Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MichaelQSchmidt

MichaelQSchmidt

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (87/60/11); Scheduled to end 04:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs) – MQS is one the most careful editors I know, and should make a good administrator. He has contributed primarily to significant articles on film, very appropriately avoiding the creation of questionable mini-articles, but he has worked in other areas also. His contributions to discussions are sensible. Allowing for the difference in area, I think he'll be the sort of admin I try to be, not using the tools unless they're actually needed--not that this means i expect him to agree with me in any particular area. His own statement will account for some earlier irregularities in his record--I see no remaining traces of problems in his current work. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've known MQS since almost his first edit in Wikipedia. Many Wikipedians start off stumbling as we have no clue about the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. I helped MQS in those early, difficult stages and explained our policies to him. He took those comments and ran with it, quickly blooming into a seasoned editor happy to help others and improve articles (even from the brink of deletion) through careful research. He is ALWAYS helpful to newbies, is humble in his approach to editing while accepting criticism in stride, and makes thoughtful, well-deliberated/well-founded arguments in discussions. We need editors and especially admins who can see the potential of articles, fix problems, help those users working on them, and improve Wikipedia. I am proud to co-nominate MQS for adminship. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I first encountered MQS rather early in his "second" wiki-career. The early stages were rocky indeed but I observed a raw editor who seemed genuinely interested in helping this site. I became a sort-of unofficial mentor, watched his edits closely, and did what I like best: remorseless criticism of someone who is not me. :) My hunch paid off in spades as I watched MQS grow into a full-fledged editor well-versed in policy. He has grown from the enthusiastic newbie who would use everything including the kitchen sink as a source to a discriminating and thoughtful contributor. He has rescued an amazing number of articles from the trash-bin through diligent research and writing and is the only reason I can boast a DYK star. Michael is always calm and courteous, researches issues before he opines, states his position clearly, and is always open to feedback. His expertise with marginal articles can only be a positive as an admin, we need people who can look at a CSD nomination, discover whether the article can be useful, then make it so. Definite net-positive for this project and I am proud to co-nominate him. Best of luck MQS! Franamax (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With thanks to DGG , BQZip01, and FRANAMAX, I accept. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Candidate's statement

In question #1 below, I explained where I wished to use the tools... but did not speak toward closing questionable AFDs, as I am involved in too many as a commenting or improving editor, and far more concerned with addressing issues through actual editing. However, I see by many comments below that some editors feel I might use the tools as some sort of bludgeon to enforce a personal opinion in closing afds. I will not. I have several times stated in comments that I would not close any AFD in which I had an interest. However, I am getting the sense that those statements have been inadvertantly overlooked. As there is a big difference between partaking in an afd discussion and staying out of it and being able to honor the consensus of those involved, I wish to make it perfectly clear, here and in one statement, that I will never close an afd in which I had a part and that I have abolutely no intention of ever closing a disputed BLP afd, except against my own opinion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• And to clarify the last sentence... an editor does not need the tools to close an afd, as non-admin closures are common... and in my entire term at Wikipedia I have never yet closed an afd, and I have no interest in closing them... but IF I were, and that's a big "IF", it would be with the assurances I listed above, and in total respect of consensus. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: The tools will allow me to work more efficiently in areas where I have familiarity, while expanding to assist in other areas. I've had situations when people came to me for small admin-type help requests and I've had to say politely, "I'm sorry, I can't help you. You need to find an admin." The mop will help me say "Sure, lets see about helping you out". I will be better able to respond to requested moves and appropriate requests for userfcation of deleted articles, and will always give decent rationales for AfD closures.

I've submitted enough articles to DYK to be aware of their need for assistance, so I wish to dedicate time there lightening their workload. Since DYK queues are protected, it requires an administrator to move updates from the preparation areas into them.

I have pages on my watchlist which I monitor for POV or vandalism, and I wish to help out at administrator intervention against vandalism (AIV), beginning in tiny steps.

And while I am not going to suddenly jump into the area of dispute resolution, I will always be willing to act as a mediator between parties in seeking resoluton. I feel that an administrator has no larger role there than a non-admin, apart from when handing out sanctions... as helping maintain a peaceful environment always serves the project.

