlook and makes the above answer wrong. Because everything I post to Wikipedia is public. The post at Fastily is inappropriate in several ways. I will never again post to Wikipedia a communication I intend to be private. And I will never again post to Wikipedia a sentence written above a 9th grade level. Making those two important points a personal requirement will correct many problems I now have. I wish people would ask more questions because it gives you a good chance to learn something. My76Strat 17:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is this additional issue, which unless considered, will always discriminate, imparting prejudiced treatment against the undeserved constituent. Without intention, I will surely be the subject of aspersions. This, simply because I would rather produce a document, of sufficient detail, clarified to a predisposed audience. In general, without policy regard, it is held that an essay is always more egregious than a similarly candid quip. From a perspective of decency, it should not be accepted practice, to require allegiance to a singular interpretation. There should be debate, to thoroughly consider the latest proposition, which is to say, equal consideration of weight, should be the norm. My76Strat (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, so much for not writing in attempted literary-speak. A job well done at keeping your promise... -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the metaphor, but I do not remember the context of this promise. I will say it is uncanny that you should again show the similarity between this short quip, which carries the same level of confusion as any of my longer descriptions. Because I have no idea what you are talking about. I'll research it later, Thanks. My76Strat (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not pretend to not know of what I speak; you know exactly what I am referring to. For the reference of the community: [1]: "I will never again post to Wikipedia a sentence written above a 9th grade level". These are your words, are they not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You would do well to know I prefer not to be presumed to know a thing. I have never had need for, or desire to use, literary insults and do at times get a bet confused as the begin flying about. I would prefer not learning them to be honest. I hope a 9th grader could read something I've written, and you are suggesting this in jest, Imagine our sad state of affairs if you were correct. My76Strat (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To another regard I'll feel the question itself is more than a question. It is a statement, and many cite my missing the answer, disconcerting. Please expand on the correct answer directly. And then tell me if you agree that the question itself is formed to ensnare (which I believe it is). The question is framed to its own answer. And the only gain of its asking is in its detrimental effect.(was there a correct answer I could have given?) If their ever was another intention, time is short for its manifestation.My76Strat (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from 28bytes

6. You said "I wish people would ask more questions" above, so here's another. What would you do if you came across this? Would you A1 delete it as requested, delete it for another reason, or do something else? If you deleted it and the article creator came to your talk page and said "Why did you delete my article?", how would you respond?

A:Yes it would have been better for me, unless it was a giant ramble. If the question was asked earlier in this RfA, and would be used to evaluate my level of clue for seemingly significant reason, I would definitely verify everything I believe against policy. It is open book so missing something is not a best effort. Because its practically only gives me one chance to pretend, I will do this from My knowledge. At first glance I see the tag CSD A1. and it summarizes this "as a very short article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article." Well it is short article but it actually has enough information that you would not CSD this subject. If it had been me as a user who had that article for NPP I would see the short content, see that it states a notable fact which itself is not referenced (The worst jeopardy it would face at this point is BLPROD, I would first do a google search under the subjects name, and then refine it using the notable terms so they could be referenced. I see some references but they are not reliable sources so I wouldn't reference a thing. I would BLPPROD and send it. Hopefully the article creator sees the message they are sent and fix it. Then I would check it within the 10 days or if it showed activity on my watchlist to review the edit, and hopefully it has some primary sources. If the user had added good references and they also removed the BLPPROD I would check that the talkpage had {{blp}} and likely add to the article notability tag and all is well. As the admin I can't imagine that you would be expected to do the reference searches and go through that process, sure you could, if you had time, But it is late, I am tired and if this were real, I would have to return it to the queue and probably someone else gets it. But I'll Get up in the morning and be a whole lot better able to continue. My76Strat (talk) 07:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 his contributions before commenting.

The concerns raised during this RfA are understandable. It is visual proof that I miss handled things. I would like as many who will, for the genuine sake of betterment, review communications on my talkpage and archives to see if there are examples where my written expression shows any of the negative qualities this RfA has shown. I am glad for a few examples of quality writing, even within this RfA. Some examples, enough cause for pride. But for a multitude of reasons, this RfA also contains egregiously bad examples. The only thing I can imagine from introspect, is that I tried too hard to become all things to all people. But, I am better for having tried, and for realizing the things I have learned.My76Strat (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These will be my last RfA words. This because I have seen comments which mistook my actions again. I have heard repeated: I want the last word. Well I think we all want to defend are side in an oped discussion. Do I need to be last? I guess I have to make a last edit sometime and this is as good as any. Thanks to all who participated, and any who want to have the last word with me. will not see a rebut, I will thank you now should it append. I have shown myself for consideration, with my mistakes. I am exactly what you observed, Next time I'll be in the crowd. Very well, Much to be thankful for here. Best Regards. My76Strat (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must retract the above. It is simply not possible for me to not participate in a discussion when I am involved. I well accept that it reflects against me. I am not seen in a very good light as it is. A bit more to come. My76Strat (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say thanks to all who participated. I don't know if there is a normal RfA or if everyone is similar. I actually fell I did well. I even shown my worst character flaws. Yes I had my wiki break down and you see the results. I got stern back and I answered snide. BUT If anyone would consider criticism with a focus to improve that would be a great parting act of wiki love. I am hoping to hear about solutions. What would be a better way to handle that/ How to better handle the stress. Things like that and maybe a few examples of incoherent text and whatever you might want to glean. If I said this before I'm not sure, but I wish you to read my userpage message and think about how it relates to me. And was that anything like what other exchanges look like and compare it to this. It truth I have only remained exactly who I first said I was. Look at a respectful exchange and see the mutual respect, look at where you believe I was agitated, and tell me what I should have done. And take and honest look at the insults I was otherwise expected to be happy about. And I haven't even done damage control on the "lawyer guy" but I will gladly pay the price for a true answer. Is it then that you just walk away? What if the admin situation meant you had to handle it? I wont get it all right now but I know I'll read this a few times. And learn things. And just in case the mean spirited stuff comes in or is coming. discuss amongst yourself just for the advice. My76Strat (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also I will answer and question with direct polite candor to anyone who asks of me any fair Question, What upset you, why did you do this anything, If you want to know. And how many words can I use? Thanks My76Strat (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit stats posted to talk. —GƒoleyFour— 21:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Beat-the-rush support. Experienced editor, thoughtful, well-rounded. No reason not to have the mop that I can see. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   You are due the special consideration for being the first one, I am Glad you felt comfortable appending support. I magine if Salvio had been first. My76Strat 04:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Support - Definitely a qualified candidate. I have worked with him on ACC, and seen his antivandalism/NPP work and it is very well done. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for your support. Also, thanks for commenting regarding my answer to Q4. I had meant to comment there when I noticed you had already provided an answer. My76Strat 18:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Strong Support – I have worked alongside My76Strat reviewing AFC submissions and creating accounts through ACC. No concerns with this candidate. —GƒoleyFour— 21:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for the support. My76Strat 19:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. Strong Support: - I haven't worked with the candidate, but they're obviously a very well rounded and highly experienced editor. I was also very impressed with the answers to the questions; not only were they excellent answers, but they show that the candidate clearly takes the notion of adminship seriously. Aside from that, any editor who has a structured schedule for their Wikipedia activities deserves the mop in my book! Swarm ^X 21:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I would almost swear I appended a comment here to thank you for your kind words. I must not have saved it. Thanks and more thanks. My76Strat 11:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   When I say "I would almost swear I appended a comment here", It would have been more correct to say I knew I had at least tried. There were some strong mention of things and lots of wiki love And I couldn't take that ride right now, not enough time. I think I will see some around and you are 1.My76Strat (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. Support Absolutely. Baseball Watcher 21:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Strong Support I have not worked wth the candidate but from what I have reviewed he is a great candidate for sysops. Gabesta449 ^{edits ♦ chat} 21:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Support: Easy decision - humble and helpful Wikipedian with a great track record. Well qualified for the job. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC) (Move to neutral -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

   Support - I have no issues with this candidate. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7. Support Of course, great editor. I have seen him at AfC and en-help. All of my interactions with My76Strat have been positive. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Fine, I'll weakly support based upon the contributions. What on earth the "And the IRC is a constant backdrop of watched and stalk word pings" drivel means I have little idea - and hence my weak support. Assuming you are refering to Internet Realy Chat, one thing I don't like is editors that seem to think off-wiki communication is a good idea. I'll AGF you'll take any admin actions based solely on on-wiki (and therefore open) actions and evidence. Pedro :  Chat  22:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   They go on to say they work at WP:ACC. Account creators pretty much have to use IRC in their work, as it's what notifies them when new requests come in. 'Stalking words' just means you can set the IRC window to 'beep' when particular words appear. Since we just keep the chat window open in the background when doing other things, we set it so it "pings" or audibly notifies us when new account requests come in. Perhaps that's all they were referring to. Swarm ^X 22:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   And which part of that was I supposed to glean from the nomination Swarm? Forgive me if I thought I was involved in an enyclopedia, which would seem to indicate that the very purpose of the work is to convey information to other poeple in an intelligible fashion. We do have bluelinks for a reason (and you'd do well to note time stamps on my blue link before you challenge further, although any challenge is of course welcome) Pedro :  Chat  22:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Woah, Pedro, what's up with the hostility? You said, "I don't like...editors that seem to think off-wiki communication is a good idea." I was simply explaining why they might be using IRC (not for "off-wiki communication"), I wasn't challenging you, and I think you need to calm down a bit. You can be annoyed that they didn't bluelink IRC, and that it made things confusing, but the fact is that I wasn't even addressing that aspect of your comment. Perhaps you should've left out the part about not liking editors who use IRC. Swarm ^X 23:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   You are correct and I shouldn't have done that. I didn't mean to speak as if your ears were not important. They are! Thanks for giving me your support in spite of this mistake. I will exercise diligence in remembering this example to preclude it from happening again. My76Strat 10:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Moved to unconditional, indeed strong, support - I'm not phased by the opposers and I am very impressed (sorry if that sounds condescending) by the candidate's demenaour during this RFA. Pedro :  Chat  21:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Pedro Sir I have come to post this many times prior. Mostly it was emotionally too difficult. I know my writing comes across that way to some. Honestly, I don't know it's definition. I have never used it in writing (it just sounds bad) so; I will look it up and see, and if I fit the definition, it will be new knowledge for me, and I will know, I had all these years thought it was an insult. Come to think, nobody has said speech writer in describing my style. That would be something, because I had rejected the word under an assumption. And then came an exchange which demonstrated that something had apparently upset you badly. I was floored and restored in the same instant, upon realizing the issue at spawn. It seems you were having trouble describing what was upsetting you. And the feedback showed some were missing the point. There was another thing. These things happen. What has emerged from this single act of charity. This has nothing to do with encouraging what was to follow, and you could have spared yourself a measure of aggravation which is not healthy. The inability to connect your point to the feedback was an obstacle in the form of a Shibboleth. With that, I am glad we see it the same. There must be a separating, Each knows what they see, I would not have been offended. It is important to note; When the first post was made, I had zero sense of anything, vainly related to self worth. I never knew the value of ten words, until the day, I felt of less worth. Then Pedro insisted, I was worth more than the 10 words of praise, The rest of the story can not be described with words; The reader is fortunate as I might have tried. To be reminded that you have value, coupled with the other things. Again the description drops off for lack of words. I am better for having tried this. I have considered the prospect of RfA 2, (not impossible) I am sure of this however, I will be seen supporting candidates as they emerge!!! their RfA. So If I haven't learned a thing, I have learned, A mans value is more than 10 words. My76Strat (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Can no longer support in good faith. Explanation forthcoming. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   One regret of this RfA is that when you asked "Why not?" in your original support, I gave you an answer causing (requiring really) you to move to Strong Oppose. My76Strat 19:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9. Ooh, another strong contributor to WP:UAA. Yes please. - Dank (push to talk) 22:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Of course. Good luck, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. Great nom statement. I hope you'll find time to fit admin duties into your weekly schedule. ;) œ^™ 22:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am very sorry for what you must imagine of me, especially that I probably have over thought this question, But I do not see the answer. So it is best to just ask. How could I save my draft, edit the next day, rinse, and repeat, until the version I publish is the only one you ever had to see. Basic editing saves the eyes a lot off pain. My76Strat (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Just as I hit save it crossed my mind I should have asked to reply to talkpage, which is also when I realized I should have asked to your Talkpage too but it is too late, everyone may have a good chuckle out of the deal, But yes the TP is cool.My76Strat (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

