Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/My76Strat

My76Strat

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (22/15/3); Scheduled to end 20:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

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)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I will 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.

Additional question from Keepscases

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)

General comments

• Links for My76Strat: My76Strat (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for My76Strat can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

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

Support

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)
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)
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)
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)

   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)

5. Support Absolutely. Baseball Watcher 21:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
7. 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)

   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)

8. 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)
9. 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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

10. Ooh, another strong contributor to WP:UAA. Yes please. - Dank (push to talk) 22:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
11. Of course. Good luck, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
12. 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)
13. Support -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
14. 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)

    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)

15. 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)

    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)

16. 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)

    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)

17. Support What they said. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
18. Support Of course! Ronk01 talk 04:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
19. Support -download ׀ sign! 04:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
20. Support. Lord Roem (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
21. Support. Seen him around a time or two from where I hang out here. Seems knowledgeable Enfcer (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
22. 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)

Oppose

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 an article 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)

   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)

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)

   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)

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

   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

   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)

   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)

   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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
8. Oppose per Salvio.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 08:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
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)

   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)

   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)

10. per Salvio's diffs and Minimac's comment, sorry. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
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)

    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: [1]. 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)

    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)

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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

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)
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)

    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)

    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)

Neutral

1. 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)

   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)

   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)

   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 (UTC)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

2. 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)

   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)

3. 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)