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

A: I have authored several articles over the last three years, but I've mostly spent my time expanding, improving and sourcing articles that were lacking.... improving some 200 articles so that they might better serve the project and its readers... and since coming aboard I've acquired a few DYK's and Barnstars,

I have two essays under construction that might be helpful toward making Wikipedia a bit easier for new editors: The first is A newcomer's guide.. a work-in-process that I hope will become a good starting point for beginners in their understanding the basic ins and outs of policy, guideline, and article creation. It is being written in the simplest terms possible. The second work-in-work is an essay addressing sources for horror films, where I am attempting to create and explain an acceptable list of genre-specific sources that could be seen as "expert enough" for the niche they serve and in context to what is being sourced. Neither are yet complete, but I continue work on them as time allows.

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: Yes... as a newbie User:Mqschmidt back in August 2007. With absolutely no understanding way-back-then of guideline or policy or even that they existed, I made several less-than-mediocre edits, fully deserving of deletion. When they were removed in August 2007, I left too... abandoning the account and griping to my then-publicist. Without my knowledge and without instruction from me, the publicist (now long since fired) subsequently used sockpuppets to create several articles... including one about me. A diligent editor caught the puppets and began the processes of cleaning up those articles. When I was informed by fans that an article about me was the subject of debate, I returned to Wikipedia in January 2008, as User:MichaelQSchmidt, confirming my identity through OTRS. My newcomer discourse with that editor became heated at times, but through the patience and guidence of other editors, I became cordial with this editor.

I learned in those discussions just how confusing the project can be to a newcomer. Subsequent discussions between he and myself and several patient veteran editors and admins were my true introduction to Wikipedia and my impetus for gaining a better understanding of what makes this place tick. The early dissension of 2008 taught me the wisdom to avoid conflicts with others and to always strive toward compromise and solution whenever possible. If I might get involved in the middle of someone's tiff from time to time, I'll do it as a peacemaker, and not the instigator. In discussions I strive to see other's points of view and always try to make sure that I don't respond rudely or uncivilly.

Additional optional question from Mkativerata

4. How would you deal with these two speedy deletion tags: [1] and [2]? Note: I don't really care about the answer (reasonable minds may differ); just the reasoning behind it. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

A: Not familiar with rugby, but in sample 1, A7 would not apply as it does offer an indication of importance... halfback for a successful team. I'd decline the speedy and tag it for expansion and sources. In sample 2, I'd delete as A3 (no content) and A1 (no context) both properly apply.

Additional questions from Coffee

5. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?

A. Well... since I opined at that particular AFD, it would be improper for me to have closed it. However... had I not opined in such an AFD, I would have studied the arguments and probably closed as no-consensus default-to-keep. In the given example, the subject himself was neutral about the article, the article had proper sources, questionable ones could be corrected through regular editing, the article contained nothing contentious or libelous, and precedent already exits for inclusion of articles about folks who are a major part of Wikipedia. BLPs need be held to a higher standard than other articles... but if the guideline and policy are met a decision has to be based upon those guidelines and policies.

6. What in your opinion is the worst BLP issue at the moment, and what would you do to resolve it using your admin tools?

A. The worst problem is sourcable BLPs remaining unsourced. While the tools might assist with the deletion of such if unsouracble, the "problem" calls for the actual grunt work of actually looking at, researching, and then adding sources.

7. What measures do you think Wikipedia should take to protect personally identifiable information about editors that are under the age of majority, and how will you deal with such cases as an admin?

A. Posting of any personal information is a serious concern, and much more serious if of a minor. If the minor posted the information themselves, I would advise them that Wikipedia is not Facebook, Myspace, or Twitter, and suggest that they remove the information. If the information is of a more sensitive nature... such as phone number, addresses, etc... I would delete the revisions myself, request suppression, and politely explain to the minor why I did so. While it is possible that the minor posting sensitive information might be a veteran editor or admin, and that they may be fully aware of the risks, Wikipedia is not the place for them to take that risk. If the personal information is outing by another editor, the revisions should be suppressed and the offending editor indef blocked.