12. Support -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. The only problem I see, aside from the occasional bad CSD tagging, is the wordiness. My76strat, you're clueful, a quick learner, and very helpful, but sometimes you just seem too formal or wordy. Have fun! /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Fetchcomms, you are one of the people who I have learned from since the very begging. That entire time it was an endeavor of mine to earn your respect. From now on it will be my endeavor to keep it and maybe make you proud. Sorry for the wordiness. I'm working on it. Esteemed regards. My76Strat 16:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It is appropriate to be here, at this time. Under these thoughts; With respect to everything that has transpired, and the remaining things. I know where I am at, in what is called RfA. For my part, from here I will mostly be crossing the Ts. In fact I was striking some text and remembered that yours was one mentioned by someone else. To ensure nothing is afoul, I did check, and found: A perspective is out of line, It would be arrogant to speak in a future tense. Maybe I have earned your respect? But yes the truth is that decision is still to come. It couldn't get any better than that. I see many reasons it is appropriate that you be in such a place. And I know when you see the opposition, it would be opposing the view of some staunch, mutual colleagues. Which would serve purpose. Another purpose could serve the same stanch allegiance, as expressed by O.E. when outing the pain, of his commitment by Bond. That timeless bond does at some point require test. You have seen your own test, and in the presence of witness, increased your worth, irrevocable. I felt a portion of that pain when considering a different perspective. That rightfully, I could have been left with Pedro, as a sole supporter, and what kind of position he had placed himself. And I meant to thank him for having placed himself in such an awkward position as to actually comment irrecoverable support. Therefor as normal, long winded thanks. Just be glad I didn't go for the long version. My76Strat (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

14. Support. One of the quickest, most accurate and most prolific taggers of some of the really nasty attack pages. Allowing him to do the zapping would not only save me some work, but ensure that potential libel and other crap disappears as quickly as possible. While Salvio's concerns appear to have some merit, I think you're sensible enough to take the criticism on board. As long as you remember not to act too hastily and to solicit a second opinion when in doubt, you should be fine. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Your comment means a lot to me. Much of my purpose was aimed to earn your respect and trust. Knowing that I succeeded there feeds my sense of accomplishment and bolsters my self worth. You have articulated an opinion of me that identifies with my aspirations. For you to recognizing the qualities I endeavor to permeate strengthens my very resolve. You are apparently a very good judge of character. I am proud to have had my character enunciated by you. My76Strat 15:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

15. Strong Support great guy to have around at UAA. I would trust him with the mop --Guerillero | My Talk 02:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your gracious approval. Your kind words of support practically guarantee, my continued presence and participation at UAA, God willing. My76Strat 15:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

16. Support What they said. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Of course! Ronk01 talk 04:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support -download ׀ sign! 04:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support. Lord Roem (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. Seen him around a time or two from where I hang out here. Seems knowledgeable Enfcer (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. Strong support - I find the nom's response to the opposes reassuring in spite of some ridiculous oppose rationales. It only reinforces my confidence. As an aside, I hope RfA can heal itself from its broken status; given the tenor of some of the opposes here I'm less than confident. Shadowjams (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I would be remiss, not acknowledging these stringently kind words. My76Strat (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

22. Weak support The opposers bring up some good points, and I almost voted neutral...but I really appreciate how this candidate's personality shines through, and I trust he will learn from his mistakes that have been pointed out, and from the RfA experience in general. Keepscases (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak support is huge in context. Considering you have observed this from the start, Aligning in support of this RfA Is a bold act. In stating the kind things you have said, I can't help but wonder, How the heck did you do it. It's hard to imagine anything shining through. And somehow you pretty much nail it in your description. Pretty impressive to me.My76Strat 04:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

23. Support He'll succeed as an administrator. WayneSlam 21:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am empowered by that level of confidence. My76Strat 22:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I see a trustworthy and largely competent editor in this candidate. Nothing offered in opposition to his nomination has convinced me that he will abuse the tools. I am sure that he will take note of the concerns of the one substantial oppose vote. Lovetinkle (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Withdrawing support for a candidate whose erratic behaviour during this RfA has caused me to rethink his suitability for the role of Administrator. Lovetinkle (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Great to see you come in here offering support. Even though you are correct, largely across the board, It's academic really. I would debate the inference regarding "substantial oppose vote" but that would be more about consensus, for the future. For this RfA, yeah it became a big deal. My76Strat 03:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Support 14:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.68.160 (talk)

    Indented IP comment - sorry but IP addresses are not enfranchised. Pedro :  Chat  14:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

24. Support - Take on those notes given to you in the oppose section. Orphan Wiki 14:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
25. Weak Support Some legitmate concerns such as dubious CSD's, speaking plain English and haste. You are great editor and we need admins. Therefore I hope you will work on the areas flagged and come back in 6 months. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support don't think abuse of tools will happen 123Hedgehog456 16:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You are correct in your assumption. But a demonstration of fitness was not observable. And in fact I invited the community to observe and scrutinize me during this RfA. To the extent this forms a contract, I am in breech. Because I did not demonstrate my best. Qualifying that with this single caveat: If the IRC incident was a scripted exercise, then you have observed the best I could muster. This was the game changer and the full measure of my shortfall. AGF, this single random event triggered a perfect sequence of events that could not have been scripted better. The rest we are still writing. I would benefit if it was an exercise. Because the negativity of shame, and failure, would evaporate, replaced with pride. I was asked to consider withdrawing, which I would only to to spare the dignity of the participants. Because If I can, I still have somethings to do. And then comes User talk:123Hedgehog456 with a measure of fortitude that must be respected. Showing me again that it is ok to use fewer words, without sacrificing clarity, or impact, to plainly state an observable trait with the fewest words. Yes I hear you. I will fix my writing, And it will be examples like yours that are the most found remembered. My76Strat (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

28. Support. I hardly think someone with this level of enthusiasm will come anywhere near abusing the tools and, although they may make a few mistakes, no one is perfect and I'm sure My76Strat will own up to them completely and work to have them fixed as soon as possible. As to concerns about length of replies, I would rather that an administrator have give a long, well-considered and thoughtful reply (as My76Strat has done throughout this RfA) than a short and dismissive one (as I have seen a few administrators do on occasion). Jenks24 (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That you have arrived here with your support is sufficient in itself to prove the abilities of a fair mind. That you have placed it here positions you as a strong advocate for truth. This truth has been reserved. so that if called to describe, I can tell you absolutely I was offended. To require my response, be considered insulting, you must consider that I was insulted to a point better not described. The post that following morning, did not create rage or loss of reasoning. It did set about a priority task to produce the reflection of it's consequence, to ensure I had said the general things which needed saying. I am not proud as in arrogant, but that I felt sufficient rebut had its remit. There's more, but if that doesn't sound about right, more words will not improve understanding. Jenks24 your esteemed presence practically guarantees certain truths will require consideration before assuming one is more offensive that another. And how do you know that? Lets stick to what we do know, Jenks24 you are sent by the same force which governs truth. Welcome My76Strat (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    To further clarify I had thought your comment was drawing on the equal comparison between the two pieces of text, which now sit over and under each set. Themselves hold equal ability to agitate. For the fullest comparison look at the two under "Additional question from 28bytes" in this RfA. My76Strat (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This cut text from another section, properly sits here as well. This because it builds on the notion that I was set to scramble for somewhere for me to give those who wanted to decern, an ability to do so. "As a side note, Every previous RfA I have seen, included multiple questions which the peer group collectively base sufficient clue, upon the effectiveness of the answer. I lament that this rather unique group of peers, had such a completely different methodology. The only possibility that trust could relegate concerns, would seemingly require such in depth analysis. I had thought, there would be this level of analysis, and at first I felt it could be a strong point to gain a needed edge. And again sufficient AGF can accomplish many things. I only actually accepted consensus against a few days in when it was clear I had derailed. Therefore I present these views. for your consideration"My76Strat (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

29. No major concerns. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 04:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support:No reason why not--Sokac121 (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You are probably right as there's practically no danger of me being successful. That does not mean I don't appreciate your support because I most certainly do.My76Strat (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

31. Support Adminship is no big deal and I think you'll make a fine addition. Basket of Puppies 22:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think it could possibly me as big of a deal as some have suggested. RfA on the other hand is a life changer. If you don't become SYSOP, you will not be the same when you emerge, I believe this. I seem too have felt this. I may be seen mostly offering support to some decent candidate who is struggling, as I will no I can help them. with a few words, there you will see a better attempt at power in a concise package.My76Strat (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

32. Support as owner of a '63 Strat. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Well Sir, I believe you have the superior guitar, therefor I concur with your decision. My76Strat (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I think you'll make a fine addition on your next try. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Indenting duplicate support !vote. 28bytes (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for showing that 11th hour support. It will be shown as one of the reasons I wanted to see this thing through. I knew there was more to glean, and the mop was not one of them. My76Strat (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

33. Support He weighs facts carefully.Lost Josephine Minor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

    It is especially nice to see this as a thing you could glean from my conduct. I did hope perhaps I would be asking forgiveness for being too cautious. That is not to counter a few tags that fit some predisposed notion. I could have shown some diffs too. I have made mistakes I have said, Apparently I have more faith in the admin corp than these ones who believe I created such a dangerous situation. Some of the mistakes I've made were just that but unforgivable apparently. Fair enough. I do thank you for supporting. My76Strat (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I offer additional respect at the fortitude reflected by your willingness to append your support. I did not fully know the risk. Sadly, I observed a misguided attempt at badger, directed against you. This is truly sad. It is a terrible reflection of something and I would not advise another, like minded and strong user to place themselves to this list. For me it is a list of supporters. To someone else, it could be a hit list. An inquisition is way out of line, and the staunchest of a former colleague has been outed in my sight. What a sad thing to have stumbled upon! I couldn't become SYSOP anyway. What purpose could be served by the aspersion. How many have been subjected to ckeckuser scrutiny or otherwise intimidated, or asked to qualify their support, having done nothing else except support? If that is considered suspicious we are beyond sad, closer to pathetic. This is the event horizon. There is no turning back now. Instead and as always moving forward is a better option. Look for me towards the front which is where I expect to see you My76Strat (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

34. Support – The candidate seems to have enough of an understanding of what the project's about and what he wants to do on the project to be trusted. He isn't the finished article, but who ever is when they take on a new role or a new job? We all have to learn from experience. All the best, and good luck. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That is a very kind manner of stating your observations. And yes it is true, I am most shaken by the suggestions of mistrust. I do not see that in offering my self to serve, I have shown any reason to have been held with such contempt. Most of the more frivolousness debate is to uphold my honor, dignity, and good name, which needn't be trampled in proving some point. The oppose by Ronhjones is a good example, and it also shows all the qualities of communication I have been stereotyped as to not possess. If this same comment had been framed differently, the reply would have also been different. It's a proportionate response and some does rest in the framing of the comment itself. Those who are best able to scrutinize these things should see the relation. And the existence of concision which others never see. They simply tried to make me say something against myself, a statement made by silence itself. It is almost like if someone said "as long as you agree that you're a lair an untrustworthy, there's no need to respond". I suppose that button is large because it has been often pushed. It is very appropriate that this support came exactly at this time. I appreciate it! My76Strat (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose. I'm sorry but I have some concerns regarding your judgement, when it comes to determining if a username is disruptive. Here you reported Nigahiga12 (talk · contribs), without checking first and while the user hadn't even edited yet; here you reported Ownerofcanada (talk · contribs), again while the user hadn't even edited; here you reported Nigsyman (talk · contribs). None of these usernames, in my opinion, is disruptive or offensive; or, at least, not so much so as to deserve being blocked outright. Also, I have concerns regarding your CSD taggings. Sometimes, it seems you're a bit too trigger-happy and do not check the article's history, as happened here, here, or here. Other times you tag an article as a hoax, without making sure it actually is, such as here or here; or you tag per A7 an article, when A7 doesn't apply to cartoon series. Finally, in these three cases you tag per A1 or A3 an article less than 3 minutes after its creation: 1 minute, 1 minute and 2 minutes. I'm sorry, but I don't think you're ready to be an admin just yet. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you for that analysis, Your concerns are genuinely fair. There is no need to apologize for anything in your post. I am going to append a fuller remit in the near future please pardon my inability to reciprocate your efforts. Your thorough comments deserve a thorough response. I just don't have the energy right now. My76Strat 00:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I definitely need to address these concerns now. First comment on the 3 usernames that were cause for concern, You highlight this as where I included my report. I hope this is an honest mistake, because you have masked an important fact.Here is the actual report, and I beg for consideration of this comment: Just maybe a bit offensive. My intention was to alleviate these types of concern when I stated: "At first it would be my intention to handle some of the more blatant examples until I refine my own skills and learn what my peers are willing to teach." I didn't lie about this intention, and I am hard-pressed to understand how someone can reconcile the two comments with a concern that I might wield a trigger happy mop. The diff you originally showed is a better example to show how I would likely respond if someone disagreed with a suggestion of my: "I'd have to agree with your assessment and recommendation". You next criticize that I did these things without first checking. I hope I am not going to be held to someones opinion when no such policy can be shown. It's not even good WP:OR. And anyone who mistakenly buys off on such innuendo would have to conclude Username:Ejaculation as a proper username based on their requirement to check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by My76Strat (talk • contribs)

   In the next example you add weight by saying "and while the user hadn't even edited yet; here you reported" I am sure this is intended to portray me as an outright liar. After all My report stated: "Could have intended this to be offensive and first edit is also vandalism. Looks pretty damning. I imagine you checked the time stamp and concluded the only edit was after my report. I want to draw attention to the word could in my report. I know a little about my nature, and I know the users I work with at UAA know a little about my nature too. When I take the extra time to make sure I say could or might, I know exactly that it is meant to imply I am not sure. It's part of my learning curve. For the sake of UAA, if you show a report where I send the report using only the boiler text, that is a report I have in my own way stamped as blatant. In every other example where I have doubt, but would like the opinion of the more experienced admin, I will add a comment which says something to show a degree of uncertainty. This is just another example of a report I would not unilaterally close. I would acknowledge my doubt and listen to the guidance of others. How about the apparent lie that there was some vandalism. Here again I can only base my answer on knowledge of myself. I know it's not possible that I lied. And I'm not as incompetent as a few have assumed me to be. I couldn't have imagined it out of thin air. That leaves only 1 possibility. So if an admin would please review the deleted contributions, and report to Salvio your findings, That will undoubtedly explain this apparent contradiction. My76Strat 22:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I stand corrected. It is not a deleted contribution. It is the contribution that is shown. The revert was at 19:36 and the UAA was at 19:38 this revision shows the reverted vandalism, After seeing who reverted the vandalism it is pretty clear that I wasn't making up stories, or reporting the user before they even edited. It might not matter to anyone else, but I am wondering why it was so necessary to make things appear worse that thay are. Salvo, would you care to tell me why you embellished this report to highlight that I filed the report before the user even edited when that is not true? My76Strat (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   That edit is for Nigsyman; Salvio only said "the user hadn't even edited yet" with regard to Nigahiga12 and Ownerofcanada, and in both those cases he appears to be correct (neither he nor I can see deleted contributions, but this seems like a good indication that Nigahiga had not edited at that point). —Emufarmers^(T/C) 05:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Ditto (and thanks for pointing this out, Emufarmers).

   That said, however, My76Strat, if you think a username might be construed as offensive, but no so much so as to warrant an immediate block, the first thing you should do, in my opinion, would be to engage the user with a {{uw-username}} and, if you receive no answer or an unsatisfactory one, go on and report them or open a request for comment. That said, if I may say so, I see little point in arguing over one particular report or tag, because there isn't one that, taken singularly, made me oppose; it's just that, from the sum of each and everyone of them I get the feeling that, sometimes, you're too hasty and can make errors. Always in good faith, I don't dispute that, but errors nonetheless that could have serious consequences, even if they can be undone in a fairly easy way. This doesn't make you a bad Wikipedian. I don't think that and would be really sorry if this were the way I came across. If you work on your haste, I'll be glad to support you next time around! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Looking at the comments again, I see my error of perspective. I am glad, as it clears an issue which was confusing my ability to maintain positive assumptions, a pang I had brought about myself. My76Strat 15:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   At face value, that looks like a lot of cock-ups, but I think closer examination of some (not all) of the diffs shows that it's not simply a case of a trigger-happy new-page patroller. The first, for example, seems to have been a mistake as to fact rather than a G10 tagging of an obviously non-disparaging article. The edit before My76Strat's replaced the entire page content with an insult. Obviously, he should have checked the page history and reverted the edit (which another editor did a few seconds before), but I'm guessing he (mistakenly) believed had been created in that state. In the second, un-redirecting would have been a better idea, but the tag was technically correct (though obviously not in keeping with the spirit of CSD G8). The third is a similar situation to the first. The rest do seem to be mis-taggings or at least a bit too quick on the trigger finger, but I think (speaking from my own experience) that he'll learn from these very quickly now that they've been pointed out to him. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   HJ, I believe we agree on most of what you said. I too think that My76Strat is a bit too quick on the trigger finger and I fear that, through being a bit too hasty, he might make good-faith errors, thereby biting a newcomer and possibly scaring him away. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Not to sway opinion, just to through out there a fact. I had decided perhaps 3-5 weeks ago I was no longer comfortable tagging an article CSD so quickly. I stopped doing it unless it was vandalism. Instead I just marked added it to my watch-list. And that is because I had fully adopted the position of WP:BITE. But Salvio I would be proud to see you support my next attempt. Provided I meet your criteria of course. I still also maintain you were just a little bit wrong to suggest checking for the existence of a wiki as a requisite. There are plenty of policy based criteria without having to pile on the existence of non policy issues. IMO My76Strat 00:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Link to your talk page isn't obvious in your signature. Some outsiders and media types view Wikipedia as an ever-more-cliqued-off society, obfuscating an important means of communication only supports that notion. Not everyone can hover and deduce where your talk page is. (I'm also a bit surprised that I have to add a # for you so my vote numbers correctly.) Townlake (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Per the signature guidelines, a link to your talk page isn't even required, so they're not doing anything wrong. Second, if their sig bothers you personally, it isn't something you ignore every contribution they've made to the project and oppose over. It's something you politely request they rectify. You're opposing based on a non-issue. Try actually judging the candidate based on their deeds rather than opposing based solely on trivialities. Swarm ^X 03:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   That's terrific that you consider it a non-issue. I respectfully disagree. Ho hum. Townlake (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I am glad you respectfully disagreed. That is the best way to disagree, and of course you are right. It became an issue as soon as you expressed it as a cause for your concern. I am going to introduce my redesigned signature very soon. Please advise if there are other concerns regarding my signature, or in general, which would cause media outlets to become suspicious or concerned. I don't expect you to move to support simply because I intend to correct the problem you pointed out. I do intend to add to this thread very soon to offer any mitigating circumstances. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by My76Strat (talk (talk • contribs) contribs)

   Spoken like a true RfA candidate. Seriously though, I know every opposer's opinion in an RfA is a "real issue", but outside of this RfA, signatures are governed by Wikipedia guidelines, and they're judged according to that. Townlake's concern is baseless. While it's quite heartening to know you accept criticism and act accordingly, I feel it's quite a cheap shot, especially since they're basing an oppose squarely on it. Swarm ^X 07:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Wow. I know that I've taken heat once or twice over opposes of my own, but really... you're opposing simply on the basis of a signature format? How is the closing 'Crat supposed to evaluate that? With all due respect and in fairness to the candidate, could you offer more of a rationale than that or consider moving your opinion to the Neutral section? Strikerforce (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The absolute mess of a response candidate gave on Fastily's talk page during the below-referenced move incident reinforces my confidence that this is where I belong. As for people disagreeing with my sig rationale, which I've used before and will use again, I respect your disagreement but I'm sticking by it. New users don't tend to participate in RFA... and they're often impacted by admin actions they don't understand... and any unnecessary hindrance to a new user communicating with the admin strikes me as unsupportable. You are welcome to disagree. Townlake (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I can't spend a lot of time on this thread. But I can't just setback and let misinformation destroy my credibility. If you don't like what I posted to Fastily's talkpage that is fine. It wasn't meant for you anyway. And if you think that because it doesn't demonstrate all the rules of spelling and grammar, it should be posted and spread across the wiki, I suppose that is fine as well. I did have a lot of problems last night trying to deal with that mess. And it was never my intention to produce a pretty document. I know Fastley keeps his page clear and the stuff would only be visible as long as it took for him to look at it and remove it. I didn't know so many would clamor to and help spread the word for whatever negative affect it might have. to make matters worse, the one version which was the final version, is the version you have never seen. I spent a minimum of 4 hours compiling enough information to tell the complete story. Suppose you actually could see the document, and you found it complete and through. What if it told a story that left no possibility of wondering what happened an what was the sequence. Would it even matter to you? Or would you rather jump on the nearest bandwagon and spread a bunch of untruths. I see that I have now been accused of hindering a new users ability to communicate with an admin. and your testament of how it strikes you. "Unsupportable". And it is all crap. You should read the users own comment. which he posted to my page totally by surprise. I don't even know how he heard of the flap. Maybe as it was spreading across the web while you all shared you versions for effect. While you are at it visit Fastleys page to see what he posted there. And if you would like to see the actual document, the one you never saw, It just so happens that I have a full copy. If any person can read that document and not know the sequence of what happened, then I did fail. But please stop attributing failure where you are only repeating some hear say. The only mistake I made last night was thinking someone cared about a thing they cared nothing about. You try to imagine yourself In a situation like mine. Being accused of every kind of thing I did not do, spending the entire night trying to produce a document only to find that the person you were sending it to was deleting the stuff as fast as you sent it. and then get accused of move warring with an admin when the plain facts bear out a different story. and then to lick your wounds and move on only to find it has spilled over to a new day and there are more allegations. I do not wish that on you, or anyone. But I didn't ask for it either. Or is that the appropriate way to handle someone who is known to be long winded? That is the only thing I admit I have done wrong. My76Strat 00:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   When you post your next RFA - and I hope you will have another RFA, because you do a lot of things well around here and are a helpful contributor <I shouldn't encourage this, too much evidence of poor communication skills and overreaction to criticism coming out of this RFA - I advise you to pick your arguments more carefully, and let the community determine whether or not the various Oppose rationales are "crap." Virtually everyone disagrees with my signature rationale, but begrudgingly respects my right to post it; it's never been the reason an RFA failed. Meanwhile, the talk page comment just sort of is what it is at this point, you aren't going to score points by drawing even more attention to it. Townlake (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   That again highlights a failure of my own. This was the simplest concern and should have been done right away. Instead, I procrastinated it until now. I will turn any special signature off before and throughout my next RfA, and at least for the duration of this one. And it took way too long. Sorry My76Strat (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   In more closely noticing the stricken text. I did want to say I understand you reaching this conclusion. If I do not learn to control things like stress, well the whole RfA becomes a question. Anyway I know where you are coming from and I take it as good advice. My76Strat (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose on the basis of Salvio's examples. The summary I'd give is "trigger-happy" and its the last thing we need around here. I would never disqualify for one or two bad taggings, but these are simply too many, and not even disputable. Those hoax taggings really concern me in particular. The first might be a result of inadequately wide reading (and not the sort of reading some people might have in mind , but mainstream novelists like PD James) , but the second must be an example of not thinking, or possibly of mistakenly tagging the wrong article--because the article when tagged had excellent sources. I also see severe problems with communication. I should be the last one to ever use tl;dr as a reason, but the excess verbiage in Q2, and in the response below to TCO, indicates a lack of skill in focusing on the essentials. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   This is something else, surreal, I was seeking you just a day ago. Your username was listed as a missing piece of information. Sir if you could please consider, I need you to do 1 thing for me: I can not link you but if you search within this text "I have fully remembered what occurred regarding this article" you will be at the top of it. Lot's of verbose, so it will pang to read, but you are of the caliber who can endure such, and maybe tell me if it was as bad a call as first indicated. My76Strat (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. Weakest possible oppose On the basis of the CSD mistaggings that Salvio has done a terrific job outlining above. The excessive verbosity is also annoying. You're applying for a mop, not running for POTUS. That said, you have contributed a lot of great work (e.g. vandal fighting and NPP), but I don't think you're ready to be a sysop quite yet.--Hokeman (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Under the circumstances, to hold the line at weakest possible oppose is a tremendous display of good faith. I did waste a lot of space in the RfA, and I sure didn't give you any reason to think I was ready. I have annoyed myself in some ways with excessive verbosity. I do not like the clutter it has become. But I would be better to know how the stuff annoys you. If your middle name is Shakespeare, feel free to say, "let me count the ways". My76Strat 05:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose: I originally wanted to support this candidate, but those CSD taggings are unacceptable and show that the candidate is either rushing or is not judging articles properly. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Moved from support. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I didn't have any enemies, so it is easy to establish me as my own worst enemy. It appears I have played that roll well.