8. What work have you done (if any) with BLPs?

A. As a member of WP:WikiProject Films, WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, WP:WikiProject Television, WP:WikiProject Biography, and WP:WikiProject Unreferenced articles, I expand and add sources to BLPs quite often. If sources are not available, I support their deletion.

9. Do you consider yourself to be an inclusionist? Why or why not?

A. Nope. I decry setting up polarized camps of editors by use of labels. But if I were to somehow label myself, it would be as an "Improve-inist". If an article can be improved and so improve the project, it should be improved... and I've improved many. If an article does not serve to improve the project, it should go.

Additional optional questions from Beeblebrox

10. An AFD is in expired, and you decide to close it. The article as it stands is a very brief stub with no references. During the course of the debate two potential sources are discussed, one being a fairly brief mention in a major newspaper, the other a longer article dealing primarily with the article's subject in more of a local paper. Neither source has actually been attached to the article, and no content has been added that is based on those sources, which only verify the most basic fact of what is already in the stub. Let's say that as far as participants, it is dead even between those who say to delete as non-notable and those who say that since these two sources were found it should be kept. How do you close it?

A: The fact that the major paper thought the topic notable enough to give a mention, coupled with the in-depth coverage in the lessor paper, shows that there may be more. In the example given, I would close as no-consensus default-to-keep with a caution that if article were not sourced and improved it might be returned to AFD after a suitable time period.

Additional optional questions from Shadowjams

11. You have a Twinkle box on your userpage, rollback rights, and you also want to do AIV patrol. You didn't say you wanted to review CSD patrols, but one of your nominators said you'd be good at it, although I see no page patrols, given your extensive history. Yet toolbox says you have 0 automated edits out of your 20k+ edits. I'm sorry if toolbox is wrong and my questions are redundant; if that's the case, please tell me so. I'd like to know if toolbox is incorrect on any or all of these, and if it's not on any of them, why you believe you'd be good in those areas.

A:The toobox is not incorrect. My edit count represents that I habitually do most of my work the old fashion way. I do have twinkle in case I need it, but so far I have preferred to work manually. The nature of my edits can be seen in my history and include a good deal of checking of new and dubious articles and AIV reports on problem editors. I have not so far involved myself with CSD tagging, having otherwise worked with the results of what others have tagged. But I intend to involve myself more fully in those areas to lighten the workload of others, as my own experiences with article improvements have given me insight into what can be salvaged and what cannot.

Additional question from Stifle

12. In the past you have made complaints on WT:CSD about improper speedy deletions. If you are granted the admin flag and find such improper speedy deletions thereafter, what do you propose to do about them?

A. If I find an improper speedy, I'd either decline it and share my reasoning in the summary, or if simply mis-tagged, I'd set the correct speedy tag.

Further questions from Coffee

13. What do you consider to be an inclusionist, and what do you consider to be a deletionist?

A. We're all editors with differing tempermants, different personalities, and differing ways of working to improve the project. So I would prefer not to categorize or apply labels to others, and think my other answers have covered this.

Addendum Now that my wish to not label other editors has been commented on by Coffee below, I feel better in expanding an answer. An inclusionist is an editor who adds sourced content to Wikipedia. A deletionist is an editor who removes unsourced content. And yes, there are widely ranging degress of inclusionism and deletionism... from moderate to extreme. If an editor sees content that can be sourced and gets to it and improves someone else's contribution before a deletionist removes it, or attempts to improve content through copyedit and sourcing while its is under fire at an AFD, he is labeled an "extreme inclusionist". That said, I strongly believe that labeling editors along some arbitrary and swaying division is harmful to the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

Follow-up Mike, I think you are using those two terms in an idiosyncratic way--perhaps it might help if you related it to where people try to find the balance, which is what I think Coffee means, and what I would mean also. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