   A lot of the stuff is related to rushing and CSD as an admin I was not claiming I was ready right know, I actually stated I would for sure not delete a thing on my own until I gained confidence. If you look at my weekly thing, which was a just for fun thing, well it shows I am not an eager CSD guy. Some where in my ramblings I know I said I wouldn't unless it was crystal clear csd, and there is some of that, When I stated I needed CSD was for AfC to move a created submission over a redirect. Yeah it would be better to just get it done and be done, That's and issue of convenience. I did say I would be more active at UAA and I did try to address the UAA examples From Salvio, I've received no feedback, except someone asking if I was a school boy instead of commenting about the report at UAA.My76Strat (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose Salvio's diffs are enough to draw an oppose. I really think we need fewer shoot first and ask questions later admins. RxS (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose per Salvio's diffs. It's gives me a sense that My76Strat has a tendency to rush things without checking. An administrator needs patience, and with the diffs provided, he does not have enough patience to work as an administrator. Minimac (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose per Salvio.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 08:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose participating in a move war with Jonathan A. Obar. Seems to value speedy action, but perhaps more time is required before clicking. However there seems have been plenty of good work done too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   There is a huge misunderstand regarding what you suggest has happened. I was actually trying to help the user and my every effort has been misconstrued. Most of the back and forth moving was done by the user without my knowledge until after the fact. When I finally convinced him to make no more moves or edits I was able to correct the mess he had created. But thanks for mentioning the good contributions in your dissent. My76Strat 10:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I expected that there should be some reason, however I still oppose over the answer to Q4, where I would have had a different opinion and action! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I would like to point out that the username described in Q4 is fully acceptable in terms of the username policy. The only usernames that merit blocks are ones that are misleading (i.e. "TheWikiAdmin"), promotional (i.e. "BuyFromTarget!"), offensive, or disruptive (i.e. "FuckYouInTheAss"). Usernames are allowed to be gibberish. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The username is too long and confusing. Perhaps it deserves no block, but instead a request for the user to change it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Every time I cross this oppose I intend to comment and then I get sidetracked. Sir I must simply ask you to reconsider your suggestion to oppose. There are simply too many ironies to simply let this stand without at least commenting. Consider that there are valid policy based reasons too oppose. For the sheer sake of decency, you should have a valid policy based response. As the question reads I gave the correct answer, Heck, it is the only time I made myself not ramble, and it just don't sit right that it should draw an oppose. All you have to do is type "per Salvio" and at least you will be posting a valid oppose. Don't make it appear that I deserve a negative reward simply because I was brief. FWIW, it probably took 2 hours to reach that answer for a certainty. For the name to be blocked as confusing it must contribute to the vandalism. I evaluated the forbidden characters to make sure there wasn't a character that would corrupt code, there was not, I checked against the possibility of the name triggering an edit filter, it did not. The only renaming possibility for the name itself to contribute was a consensus. Too have arrived at a consensus reason to block would require all the extra verbiage it would have taken to get there and it was building information not specifically related to the question. Please do the right thing here. Heck I'd be thrilled to death to see you move to support, But honestly, unless good faith was all that mattered, I don't expect to pass this round. I would close it early, but as long as it doesn't piss anyone off or guarantee people will misconstrue my intentions as something they are not, I'd like to keep it open to the end. I still have a few things to do and there could be more to learn. But anyway, don't oppose me on such flimsy grounds. My76Strat 00:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10. per Salvio's diffs and Minimac's comment, sorry. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose Not enough time served to meet my criteria. Also concerned about their attitude, based on some of the condescending, patronising responses to other editors on this RfA. Pol430 talk to me 10:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I respect your willingness to cut to the chase. I would like it if you would show me where I have acted this way. That's not who I want to be. Shame on me for coming across that way.

12. Strong Oppose. Concerns with policy knowledge, judgement, and lack of competence. Move warring: [2]. The user moved a userpage, User:Jaobar back into the mainspace as Jonathan A. Obar, when the original move of User:Jaobar to Jonathan A. Obar had already been reverted by an administrator. By making reverting that move, My76Strat violated guidelines/policies WP:BLP, WP:ADS, WP:CSD#A7, and WP:GNG all in one go. When asked about it, I received this, this, and then this in which he desperately attempted to defend his egregious action. After receiving three posts to my one query in a matter of several hours, in which the latter two were largely incomprehensible, I am concerned with My76Strat's ability to communicate effectively and handle situations while under pressure. Administrators deal with scrutiny everyday, and if My76Strat is going to act rashly under pressure as he did today, then he is not fit to be an administrator. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 10:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I accept your strong oppose, I resent your misrepresentation of the facts however, I can not imagine a reason for you to create a malicious fabrication, so it has to be a mistake of some kind. You use this diff to allege egregious action against an administrator. I think it pretty clearly shows that Joabar made the page move just before my edit. Not an administrator. and that is the diff which caused you to move from support to what feels like destroy. The history is even more clear. The only admin editing that page on the date of this incident is you, and that was after me. So please tell me where did I revert the actions of an administrator. When Joabar approached me for help there was a live article at Jonathan A. Obar. It was his userpage which was deleted at that time. Joaber then inadvertently moved the article to his deleted userpage. Just my luck his userpage was deleted which facilitated the erroneous move that he made. And I couldn't bring it back for the redirect it left behind. My whole purpose in helping him at that point was to get his article back where it was before his mistake. I never reviewed the article, or accepted it in to article space and most importantly never acted against an administrator. This is mind boggling at best. I implore the participants of this RfA to please, please, please, review the article history and as soon as practical tell me that they can see that the article was already live and that the move was done by the user. Ask yourself how could the user move an article that wasn't live at the time of the move. And ask yourself why would Fastily say that there was a move war against an administrator when that clearly is not true. I you come up with an answer let me know. My76Strat 13:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    [3] -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

13. Weak Oppose leaning neutral. I'm afraid I'm going to have to land here. Pressure is a large part of the administrator role and the debacle above shows that My76Strat may not be able to cope with the that pressure. It's not so much the mistake of moving the page, but the attempt to clarify on Fastily's page here, which 1) seemed rushed and 2) jumped to a conclusion which was not shown from evidence (that Fastily would "defect" to oppose based on a clarification request). Taking 2 hours to reply properly would not have been a problem - the RfA lasts a week. Worm^TT 11:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You are correct in your counsel, I rushed and shouldn't have. I thought it was a race to regain someones trust. Instead it was a race to oblivion. But the truth has been known to do some pretty amazing things, Therein lies my hope. My76Strat 13:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Further to comment from candidate, which helped to clarify what happened there - I can accept that this was not warring and that the candidate didn't review the content. Further, the calm tone is a lot closer to what I'd expect from an administrator. However, I do still see some issues with the comment, which seems to cast aspersions on Fastily, who appears to have made a mistake. I'm leaning to neutral, but I'm afraid I still oppose. Worm^TT 13:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate the uplifting comments you included in your post, they are helpful. I understand if you feel I was trying to cast aspersion, that it must have come across that way to you. All I can say is I tried not to come across that way, but apparently failed. All I can do now is reiterate that I am certain Fastily has no reason or incentive to have been malicious. Therefor it had to be a misunderstanding. I may have to pay the price for there having been a misunderstanding. But I am intent on trying to overcome this. And emerge somehow better. My76Strat 13:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Will think about this. I'm very persuaded by the positive comments of the supporters and as I said the way you've acted after your initial panic does help. I'll keep an eye on how this RfA progresses, and may well change my vote. Worm^TT 13:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

14. Oppose great potential, committed editor with a clean blocklog. But largely per Salvio I'm afraid you aren't ready for the delete button. I also had a quick look myself and quickly found this A7 tag. I've no view as to what makes a skateboarder famous, but there are famous skateboarders and this article clearly asserts that the subject is a famous skateboarder. I don't know whether it would have survived AFD, but the test of CSD is much more cautious. I would be happy to reevaluate you in a few months if you've learned a little restraint in your CSD tagging. NB If you are fairly sure that something is a hoax but not quite certain, {{hoax}} is more appropriate than {{db-hoax}}. ϢereSpielChequers 13:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    With the greatest respect, WSC, the entire content of the page was Büble is a popular professional skateboarder from Kempten in the Allgäu region of Germany. He is an old pro, but has maintained his youthful demeanor and appearance over the years. His rival in the German proskateboarding scene is Peter Wanker who is also from the Allgäu region. They are rumoured to have been friends before they were famous. They compete in both freestyle and downhill skateboarding events. I don't see anything even approaching a credible claim of significance and would have deleted that myself (a judgement that another admin evidently agreed with). Now, if it said he'd won some award or competed in some important skateboarding tournament, that would be a credible claim of significance. That's not to say that I agree with all the other taggings raised here are perfect, but I felt compelled to disagree with you on that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It was the bit about being famous that I took as an assertion of importance. Now I've no personal interest in which professional skateboarders are notable and would survive AFD as opposed to those which aren't. But CSD is not the place for such articles, a BLPprod would have made more sense to me. ϢereSpielChequers 22:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    "Famous" is far too vague to be an assertion of significance. It could just mean that he's popular among his mates in the village pub. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Famous for being a member of our pub darts team would in my view be a non-credible assertion of importance, and a legit CSD. But this article was about someone allegedly famous for competing as a professional at the national level in a sizeable country in a sport that I'm vaguely aware exists. Now AFD might have decided that the claims were unsourceable or that Germans don't skateboard, or that being pro as a skateboarder is a state of mind rather than wallet. But that is an appropriate discussion for AFD not a speedy deletion. ϢereSpielChequers 00:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    After seeing the efforts each of you made in discussion for consensus. I am humbled. I feel it is at minimum worthy of mention. Quite simply, Sir, when two men of your caliber discuss an issue and it is not resolved as consensus, that issue alone, should satisfy as proof my decision was at least not out of bounds, One additional thing to please consider. In some of my fastest applied tags, The reason is creation war. Sir, please, regarding mine, do have a look at deleted contributions. Of course if you see multiple creations, the deletion was likely intervention against vandalism. Sir please remove the reports which remain, for further analysis. Thank you My76Strat (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

15. Oppose despite your obvious worthiness in so many other areas. Speedy deletion is a powerful and dangerous tool, though obviously a necessary one. You have not yet demonstrated that you have the patience and good judgement necessary to make good decisions in this area. Thparkth (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not wish to minimize your concern, but I am slightly bewildered. For you to actually say I do not demonstrate good judgment necessary to make good decisions is a verbal slap in the face. You may as well change obvious worthiness to obvious worthlessness. At least there's no dichotomy of terms. I respect stringent criteria and especially admire a person who lives by the standards they impose. It is not necessary to minimize me in order for you to say here is where you have fallen short. Thanks for helping me to sort that out. My76Strat 17:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't take my objection personally. It is based on your expressed intention to be involved in speedy deletion, and on the inaccurate speedy deletion tagging observed by opposer #1. Thparkth (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for that clarification. Please excuse that for a minute, it did feel personal. For what it's worth, assuming that you didn't misspell worthiness (said in jest), I can hardly imagine a nicer thing to say about another person. My76Strat 19:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

16. Oppose (moved from neutral). This is not based on your knowledge of content-creation (although I still have questions on your practical experience there, but leave that aside). Have just seen a lot of long-windedness, and rushing around with excuses. It's come through in various aspects of this RFA trial by fire. We need a more poised precense from administrators (all the dealing with users). Please spend some serious time doing content creation and structuring your thoughts.TCO (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you bring these questions you have at the side, to the fore? I wish for a chance to elevate your concerns by answering correctly or to benefit from knowing the correct answer. My76Strat (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