@Coffee: First, I apologize for the flippancy, but as I have stated that I dislike labeling editors, as such far too often acts to seperate editors into armed camps and feel that no matter what side of the "divide" an editor is on, our ultimate goal here is to improve the encyclopedia. So please, and not I'm not trying to be obtuse, and I'm not thinking I could change your oppose, but exactly what do you wish to know? My own definition of inclusionism/deletionism, Wikipedia's varying definitions? or the outside world's definitions? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

14. Do you view the strict enforcement on BLPs as a "view point", or instead as part of the greater administrative role?

A. As one of Wikipedia's most paramount policies, it's enforcement is not "view point" and should be a major focus of any admin. As BLPs are one of the places where Wikipedia can do the most harm, attention to BLP issues is perhaps the most important duty of an admin, keeping aware and being ready to act at a moment's notice.

Additional optional questions from NativeForeigner

15. I have heard the Article Rescue Squadron referred to as the Article Canvassing Squadron. What do you think of this remark? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

A: I think the remark reflected a true frustration toward a few overly enthusiastic members of ARS, and as such reflected negatively on the good work that the ARS actually does. Being aware that this perception exists, I strive to not let the label be even remotely applicable to me. I work to improve and source articles so as to make them suitable for the project, as actions speak louder than words.

Additional optional questions from Pharaoh of the Wizards

16.Can you confirm unlike in the past when you gave your old account to your publicist that you will be using this account and your password will never be shared with anyone including your staff.

A: My password will absolutely never be shared with anyone!

Additional question from Amalthea

17. Concerning "reliability depends on the context" from WP:RS: Michael, I believe you are misunderstanding this guideline fragment, or are very much over-representing it. In my conviction, "context" can only lessen the reliability of a source. For example, how reliable a peer-reviewed medical journal entry from fifty years ago is will extremely depend on the field of research. How reliable a newspaper article from e.g. a North Korean state newspaper is will extremely depend on the circumstances. But context can never make a dubious source reliable – Verifiability is key, and it's not served by using such sources no matter the field.
http://babepedia.com or http://foxyreviews.com (both NSFW), two sources you judged "contextually reliable" very recently, can quite certainly never be considered reliable sources for anything; There is no reputation for fact-checking, we can't judge their editorial process, and above all their content is directly user generated! Using information from them would actually be a WP:BLP violation.
This turned out to be more of a statement, so can I invite you just to share your thoughts on this matter below? :)

A: (pt1) You're right the context in which the source is much more likely to have the potential to decrease its reliability than to increase it. What I meant by "context" is in the context of what we might be using the source to show. Even a self-published source like an open Wiki is acceptable if we're using it to show what it says about itself.

My thoughts toward RS are guided by the lede section of that page. An example might be made by comparing Rutland Times with the Daily Sun. Both are considered RS, but if I was to source an article on Maple Syrup and both covered the topic, it would seem more prudent to give greater credence to the Vermont Newspaper over the one from California... though both are seen as RS and both might cover the topic. A more pointed comparison can be drawn from work on film articles. Film Threat and Fangoria are accepted as decent RS for sourcing independent or genre films... but they would be unsuitable for sourcing an article on a major political figure or athlete. Conversely, political or sports journals would be fairly useless for sourcing independent films. My conclusion here is that an unspoken "sliding scale of reliability" exists... because per guideline, how reliable a source is... from it being "extremely reliable" to "very reliable" to "generally reliable" to "fairly reliable" to "rarely reliable" to "never reliable"... depends on the topic being sourced, by which RS, why, and in what context. SO at AFD's I often offer examples of various sources to other editors in the hopes of initiating discussion. I hope folks do not think me a raving lunatic for my thoughts on the matter.