17. Oppose Per Salvio and, you twice, forgot to sign a comment on this RFA. You went back and signed one, but forgot the other. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Strong oppose Oppose (see comment below), per Salvio and my own concerns over the general quality of communication demonstrated in this RfA: being in constant contact with a large part of the community, admins should always be able to communicate effectively and politely, and I feel some of your comments so far (such as "Fetchcomms, you are one of the people who I have learned from since the very begging", "For you to recognizing the qualities I endeavor to permeate strengthens my very resolve", "I resent your misrepresentation of the facts however, I can not imagine a reason for you to create a malicious fabrication, so it has to be a mistake of some kind", etc) don't demonstrate that ability. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 06:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Kinda reads like a bunch bologna. I screwed that aspect up pretty good. Did anything good come out of it? What does it mean to you, that hardly an optional question was asked? If that meant that everyone had sufficient confidence in my clue, that would definitely be a good thing. If the long winded diatribes were so annoying that no one would dare open such a can, that would really be something. My76Strat 06:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm afraid that this answer goes no way to changing my mind: a large number of non-native English speakers use this site and come into contact with admins on a regular basis, and this response (among many others) is so verbose that I imagine it would be very hard for a number of contributors to be able to understand you, which is a crucial aspect of being an admin. My oppose remains I'm afraid. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 06:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: changing to strong oppose in light of q5: that sort of judgemental, accusatory conduct has no place on Wikipedia, especially from an admin candidate, and your answer to the question is completely unsatisfactory; if you think that fellow editors shouldn't be looking through "a communication that was composed with a single audience in mind" to determine your conduct, perhaps RfA was the wrong process to put yourself through. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 16:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It may be that a better choice would have been to email my comment directly. It would have served the single audience notion more appropriately. I am not against people scrutinizing my contributions. Considering that all contributions to Wikipedia are public. I will from here, ensure any verbiage is reduced to a level of maximum understanding. And in times where I except higher levels of comprehension, I will use email. I will never again post to Wikipedia any sentence which might require fluency to understand. To the extent this one may, It will be the last. My76Strat 17:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, this response goes no way towards alleviating my concerns, and your suggestion that you'll use off-site communication methods "where you expect higher levels of communication" is also worrying - I personally can understand you most of the time, but it's unnecessarily verbose, requires repeated readings to decipher and is generally unclear, which is my major issue - it's not to do with the fluency of each individual person who might read your comment, it's to do with being able to clearly and concisely organise your thoughts into a way that they can be conveyed effectively, an ability which I don't think you've shown at all over the past few days. You clearly have a number of strong points as an editor, and I don't doubt your ability to contribute to articles etc, but your communication style and behaviour during this RfA combined with my previous comments means I remain strongly opposed. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 08:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sir, I may not be able to alleviate your valid concerns. If I succeed at reducing them, I will know a gain well worth the effort. But it should be noted, the extension of good faith, and the level of consideration you expended, are worthy of all appreciation. Buy these, I extend your share. Thank you My76Strat (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please, please stop writing like this. It's so unnecessarily over the top, you are achieving nothing at all other than making yourself difficult to understand, and it's evidently annoyed a large number of people during this RfA. Despite repeatedly saying you would change, you clearly haven't. Please take on board our advice and just be clear and concise when talking to other users. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 16:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm inclined to agree. I don't usually flip-flop and change my mind once I've supported someone but right now I'm more at the level of a 'weak', or rather, 'concerned' support as I've been following this RfA. I recall having discussions with you on IRC and perhaps that's just the nature of live chat but you didn't seem this verbose then. Just try to respond here casually and naturally, as if you were talking to your buddy face-to-face, in normal everyday language. You'll find that people can relate to you a lot better. -- œ^™ 01:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This comment bothers me. First I have full respect for the writer, I still do. I am sad because I have caused offense, when it is not my intention. It's hard to change something so ingrained. I know I have said things and it does not seem to be happening. It is hard. I could have just not replied. To spare the possibility of offending the reader. But I sometimes want to say my thoughts on the topic. Or just that I appreciate something I have observed. I never would have thought a written word with no attack in its design could draw such a reaction. If I could I would edit all of the things I've written and improve it with each revision. What I post here isn't my best writing. It my best current attempt to transfer an idea using words in one rendition. For me it is usually around the third revision before it becomes a writing closer to how everyone suggest. What I am really getting is that people don't like the way I talk, because the first run comes out closely to how I might have said it in speech. It should have the information but future edits well you knoe how they work. I'm sorry.My76Strat (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

19. Oppose The diffs in Salvio's oppose indicate some carelessness, and the candidate's response to that oppose is quite concerning in its length, tone, and (in)accuracy. I also have concerns about his general attitude at this RfA. Less importantly, his answer to Q4 is wrong (or, at best, answers the wrong question). —Emufarmers^(T/C) 06:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose, with a heavy heart. I consider this user a personal friend, having communicated a great deal, off-wiki. However, I have to stick with my principles in judging a candidate. Three concerns; 1. Some dubious CSD's, noted above; not in itself enough to warrant oppose from me, because the candidate has expressed regret, and admitted errors - which is admirable. But the concern is cumulative with the others; 2. Inability to speak plain-English. I have nothing against good use of language, but the comments right here in RfA have highlighted this concern; an admin must be able to convey information in a clear form. Gtdp gives examples, above; plus the schoolboy errors in edits even on this RfA - not signing...which may be more related to my third concern, 3. Haste. The incident regarding the move (during this RfA), and this diff...well, I am not concerned with the specifics, but,...it shows a lack of ability to STOP, THINK, and then act. There's no deadline here. And so...with enormous regret, I find myself opposing a user who I feel is of huge benefit to Wikipedia. I truly hope that you'll be back here, in 3-6 months, having directly addressed these concerns.  Chzz  ►  06:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Good to see you here Chzz. I did wonder if you would add your name to this RfA. Of course it would have been great to have earned your support. But honestly, at this point I would feel pretty glad if I knew I hadn't lost anything. Cheers My76Strat 07:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I would hate to think that RfA was about winning and losing. A lot of damn good Wikipedians have said that you've done "mostly good things" - don't forget that part. You've nothing to lose, but you gain feedback on how to be even better. "What doesn't kill us makes us stronger."^Nietzsche  Chzz  ►  07:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

21. Oppose but moral support - I agree with Salvio. Not now, but one day. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate the moral support. FWIW I have more respect seeing such words appended here, than for example, moral support it the support section. Therefor I hope I will see you at the next. My76Strat 15:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

22. Oppose at this time. Are you a young person? Your general demeanour seems 'young' - a level of impatience, errors made in haste, argumentation, the rather schoolboy assumption that ejaculation is a rude word [4] etc. All you need is a little time to become a better editor and more likely to succeed at your next RfA. Follow up on all your mistakes - every time someone questions you, start by assuming that maybe there is something to learn here (4chan always excepted!!). In no time you'll have learned far more about language, about wikipedia, and about interacting with people generally. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Am I alone in finding the "are you a young person" commentary both grossly invasive, patronising and rude? Further, given the candidate states quite clearly on their user page underneath a picture of a guitar that "This guitar, purchased new, and in my younger days, is the nexus of my screen name" it hardly takes a clairvoyant to work out the candidate is not young. You are an abitrator Elen - might I suggest that if this is the minimal level of research you bother with before commenting on things you reconsider that position - quite urgently. Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Further - and I should have added this in the above - the candidate says quite clearly they are a "veteran of the US Army". So, in summary, you didn't read the nomination statement and you didn't look at the candidates user page. I'd like a direct response as to why you felt it was acceptable to comment on an RFA without doing either of those things please Elen. Pedro :  Chat  21:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    So must your personal definition/perception of "young person" serve for us all, Pedro? Because if this is your definition of "both (sic) grossly invasive, patronising and rude" then I think we're in for a rough time with basic definition of terms. And I thought we'd got past this tiresome (and frequently paradoxically illustrative) beserk-button ranting whenever sometime dares to query age and/or maturity. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No, sorry Plutonium27 but I really haven't a clue what you're on about. I don't think I've defined a "young person". I think I've said anyone evidently born before 1976 who has served in the US army is not likely to be young and that to not bother to discover these easy to find facts before assuming people are young is rude, and, well, a little depressing Pedro :  Chat  21:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Pedro, am I talking to you? Is Strat capable of answering for himself? Frankly, there are days when I find anyone under 40 young. If he's over 40, he should take it as a complement that he comes over as a young man - full of beans and committing errors of haste with good intent, rather than those of curmudgeonly old age.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You utter disgrace. The reasonable man would surely define "young person" as someone of 14,16 maybe 18 years at a push. You've neatly side stepped your obvious mistake and lack of dilligence with obfuscation. I extend no AGF to you as you extened none to the candidate, nor could you even make the effort to properly review them. Your utterly contemptuous "was I talking to you" shows you know nothing about consensus gaining conversation. I will take no further part in this RFA in this matter. As an acting arbitrator you are truly a poor appointment and I shall look to a more appropriate venue to discuss how we can remove that from you. Pedro :  Chat  22:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Y'all have a nice day now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

23. Oppose. Strat has surely done a lot of good work, but I think the concerns about hastiness / trigger-happiness don't sit well with getting the extra buttons. bobrayner (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A comfortable opposition sits better than uncomfortable support, I prefer you be comfortable. And your participation is a form of support itself. My76Strat (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to congratulate you on staying polite despite having run the gauntlet (or bear-pit), but that response was perhaps just a little too polite; an oppose is still an oppose and nobody expects you to thank them for treading on your toes. bobrayner (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate that observation. I hope you don't see something decetful in the response I gave, it was genuine. May you would have to travel the path you described.(Gauntlet) At the time of that post it was a simple acknowledgment. I fell badly it would take parsing for you to see why. But his words "Strat has surely done a lot of good work". oh yes, I call that support. My76Strat (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

24. Oppose. Per Salvio /DGG: examples do not inspire confidence that the candidate is able to work readily and safely with the tools. The happytalk nom statement, the tail-wagging responses to the Supports and the argumentativeness elsewhere, the ostentatious sig: communication and judgment concerns. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You have achieved maximum impact with concise prose, and bolstered my ability to defend a point of contention you chose to have answered. I am glad I have found it, hoping there is time for us to find agreement. To be clear, the color you add against my words are attributed to the reading. I am sorry they somehow reached your eyes with that appearance. I would rather have not written. However in writing, of certainty it was absent any such color. This requires AGF. The argumentativeness you describe must attribute instead to discussion. This because your own carefully chosen words, demonstrate that you agree that descriptors of this quality are appropriate for discussion. Before I acknowledge some distinction, it's rather incumbent on you to demonstrate where the discussion becomes an argument. Regarding the signature, I have changed it to acknowledge that to offend fewer, is preferable, indeed prudent, while non who approved the former will now be offended. If anything is agreed here, we may have reduced the formerly perceived apprehensions. Being left with "Per Salvio" as a consensus approved sentiment for oppose. The great thing regarding your position is, you are in complete control of how the close archives. As a side note, Every previous RfA I have seen, included multiple questions which the peer group collectively base sufficient clue, upon the effectiveness of the answer. I lament that this rather unique group of peers, had such a completely different methodology. The only possibility that trust could relegate concerns, would seemingly require such in depth analysis. I had thought, there would be this level of analysis, and at first I felt it could be a strong point to gain a needed edge. And again sufficient AGF can accomplish many things. I only actually accepted consensus against a few days in when it was clear I had derailed. Therefore I present these views. for your consideration. My76Strat (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    a) troll b) Fuckup who swallowed the dictionary and extrudes it a la Bayeaux Tapestry meme or c) means well but really doesn't get it (although some answers indicate he does but he ignores his own resolutions thereto). Whatever. But how about just shutting the mad spiel up, My76Strat, because you are taking the piss however you mean it . Plutonium27 (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That was nice. A few problems arise and it doesn't compare well to the first. In the first, you could claim it as well meaning. Your intentions are not well hidden in this example. Don't be offended but they are really quite plain to see. I'm thinking anyone who reads it will be able to see your intent as well. In that regard, it actually serves as a poor example, and believe me, I know embarrassing a post can be on the next day. Hey, some advice, don't write any more to this RfA. For now I have the record for poor writing examples. You are encroaching fast and could become the user who wasted the most of this space. Honestly I think some are considering you by other names too. It just comes out in your writing. But thanks. My76Strat (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose: Whenever I see ACC, I become antsy—overall, experiences with this user have been generally somewhat negative. Mono (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Would you care to cite specific examples? Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    See above. Mono (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I do recollect some interactions with you, I never would have known any of them to be negative if you hadn't posted that fact here. All I now know is that apparently there has been some type of negative interaction. I am afraid however I will not truly know what you are reffering to unless you would be so kind as to enlighten me. If you prefer to remain general in your terms, Then I shall generally say, I am sorry where I have offended you. It would not have been my intention. My76Strat 01:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anyone know what happened to Mono? My76Strat (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

25. Oppose Strong oppose (See below.) I looked through the examples of hasty speedy tagging that Salvio offered, and found that yes, generally this user is a bit quick on the trigger when it comes to that. However, my main concern here is with communication. It's very important that administrators are clear, calm, and to the point in their interaction with other users, particularly new ones. There are far too many examples of heated responses that were clearly not thought through in this RfA alone: "Salvo, would you care to tell me why you embellished this report to highlight that I filed the report before the user even edited when that is not true?", "If you don't like what I posted to Fastily's talkpage that is fine. It wasn't meant for you anyway.", "Or would you rather jump on the nearest bandwagon and spread a bunch of untruths.", "And it is all crap.", etc. Furthermore, other users have mentioned the sesquipedalian speech. This alone would not be negative, but the general structure of the user's responses often forces me to read them more than once. Frankly, the user could benefit from more time spent constructing a calm and coherent response and less time consulting the thesaurus. Also, it feels a little strange to be tempted to send an RfA candidate a {{uw-sign}}. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 07:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for being here. I hardly deserve the benefit of your counsel, let alone the time it took for you to glean, and append. You are absolutely correct, and your observations are keen. I am indebted to you, indeed everyone here, to better myself by the things I've been shown. I am ashamed of the conduct I put on display, when you came here to see my best. When you observe me at my next RfA, I will not be offended if you request checkuser to make sure it is me. That is how much different my conduct will appear. I promise you that. My76Strat 16:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am confused as to why you keep promising to change the way you respond to others, and yet continue with your verbose replies. Other users such as gdtp have expressed this same concern. I see you plan to try again in a few months, and I must say that I would be much more likely to support your next attempt if I saw a change in behavior now. (See below.) – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 19:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand, Some aspects are pretty bad, In many instances I think I've considered this as a test of sorts and overstuffed information, I can't write in depth very well on the first draft. But yes If for a minute you are worried that I might send someone something like the bad examples, yes that would be an embarrassment. But I wouldn't, and you cant take that on faith, I understand. So next time, I'll work it out on paper if I have to, Making sure nothing goes to the RfA until it has been copy edited a few times. I am more of an editor than a natural writer. And I could take many of the ramblings and wash them down to a much more readable piece. I call this chat writing and it doesn't fit my style. I wasn't really expecting that. My76Strat (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Although I hardly think changing my opinion to strong oppose will affect the outcome of this RfA, this kind of comment is a completely unacceptable response to perhaps slightly provocative feedback. As an admin you would have to deal with negative comments like these, and this kind of response will not do. Behavior such as this means that I will have much difficulty supporting your next RfA. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 23:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I fully agree, If admins deal with stress like this, It's not for me, and my respect has grown for you. (the admin corp) I feel glad that you said "negative comments like these" so we could agree that a reaction (bad reaction) had occurred. So here is an example for "tell me the better way?" So I did make the bad choice, it was my act of surrender, and I hope decency returns. And changing your vote does affect the outcome slightly. It sends a message to me, that my net worth was reduced in your eyes as a result. My76Strat (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

26. Oppose due to excessive haranguing of opposers. Stifle (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And why is replying to opposers bad? NW (Talk) 20:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not believe that Stifle thinks replying to opposers is bad; rather, he feels that the replies were simply too much. Airplaneman ✈ 22:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that it is the excesses that is regarded. whether poetic or chance it is a well chosen word, as it relates strongly to emotion. Most of the stuff is written during periods of high emotional stress, and it is clearly not good. If I edit a writing at least three times. I can usually produce appropriate concision. Because of some imagined time constraint, Most of these post are 1st rendition, and all the worse for it. My76Strat (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    One of the more important traits required of a sysop in my opinion is to be able to accept negative feedback without trying incessantly to seek clarification, retraction, or to have the last word. Sometimes you may need to accept you are wrong; other times it may be a case of knowing you're right but not bludgeoning the criticizer over the head with it. Stifle (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I never intended for that to be how it felt receiving any message from me. And perhaps I shouldn't acknowledge reading your last response. Because it isn't that I want the last word so much as to acknowledge my appreciation. My76Strat (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ironically, while you acknowledge your fault, you clearly have not done anything to change it, as evidenced by your defensive response to Stifle. This is analogous to a crack addict who knows they're an addict but doesn't do anything to remedy their situation. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll have to look at it as well. I don't think there's an Irony there? I do think it is easier to say a thing than to do a thing. I don't think I'll be able too change overnight. Overtime that's more reasonable. There are several instances after making the declaration to stay at about the 9th grade level where I have replaced I was going to use to another, which was a part of my attempts. My76Strat (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

27. Oppose. Some rather too hasty decisions have been made. I'm sure you will learn to slow down, and gain guidance from the experiences of this RfA. Let's see you again, with better decisions in six months.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the confidence you imparted to me. I consider your position one of support. Regardless of how you spell it. And I thank you for it. My76Strat (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

28. As you have wished to leave this RFA open for additional feedback, I would just like to reiterate what has been brought up throughout this RFA and will be in my opinion, the most important criteria should you ever wish to be an administrator here - your communication style. Even should you show in the future you have the crucial policies down, you must still be able to convey that you can guide those of many different educational levels and from other primary languages that come here, how to abide by these policies and help with their questions in a more precise, easy to understand style. The best way I could put it is this. When giving a presentation, know your audience. If this was a scientific research peer review, the style here would not be so pronounced and probably appropriate (minus the somewhat excessive pleasantries); however, for the most part, this is not the case here. This is not meant to diminish any of the work you have put into this site, only to have you take a moment to really consider if this is something you really want to do, changing the way you communicate (whether it be fundamental, nervousness, or haste) to met a certain perceived expectation to gain the bit. kindly Calmer Waters 07:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for imparting that thoughtful insight. In part, you substantiated the validity of many things I have determined, simply for having imagined a similar thought process. The wisdom which I glean, is of a slightly different consequence. I agree that the audience is primary first order, with the observers as a secondary consideration. I turns out that most of the clamor regards the what ifs of the secondary audience. Fine, I can achieve the objective. And simply because the criteria is clear, the standard is more easily applied. I am not sure of my future administrative aspirations, mostly because the closing outcome is not yet established. If I believe I have been fairly treated, I would consider another attempt. If I am said to have been treated fairly, disregarding everything foretold. I certainly knew writing was going to be of a primary concern at some point. I held this skill set with esteem, and anticipated an edge to be gained. But I ask; Why was I not asked any questions that had potential to demonstrate clue? Consider that it was my intention, to produce sufficient depth, in answering a question, as to ensure a through analysis could emerge. The venue for depth would satisfy a need for an information base for analysis. The follow on quips could then be answered with concerted demonstration of cohesive concision, and understandability. With such a balance for effective comparison, I, at minimum would have held a clear distinction of the standard. The absence of established mechanisms to effect the gain, coupled with multiple requests to question themselves unanswered, and lack of determination, together, in concert, and aside. I have discerned my only retort was to expand proses from within. And what of my retort? It shall also aside. From a perspective of such, various standards of function-ability could pass multiple size separation from a single phase hookup? My76Strat (talk) 09:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, the above ramble wouldn't be here if I hadn't posted it the other day, it looks like I was about 90% asleep. It's a bad one but I cant take back, "get it right the first time" doesn't always work for me and I do not claim to be a natural writer. If I was able to edit over the above it would be changed with quickness. My76Strat (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dude. How about just not editing Wikipedia while sleepy? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

29. Oppose. CSD tagging needs to be very tight. (Also, it is unclear to me if My76Strat participates in AfD.) The rather lengthy answers and discussions with other editors also worry me. Admins need to communicate well with a range of editors, not all of whom have a great understanding of English. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not a regular with AfD. If I see activity while doing NPP, or RCP, I will look at the AfD for a Quick check review, and possibly leave a comment. If I comment, it is most often for the ones I see which I believe should not be deleted. Most often If I concur that it meets criteria I do not comment. I wouldn't be closing any AfDs. I do wish I hadn't posted some stuff also. Some are bad, many are too long, and some are embarrassing. I miss editing. My76Strat (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

30. Oppose based on the many reasonable concerns have been raised above. Eusebeus (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
31. Oppose - I'm not in this section to pile-on, but for for me, you blew it with your answer to Q5 - some worse publications of my past behaviour were vented on my own recent RfA (but they were in the distant past). You are highly communicative, but User:GorillaWarfare makes some pertinent observations, as do many others, and I'm deeply disturbed with the message you sent to Fastily. I'm occasionally accused of wordiness myself, but I get the feeling that your responses are TLDR, an attempt to be a little too smart, and an unusually undue effort, bordering on sparring, to defend your RfA. If it is an example of the way you will be engaging in the inevitable conflicts you will be involved in as an admin, I seriously do not think you already have the right approach for mediation. I don't think this is a trait you can change in a day or even in six months hence. Nevertheless, I hope I'm wrong, because you are a mature and intelligent individual with bags of energy, your other talk page communications, if wordy, are reasonably civil and polite, and your work on the Ambassador programme is beyond reproach. I admire your enthusiasm and courage in coming forward to be considered for adminship and holding out to the bitter end. Kudpung (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your comment. I am glad it has a bit of depth because it shows some measure of thought. I will have to look at som things because Q5 is an interisting question. Really it hasn't been answered. Partially, I do wish I knew what part of Q5 bothered you most? My suggesting a simple quip can insult someone as equally bad as the longer one I had written? Because I tried hard to return the exact sentiment which I had received, and I am particularly glad at the product. Most importantly I do want to thank that you demonstrate in your answer, an interest in backing your statements with observations. You are certinely of the caliber I could call a colleague. My76Strat (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

32. Oppose – Unfortunately, I will have to put my hat with the oppose lot. Q5 worries me, and your CSD tags need to be more accurate, else we scare away newcomers who may have something constructive to contribute. —mc10 (t/c) 21:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You are correct, and I still remember the panic I endured when I received my first one. rushing about trying to figure out what to do next, not cool. It is the easy thing to fix. Some other things, not as easy. My76Strat (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I did mean to ask if you could expand your opinion of the correct answer for Q5? My76Strat (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

33. Oppose - Mostly per Q5, although some of the other concerns mentioned weigh in as well. More than anything, what bothers me is this tendency to use four syllables when one would do, and ten lines when a few well-chosen words would be clearer. My76Strat may think his walls of text display intelligence, wide vocabulary and clear reasoning. Infact, all they achieve is obfuscation of his point in a sea of totally unecessary pseudo-academic waffle. If I have to re-read an admins post two or three times to be sure I have fully understood what they are saying, then they are almost certainly going to end up being a net negative. The failure to even understand or properly acknowledge the problem that 28Bytes raises only compounds the issue.--Korruski^Talk 09:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for sharing your observations. Your criticism is constructive in the manner expressed. And you are right, I have missed entirely the meaning of the question called Q5. I would love to see the true answer expanded. My76Strat (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the 'true answer' for me would have been along the lines of "Yes I see a problem, my writing is often too verbose to make for easy and quick communication. I recognise this as a serious problem for an admin, as they have to clearly explain policy and procedures to inexperienced users and those who may sometimes not speak English as a first language. I will start working immediately to write with much greater brevity and clarity". Not sure it would have made a difference to me by that point, but it might have done, and it certainly would have helped in future RfAs. As it is, pretty much half the comments you are making now (especially those to Swatjester) are simply giving people more and more reasons to oppose you at any future RfA. I don't wish to pile-on to an RfA that is clearly over by pointedly changing my vote to 'strong oppose'. However you may safely assume that, without you making significant changes in your communication style, and in how you deal with conflicts, I am a very long way from supporting you as an admin candidate at any time in the future. May I suggest that you disengage from this RfA, stop feeling obliged to respond to every single vote, and go back to normal editing for a while?--Korruski^Talk 08:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