A: (pt2) As for the AFD with the genre links.... well it had absolutely no chance at all of being a "keep", so I offered those links at the discussion as perhaps minor WP:V of the person's existance... to offer a bit of perspective and to hopefuly encourage that there would at least be some amount of actual discussion at that AFD, as repeated and terse "fails" and "per noms" aren't exactly a conversation. While babepedia and foxyreviews are certainly nowhere near the top end of the RS spectrum, and for most purposes should not be considered acceptable at all, I included them among the links I added to the AfD as they are evidence, if admittedly week evidence, that the subject was relatively prominent as an adult actor. Unfortunately for her "notability", its a genre where only a handful at the very pinnacle tend to attract attention from quality sources. Clearly my opinion was not inline with consensus in this case and I agree Delete was the correct close for the AfD. While unhappy that I am now the subject of focused distaste by some, I am happy that I was at least able to encourage a few others others to actually discuss the consensus they were reaching.

That said, I am quite fine with the article being deleted, as the closing of AFDs must never be based upon a closer's personal opinion one way or the other. And I would never close an AFD in which I took part, as such would be totally improper.

Additional question from OlEnglish

18. It's clear that you've been labeled by some as an "extreme inclusionist". Whether you adhere to an extreme inclusionist philosophy or not doesn't concern me, but I would like to know, what are your thoughts on Immediatism? Specifically, would you agree that if a poorly written, unwikified, article has not been improved in a long period of time, and is unlikely to be improved in the near future, yet nevertheless meets criteria for inclusion, ought to be deleted for the sake of professionalism or quality of the project as a whole?

A: If an article meets the critera for deletion, it may be deleted. If an article meets the criteria for inclusion, it may be included. If an otherwise qualified but poorly writen, unwikified, or unimproved article is not improved after a lenthy time, then it is likely it will be sent to AFD. But even if ignored and unimproved for along period, how can anyone judge that something meeing criteria will not be improved in the near future. One of the beneficial things about the BLP project is bringing these to light so they can be improved.

Even further questions from Coffee

19. Do you agree with the motion that ArbCom passed regarding BLPs? Why or why not?

A. Yes, I do. As contentious or unsourced BLPs are articles that can cause the most harm. Anything that can be done to improve them and thus improve the project has my support.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

20. Do you believe that the administrators, who were mass deleting articles, should have been commended as they were in the motion, and do you know why they were commended?

A. No, I do not think that project-wide disruption should have been commended, as that encourages more such disruption. While yes, attention was brought to a serious issue, organizing to actually fix the articles would have been far less pointy and far more truely productive. Oops... sounding like an inclusionist, aren't I. As for why I think they were commended.... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

@Coffee: With apologies, I have struck the flipancy. I feel this question is set to either get my appoval or commendation for their actions. I'm just one guy and even among admins, one lone voice does not carry far. Wouldn't there have been a far better way to bring attention to the issue? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

21. If you believe that BLPs are truly articles that need the most watching over, why did you choose not to participate in either RFC concerning them?

A. Because I felt my time was better spent actually sourcing some of the articles rolling toward the fires rather than sitting around arguing over the situation as they disappeared. Oops... another (expected) inclusionist view. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

@Coffee: Again, I apologize for the flippancy. My answer is based upon my belief that just as the admins had proactively begun deleting articles (even if seen as pointy), I could be proactive myself and try to source what articles I could as they rolled by. I visited the RFCs and realized that I could do far more good by sourcing articles, rather than being part of the debate... for the end of that debate was not in sight and there was no gurantee that any of the deleted article might be undeleted and revisited. Is it not better to fix the broken hinge rather than burn down the house? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Bongomatic

22. In an extremely recent comment at this AfD, you opined that the "subject does indeed have coverage by reliable 3rd part sources", and "thus [meets] WP:GNG", citing a Goolgle search. The search doesn't show any "significant" coverage, nor does the rest of your opinion there suggest you think that "significant" coverage is required. Can you please comment on the meaning of GNG, and also GHITS?