34. Oppose -- I'm a lawyer, and used to reading walls of complex legalese, and I can't understand a word of what you say half of the time. To be blunt, fix it so we can evaluate you as a candidate, rather than a joke. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It is great that you are a lawyer. And that you read legalese. (I assume that relates to something what is not clear) It is obvious however that you are either bad at reading, math, or integrity, to suggest difficulty in half of my communications. sure, you probably disagree with half of my words, but that is quite different. The mop was not attainable long ago in this process. The question really became, whether or not I would accept character assassination as well. Consider this the answer given, and if you cant understand or comprehend what I have just written. Find a diligent high school student to assist you. My76Strat (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for giving me plenty more reasons to oppose, as well as confirming my original reason. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You are welcome, and I thank you as well, for showing who really thinks this is a joke. As if there was a thing I could say otherwise. The cat is out of the bag, and I am fine with that. Who ever helped you read my last can help you again with this one My76Strat (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I did feel out of line with the above situation. I have apologized and hope for Wiki forgiveness. To the community I extend the same plea. If all else fails, stick with policy guidelines and I should be able to be fine. But I did want to say this.My76Strat (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

35. Oppose I originally supported this candidate, but his increasingly odd responses on this RfA led me to withdraw that support. He has now crossed from odd to outright hostility towards others in some of his comments here. For that reason I think him quite unsuitable to be an administrator and must oppose. Lovetinkle (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
36. Oppose Response to Swatjest above is completely inappropriate. --Banana (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
37. Oppose, with regrets. I'm not really bothered by the excessive prose (although a lesson in brevity would do wonders for this candidate), the fancy signature, or past mistakes that the candidate has owned up to. I see a candidate who is clearly intelligent, who has a love for Wikipedia, and wants to do the right thing. But in observing the progress of this RfA, I also see a melt-down under pressure. The RfA process does put candidates through a wringer. How they react to it speaks volumes about how they may conduct themselves as an administrator. Dealing with conflict, particularly regarding others disagreeing with administrative decisions you make, is part of the job. I'm not convinced My76Strat is compatible with the job, and I suspect he wouldn't enjoy the job if he had it. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(move to oppose, sorry) Not sure. I was touched by the comments about love for the Wiki. That was cool, man. I appreciated you pointing out three articles. It's not Sasata-Wehwalt level, but then there's a limited supply of that. The brigade article seems to draw from a lot of very old general orders (which is kinda close to primary, but let's let that pass). My bigger concern is you were probably reading from another source that cited them and should have done an "as cited by" or did you really pull all those old GOs? The chemical weapon thing has a long way to go to get to FA, needs much more content on historical usage and development of CW. Some time with the MilHist crew would help it. It's definitely MUCH more than a stub though. And kudos in that it is an important topic and you started the article. The home invasions is probably the best article in content and in showing use of normal references. Wonder if you could comment on what you did in there (what parts, what refs came from you), I tried looking through history, but I'm just not Sandy-Andy smart at that sort of inspection. In the spirit of tolerance, I won't hold your groundpounder history against you. ;-) TCO (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Article Statistics tool, their edits on that page spanned from November 10, 2010 to January 11, 2010. The page history at the time of the beginning of their contributions can be seen here. I'm sure Strat can summarize their contributions to that page, but just in case you want to look yourself there it is. Swarm ^X 22:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know how much he did versus Joseph Spadaro. Neither my initial look, nor your followup, gave me that info. Maybe better to let him explain.TCO (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We had an edit conflict and the following comment was prepared prior to your subsequent post. TCO, I will get you some statistical information, mainly because I would like to earn your support. Don't think I am ignoring your request having been twice made. I will admit I will likely hold out for a few days on that single issue. hoping maybe someone will actually deliver those stats even better than I might be able. I am probably more like you in being not the best manipulator of the diffs. Someone proficient with article blame can probably answer that type of question with ease. Should it not materialize I will gather it manually if necessary. I am curious at what level you believe I should have contributed having introduced it as a proud collaboration. I predict circa 65% of the article prose is of my hand. If that wouldn't sway you, spare me the tedium of compiling the statistical information. I hope that is a fair compromise. You will have your answer.

Thank you both for that. I appreciate the depth you were willing to go to provide such keenly appropriate Commentary. Yes many of the sources are primary, I tried to ensure I was only referencing non-controversial facts of the kind which a primary source can substantiate. No I did not pull every GO and much of it is from another source. The other source is included in the references section, and I sent a copy by email to Gadget850, who I knew at the time to be an admin with additional credentials through the milhist project. We discussed loading copies of the images and it was his counsel which sensibly concluded that an accurate citation was fine without necessitating a link to an uploaded copy. Perhaps he thought I did have each one. I do have some of them, but some are almost certainly lost. I will revisit the military article in very short order to ensure the citations are corrected. The CW article deserves being developed GA or better because it is such a well know topic. There is no excuse that I haven't done this important thing. Simply having too much fun, letting time fly, and succumbing too often to my Achilles heel, which is procrastination. Regarding the Cheshire article; I have to take the cover offered by Swarm. Not because I couldn't probably still write that article from memory, but because in keeping with the most endearing quality I stated, it was the collaboration that made it extra special to me. I accept a proportionate share as sufficient. I will say that for the one who finds it easy to ascertain who did what, well the record will show that I was instrumental, even significant. I have a high preponderance of edits which withstand revision. The majority of deleted contributions you will see in my history are related to CSD where I tagged the article. Having said that, if the article reads well, it is likely my prose, several times modified to reach a neutral presentation, sometimes at the suggestion of others. And because you did ask, there is one more aspect of that article which renders me pride. Someone turned me in for a suspected copyvio, I saw a comment to that regard, and in fact my first observation was noticing Moonriddengirls comment to the effect that yes, it was suspicious and very likely a violation. She made that assumption based on her experience (only probably one of the most experienced), and as it turns out how well the prose was written. She felt it was written so perfectly well as to almost certainly be a copyvio. I immediately posted to her page that this was absolutely not possible. Within an hour or so she was my benefactor refuting any such assertion. She did say it read a bit like a crime drama so I adjusted much of the purple prose, and the article is better for it. So please, check it as closely as you will, or take it on good faith that we collaborated in a manner befitting each persons contribution. If I was able to address your reservations to a degree of satisfaction, and after you've done the other things that are requisite your criteria, I hope it moves you to support, either way I am glad you gave me a chance to consider the important things you had observed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by My76Strat (talk • contribs) 00:03, 9 March 2011

On the GO's, it's not the issue of showing the physical document or emailing it. It's just that there is this principle of SAY WHERE YOU GOT IT. I suggest reading up on that, and following it. IOW, since you did not verify the 1953 GO yourself, the way to reference it is in the format of "Umptifratz instructions, GO 1953, USA HQ. As cited by Pounder, I. M. G. "History of the Pershing brigades". Do you get me?TCO (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the house arrest article, I don't need some super statistics diff proof thingie. What I would like is a structured tight response describing your contribution (65% prose is a good start). Maybe comment on the sections where you did most and least, and why. Also, in particular, I want some feel for which refs you did and did not do. (maybe the specific ones, or some selection of them, or some other way of knowing what refs you did...so I can check on that.) Anything else that's significant (images, or tables or the like). Maybe a para or two (not some huge research project, but it is the same skill in a sense that you use when writing articles themselves or briefing the COL or...whatever. It's just helpful, so that I don't have to do it from scratch.)TCO (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine. Just to clarify for my benefit; Are you tasking me to provide you this concise statistic bundle, simply so you can fully glean how that article came about, or are you tasking me to demonstrate that I can compile a statistical biography of that article through research, or perhaps both. Cause I'll play by the rules in this one. But if it is only the information, don't be offended or even surprised if I accept someones offer to assist or even accomplish it as a favor so I can continue focusing on the issues which only I can answer. That is the rest of this RfA. The statistics and factual diffs will tell the same story no matter who compiles them, But if you are concerned that maybe all I can do is write a few words and nothing else, Well, I will accept the tasking. I really hope to gain your support. My76Strat 04:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I wanted you to pass this because I like your background, but you are seriously starting to piss people off with the longwindedness. Message to Garcia. Capisce? If you can't organize your thoughts and convey content helpfully here, than I'm worried about your ability to do it well in interactions with users, in AFD/ANI/blabla. Remember, this is an editorial venture. We are synthesizing content for user usefulness. Tighten up, man. But hang in there, this is a seven day battle, so pace yourself, and don't let the one against many thing get to you.TCO (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I did not mean to piss anyone off, But I seems that is what I have done. Thanks for the encouragement given in closing your remarks. My76Strat 10:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral I appreciate your intentions, your thoughts toward the project as a whole, and the contributions that you've made thus far. However, the diffs provided by Salvio above in the Oppose section are concerning enough to me to land me here rather than in support of you, at this time. Good luck, however! Strikerforce (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for those sensible words. I don't know if I can elevate your prudent concerns. But I am going to try. I should have addressed the concerns raised by Salvio in the shortest term. It may have been a mistake to not have. I am soon going to tackle that obligation. I only hope that everyone holds certain basic truths. Sure I made some mistakes, but that shouldn't be first extrapolated to mean I had some kind of nefarious agenda. That is not a possible explanation as I am absent of contention related to Wikipedia. My76Strat 14:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral A well-meaning, hard-working candidate, but the CSD-tagging concerns prevent me from supporting at this time. 28bytes (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   If at this time means on this day of the RfA, well that would be completely different than if it meant, not now. Answering that question would be the most decent thing you could. Meaning a decent person which is what I recollect about you. My76Strat 05:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I wouldn't dream of disrespecting an editor of your tenure with a WP:NOTNOW link. (And if someone else does, you're welcome to point them to WP:NOTNOTNOW.) But I have serious concerns about your readiness for the mop, one of which I shared with you on your talk page. 28bytes (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Honestly, I would have understood the template, For you to talk about respecting me is a heck of a nice thing to say considering I have played the part of fool pretty well these last days. So tell me what are your CSD concerns? My76Strat 06:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The CSD concerns I have are with the poor taggings listed by Salvio, in particular the tagging of a well-referenced stub about a court case as a hoax and the immediate A3 tagging of a book contrary to the instructions at WP:NPP that strongly discourage such immediate taggings. 28bytes (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   This is a clear example for concern. I do not know how I could have concluded that as a hoax. I have made other tagging mistakes but I normally know what I was thinking. In this example I can't even imagine what I could have been thinking. This one bothers me too. My76Strat 19:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I have fully remembered what occurred regarding this article. I did make some mistakes, but I am less concerned about having no idea, being wikidumb, or temporarily insane. Looking at the article history, and the references refreshed my memory significantly. I was doing some patrol. Because of my manner, I should have had that article for review within 30 seconds. Based on the time when it was tagged, The decision was made within 5 minutes. When I checked the first reference here, I found the information but instead of "Obama", it said "Bush". That made me think it might be a hoax. When I checked the second reference here, it also said "Bush" instead of "Obama". I now think more strongly that it is a hoax. In fact I believed we had a hoax which simply replaced the names and then masked the article by including references, which unless checked closely would indicate a well sourced article. When I checked the third reference here It does not say "Obama" or "Bush", but instead "National Security Agency (NSA)". Now I am wondering if in a legal sense the terms are interchangeable. Then I checked the last reference here and this time it says "Government". So it was either a hoax or the terms were interchangeable. Then we have WP:TRUE to consider. I figure if there was a reference showing "Obama" as the term, surely the article creator would have included the version which showed it that way. And I remember thinking, because it involves the name of a current US President, it would be an important thing to get it corrected. My thoughts were that this could have legal consequences for Wikipedia, I knew that CSD would take time. I already had this article for 5 minutes, and I don't know how long that is considered to be in matters of this magnitude. 5 minutes may have been too long already. So yeah I was imagining things that increased the stress of the decision. I concluded that all of the imagined possibilities of "bad for Wikipedia" v. "a new user being upset about a tag". I knew that as soon as I submit it for CSD there would be more eyes looking at it. So I hit the CSD link and sent the report. Then I remember thinking, at face value everything looks good. So to assist whoever was going to look at it I made a minor edit and included something in the summary about the name substitution. For the rest I am only 70%-80% sure but I am pretty sure I went to the IRC and located an admin to notify in real time. And I seem to remember that this is the admin who removed the tag. I remember that I stayed with it until it was resolved. I just cant remember the IRC name but that it was different. For me to move to 100% sure about the IRC, I would need DGG to confirm this to be sure. But I am pretty sure this is correct. So I don't know, I am actually thinking under the same circumstances if I had only the same choices, I might do something like that again. For what ever it's worth maybe we need such a tag to report something to the effect that we need maximum involvement in determining something that would be bad against Wikipedia if not handled quickly. I am glad I had a chance to illustrate a pretty good example of how sometimes things are not as they appear. When I first looked at this example at this RfA, I felt kind of foolish, because I couldn't even imagine how I could do something so stupid. I knew that I knew better. But it sure would be hard to convince some one else based on that example. But that conclusion was reached based on a first impression at face value. I think any person here, if they resolved not to judge on face value, could have figured this out. All you have to do is pretend that you where the reviewer who was looking at that article in the first minute. My76Strat 23:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I had hoped someone might review this one and know that in this example I was not as incompetent as it appears. But we all know that anyway, so if it is better to show me wasted prose, There's a lesson there as well. My76Strat (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I read it. Took a while, but I read every word. Seems to boil down to the references not being examined closely/carefully enough. Not great, but hey, it happens. We all make mistakes. 28bytes (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   True, and I can accept having made a mistake in good faith. Thanks for looking at it. My76Strat (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral. On the plus you're a good editor, but you there is concern you might be too quick delete an artile or block a user. Being an Admin user requires patience and tolerance with other users. Especially with new users who are prone to make mistakes. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for highlighting a positive thing about me. And I understand the CSD tagging issues. It is a valid concern. I am definitely going to correct that cause for concern. It will not happen again. My76Strat 19:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral Leaning, I regret to say towards oppose; but not quite getting there. You have a lot of good work to show, cancelled out to a meaningful extent by significant errors. Please try and curb the verbosity, which tend to impact negatively on you whatever the content thereof; and, purely as a personal opinion which not all may agree with, I suggest that in your next RfA you try not to play such a prominent part. Discussing the oppose comments should be done only if essential, and discussing the support comments is of no value whatsoever. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The quantity of comments is made more prominent by the use of the colourful signature block. So the replies may look more significant than other RFAees. (although there are a few unsigned omments too) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Twelve comments in the support section, eighteen in the oppose, and nine in the neutral area (and a couple of unsigned here and there) is more than we usually see. But please note that I am advising, not opposing. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I appreciate the advice. And the kindness of your example. My76Strat 13:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. Neutral I see a user with dedication to the project, and one who takes his role here seriously. Unfortunately, I can't support because of communication concerns. I recommend reading some of George Orwell's essays on non-fiction writing, basically, he advises to never use two words where one will do. I'd also recommend slowing down a bit while patrolling. The vast amount of dodgy new articles coming in every day sometimes gets me a bit panicky, but remember you aren't the last line of defense. Anyway, keep your head up, and regardless of the outcome here, remember that you are a valued contributor. The Interior (Talk) 00:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you for those words. Your advice is appreciated and I will have a look at the reading you recommend. I have been shown a link to this writing, on writing. I do intend to learn and follow its advice. I have discussed with a wiki colleague a program to translate certain sister wiki FAs into easy to read articles on en. I think if I can show some work and progress in this regard, marked improvements will readily be seen at my next, I hope I will see you there as well. This is my promise, I will succeed my next RfA. My76Strat 01:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. Neutral (Moved from Support) I see a highly motivated Wikipedian, but some of the oppose concerns and the reactions to some of the comments mean I'm unable to support at this time - but I hope I can support a future run. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for being here with encouragement. My76Strat 13:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Sir, I had just seen the tag, but for a second, it appeared to render: "(Moved to Support)". I can not tell you how proud I was for up to two seconds. It occurred to me then; If I do not at least attempt to reconcile where are differences lie, that is enough dereliction itself to warrant not advancing. So please consider this plea; Can we talk about it? Is it possible a communication may at first appear offensive, only to find after full evaluation, it is actually candor? And finely, simply appealing to decency, when I hear all of these "concerns" used to support a decision to oppose, What are the implications of a process which raises questions but does not seek an answer?

   Essentially what I'd recommend is that you take good note of the Oppose reasons and make progress on them before you think of running again, as it is the Opposes that caused me to move to Neutral (Oh, and erm, perhaps don't talk quite so much ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Yeah I got you on the last part. For notes I thought the archive would serve as a reference. If I am wrong about that, please do advise? My76Strat (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   When I say "take good note", I just mean listen to what people are saying -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Ah yes, good advice. I wish I would have worked that part sooner.My76Strat (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7. Neutral - I concur with Chzz's excellent comments above. I've worked with you at AfC and seen you as a UAA regular and would love to see you be an admin in the nearish future. I'm not that concerned about specific incidents and misunderstandings, but the overall pattern of communication is problematic. Portions of your answers above are simply incomprehensible to my tiny brain, especially Q5. This is a text-based medium and clear explanations are vital, especially when working with new or misguided editors. It sounds like you have some ideas on how you'll work on this, and that's wonderful. I very much hope I can support you in a new RfA in a few month. Zachlipton (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. I see overwhelming enthusiasm and nearly endless energy for the project, but I'm not convinced that you're ready for the extra tools just yet. I echo many of the people who gave comments in this RfA, mainly keeping cool and calm under pressure (and therefore offering optimal responses to queries and such). I commend your willingness to see this through to the end; don't let the criticism bring you down or dampen your enthusiasm even as you take it on board to improve. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 01:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I am glad what you observed appears similar to "enthusiasm". That does align with my intentions. If I had to choose betwixt the mop and the other things; That is easy, It would be these other things. My76Strat (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9. Neutral I would really, really love to support you but I'm sorry, I can't. My conversations with you in IRC has been generally good. I can vouch to you being helpful in IRC. But, the concerns mentioned in the opposes concerns me. I think that you need to "slow down" a little. Don't be so hasty in your editing. This might not be the right time for you to run in RFA. Maybe in 4-6 months time. Prove to us that you are going to change on-wiki. You can count on my support then. Bejinhan talks 03:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I am glad to see you post your message here and do appreciate. My76Strat (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10. Neutral -- I understand you want more feedback, so here it is: On the positive side you have many valuable contributions to various areas of WP, particularly to the areas you want to get involved in. You have been made aware of some problems with your CSD tagging; I trust you'll learn from it. What cautioned me from supporting right away was your talk page archive; it seems you learned many fundamental things only very shortly (1-3 months) prior to this RfA. In this sense your application came too soon. What finally convinced me not to support was the communication issue mentioned by many participants: Not every question requires a 200-words response, not every RfA !vote invites you to hit the "edit" button, and eventually, you do not need to show off your rich vocabulary in everything you write here. Some of your analyses come across as kafkaesque at best, and as pompous and obfuscated at worst. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your feedback. Yours includes a measure a tact worthy of acknowledgment! Including that measure, makes your criticism appear sincere on the receiving end. I do not see this RfA discussion as better served by omission of this reply. It would go against my nature to not. And if this trait is called negative, it only opens another debate. Having said that, and acknowledging my best regard for your intent, I agree with everything you have said, The only ambiguity in your words derive from the fixed premises,(which I agree with) to the application against me. (which causes dismay). When you say not every response should be long, I agree. I've made an attempt, and there is such a mix. The inferences are that there are not. So you either mean it is never a good idea to expand prose, or I lack judgment as to when.(in which case an example would be great) I think it is intended as the latter, but am left to presume. With regard to inviting a reply. If it were a "!vote"(?), I would look foolish to have found the strong invitation. But If this is a discussion, and your placement and words called suggestions, to a discussion I am also apart, the invitation was already given. The innuendo, related to when it is time for me to "shut up", will not establish if there is more to be said. Therefore I think your edit, is an invitation. And the archive of the discussion deserves to contain the candidates position. In a discussion, I have always held silence, with concurrence. I really would be a fool of sorts to give my stamp of concurrence, to a thing I disagree, or at best not very dedicated to my side of the debate. However I am regarded for holding this opinion is exactly why it is here. But it surely will be parsed to mean things I didn't intend. Or it wont, soon enough we'll know. Thank you for your comments. I hope I haven't offended you because we have different opinions. Best regards My76Strat (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Honestly My76Strat, picture yourself speaking the above response out loud to another person. Can you understand why they might give you funny looks? Unless, you really do talk like this to others in casual conversation then I apologize, but I suspect you're only being this verbose because you feel that when you're corresponding via a computer screen and keyboard that you can and should be formal and professional in writing. But really it's no different here, you're still just conversing with another person, and making sure that you're understood should be a priority than trying to impress with flashy vocabulary and prose. But again, if this is normal for you in real life then pay no attention to me, it's just the way you are. -- œ^™ 02:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    An additional consideration, and where I may have failed, (character flaw) is in framing the question. I imagine anyone aware of this RfA knows I have buttons which can be pushed. Or many are pushing them blind. Is it that I was expected to not react to negativism and simply let it stand. So when someone says, "You seem to rush some decisions" and I reply "that is a fair observation", it should be discounted and disregarded because I did not answer, "You are an arrogant, vile kind, and too quick to react" should be answered also with "that is a fair observation", because I think not. And demonstrated my answers.My76Strat (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course one is tempted to say "thank you" to every support, and to set the record straight on every comment in the Oppose and Neutral sections. This is just generally not well-received in this particular forum, RfA. If you wish to consider one further advice for your next RfA: Don't react to "oppose" !votes unless they spread outright lies about you. --Pgallert (talk) 07:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for that clarification. It is indeed good advice and will help as I measure the increasing negativism related against me for having done so. And wonder the what ifs had I not. Many would have found offense to my follow on of your first comment. That you did not, and returned again with tact, does help many things. Because you have this insight, and the skill to impart it by respect, Could you next explain a good handling technique for dealing with the loaded question/comment? your original comment serves as a very good example to illustrate. Tell me, while considering my answer, how I could address the points impacted by the statements? And just so you know, there was the period where there were outright untruths (not lies) flying about and I am told I handled this poorly as well. My76Strat (talk) 08:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a very good question; its answer might well hold the very key to passing RfA for an otherwise suitable candidate. I have no recipe for passing RfA but I have seen a number of strategies that did not attract negative comments: If it is a neutral, support, or a singular oppose, ignore it unless you are explicitly asked to comment. If it is too damaging to your reputation to let it stand as is (apply this judgment very narrowly, we all make mistakes), give a very short explanation and invite further discussions to your talk page, or to the talk page of your RfA. If the community sees it as an issue, and a number of editors pick it up ("Oppose per ...") your RfA is in danger. An (in my opinion) elegant way to handle this is to formulate a question to yourself and an appropriate response under "Questions for the candidate". I have also seen candidates opening a paragraph under the "Discussion" header, as you have done. The important point is to chose one of these options, and not to sprinkle your defense over different locations. This way you give the community a chance to follow up without appearing to contest !votes. Hope this helps, Pgallert (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

11. small comment (not a vote of any kind!) I was surprised upon checking on RfA just now and finding you both running and swamped by opposes. I've always held you in high esteem as one of the more composed of the users whose names I come across often. That said, being someone who was taught English by non-native speakers, it took me four or five reads to parse this comment; even now, I'm not sure what it's trying to say. (I've given up on attempting to get my head around much of the rest of the discussion on this page.) I don't have much to say that hasn't been said already -- but since you've opened this up for feedback, I was simply compelled to note that I don't think a fourteen-year-old (is that 9th grade?) would find your prose here anything short of baffling. A bit more clarity in your writing would go a long way toward helping those of us who don't have a university-level English education (which I imagine is a fair amount of the community!) That said, don't let this RfA make you feel that you're not appreciated; you certainly are a valued member of the community. I'm sorry this has been the shambles it appears to be. sonia♫ 09:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your kind words. I hope I can return to the position of former esteem, and without delay resume a composed presence. Your manner of arranging prose, reflects your personality, and a nurturing intent. Lessor ones like me, have arranged words with an opposite notion, and we have seen the reward. For my part, I am indentured to their ability to heal, Because this is true, I will form tools of your advice, to repair the things shown, And upon repair, tune my methods of design to maximize my own potential. So upon an effective demonstration when some will ask how, I can say "it is because I have know Sonia. My76Strat (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[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.