A. In reverse order... someone simply pointing toward a large number of google-hits is found at AFDs when editors try to express that a large number of hits shows notability. It doesn't. WP:GHITS explains that while a number of ghits might be indicative, a further search into google-news or google-books is more likely to show quality sources. I should have shared each news result one-by-one and explained what each had to offer. My pointing at the google-news search results was somewhat better than just pointing at google-hits, but only just. GNG begins by instructing that sources must be about the subject and explains that they do not have to be only about the subject... and instructs that even if less-than-substantial, the coverage must be more-than-trivial. "Significant" per GNG does not mean substantial or in depth, but rather that the sources must contain detail about the subject and must not require original research to extrapolte the content. My opinion was based upon WP:ANYBIOs allowance that multiple nominations of notable awards shows notablity, and GNG's allowance of multiple more-than-trivial even if less-than-substantial coverage as offered in the news search as being "significant" enough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

Expansion: All that hind-sight rear-view explanation aside, at the AFD I stretched GNG and should have simply stuck with showing WP:ANYBIO notability for the awards and offered the RS mandated per WP:V for citing any facts about the subject. It was not one of my best save efforts, but at least it was an effort. That said, had the article been kept the project would have benefited, and with deletion after discussion, the project still benefits. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

23. The various notability guidelines are subject to interpretation, and editors and administrators have a wide range of views on their meanings. Some of the points on which there is disagreement are: what sorts of coverage are too local to establish notability, what is "significant", what awards are "significant", what sources are reliable, etc. Administrators closing AfD discussion have the discretion to discount opinions that they believe are not consistent with policy or guideline. This means that administrators' interpretations of policies and guidelines is especially relevant to the AfD process. Many commentators below have concluded that your interpretation of the guidelines is at the far end of the spectrum. (a) Do you feel that your interpretation of notability guidelines and guidelines related to establishing notability (RS, etc.) are in the mainstream? (b) How does an administrator's interpretation of such guidelines weigh on his/her responsibilities when closing AfD discussions?

A: First, because of the furor caused by those believing I would close AFDs to my advantage, I have given the matter a great, and I do mean great deal of reflection. When at AFD's I enjoy being the voice that encourages editors to think, whether they might actualy like it or not. I like digging and finding sources that others might have missed. I like improving articles through copyedit and sourcing so that they might be "kept" to improve the project. And even if I might tickle a few sensibilities by offering an occasional poor source in order to get that thinking process going, I NEVER use poor sources in articles I rescue or articles I have written. All that said, and all the name-calling below aside... I have decided I do not need to close AFDs... as either a non-admin close (such as I could easily have been doing for the last two years) or as an admin (if I were to ever be granted the tools). And while some of the louder opposers below might make claims of "Liar" and "we don't believe you"... the evidence is that in all the time I could have been closing, I never did. Being part of creating consensus at an AFD is satisfying. Following up and closing is, as I now see it, yet another of the many boring maintenance tasks adnimistrators perform. I don't need that headache, so I will continue keeping folks on their toes when I can and comtinue improving as I am able.

That long-winded catharsis aside... When I see an administrator or non-admin editor closing an AFD, I would certainly hope, if they might be from the extreme right or extreme left, they will be able to close based upon guideline, policy, consensus, and a little common sense... and never upon opinion. But it sure isn't gonna be me. That's not why I sought the tools and the mere thought that I might ever close anything has caused far too much negativity and disruption at this RFA. So I am never closing. Nope. And to answer...

Part A) I suppose, specially after reading how others view me, that my interpretation of guideline must be considered liberal by many, as I take the proviso that heads each and every one as a very important guide to interpretation and thinking toward improving the project: "Best used with comon sense and the occasional exception". There's a reason why guidelines are not policy. Acting as if each is some unbendable iron-clad rule restricts opportunites to rethink and perhaps even reach new consensus.

So the answer to "A" is in two parts.... 1) When actually sourcing articles I do my utmost to use sources that meet current guidelines... so that part of my "philosophy" is "mainstream", and 2) When I am discussion at AFDs and inviting others to actually THINK rather that react like a bot, I might once-in-a-long-while toss in a less-than-ideal source just to get 'em thinking... so that part of my philosophy is "liberal"... but again, I would NEVER use such in an article.

And in trying to assist in determination of sources, I have been puttering around with the genre essay mentioned waaay above. And no... it is far from perfect and currently has lots of flaws (which explains why it is a workspace and not offered yet as an essay... will likely be a long while yet).

Part B) From what I see here in this RFA, there is apparently a great fear that some admins indeed use personal opinion when closing... and if that fear is true, those admins should be sent back to admin school. Admins should (it is hoped) base their closings directly upon guideline, and not ever substitute opinion... whether they are personally deletionist or inclusionist. Throughout this RFA, I have repeatedly said that I would not substitite opinion for guideline, nor close an AFD in which I had an interest... but deaf ears do not hear. So I have decided that closing AFDs is something I do not want to do. Not now, and not in the future. Sorry you admins reading this... but you're welcome to the heat and headaches. The discussion on these pages convinces me that even were I to properly close a SNOW AFD, someone would rush it to DRV and claim some imaginary bias. So nope. Not me. There are a pile of other tasks in which I could take part in order to help lighten the admin workload, if ever granted the tools. You guys keep your closes.

And as I reflected and sought perspective after the invective of this RFA, I looked over my past works, my Barnstars, my DYKs and the many Thank Yous from many dozens of editors over the last two years, and realized that I have always been happier and far more productive improving articles as I am able. So no closes for me.

There you have it. Next real question anyone? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for MichaelQSchmidt: MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for MichaelQSchmidt can be found here.
  
  
• Historical links: first account (~20 deleted contribs), CU for associated User:L.L.King, CU for current MQS account, CU followup (Note all "year" stamps are 2008)
• Block: talk page links (Apparent "symmetry" block, rescinded on request)
• Committed identity: OTRS# 2008062110007562
  • Uh, you sure on this one? I just read the conversation, and I'm not positive that really counts, considering what your last email in that thread was. Not that I'm doubting you are who you say you are; I'm just a bit curious if you are misremembering something about this ticket. NW (Talk) 21:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussing with NW off-line. Franamax (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Issue dealt with offline. It's not really very interesting. The OTRS ticket had some gaffes, but Michael is correcting it via more official processes than OTRS. NW (Talk) 23:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Extended edit analysis: here

Franamax (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: The closing 'crat should take note of this, as well. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/MichaelQSchmidt before commenting.

Discussion

• Could you please elaborate more when you answer my questions? I'm getting the sense some of your answers aren't your actual opinions, but are instead a way to pander to pass the RFA. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You already asked five questions and opposed with a longer than normal statement. Leave him alone. Tan | 39 05:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an RFA Tan, a discussion on whether or not the candidate should be an admin. I have every right to ask whatever I want to, whether you like it or not. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Come on, Tan. Michael's not giving them enough rope to hang him, and they're getting tired of making up false allegations, twisting statements and actions, and just making up "oppose" statements out of thin air. Give them a break! Dekkappai (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No, what Michael is doing, is pandering to his audience. Pretty much everyone in the oppose section knows that those answers are not his real opinions, but are instead a way to look like they know policy. There is a major difference between someone who actually is telling their opinions, and someone who is attempting to falsely portray themselves as someone who doesn't have an opinion regarding the issue at hand. Your comment here only goes to show why most people on the inclusionist side of the aisle will never become admins, as it shows that you have no apparent idea that being an admin means to maintain the encyclopedia, or that an RFA is a serious forum where we make the decision on whether or not someone will be able to use those tools to maintain this site or whether they'll push a particular POV, as is the case with Michael. I'm always amazed by that idea that this site is somehow a YouTube for text instead of a verifiable encyclopedia, and by extension the thought that we don't need to strictly enforce our policies, in an effort to ensure that we avoid biting the newcomers. My main beef with inclusionism, isn't the fact that they want to keep articles, but is instead the lack of a spine to ensure that this is kept an encyclopedia. Quality vs. quantity Dekkappai, that's what this argument is really about, and unless you understand the history behind the discussion, I don't expect you to know why we care if someone is attempting to hide under a vast cloak of uncertainty by falsely describing themselves at RFA. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What specifically do you believe he will do that is incorrect/inappropriate? Do you think he will close discussions under an "inclusionist" philosophy and keep something that policy says shouldn't be there? What if the consensus is to keep it? What if the consensus is to delete? MQS has already answered this one as he will voice his own opinion on the matter and let someone else determine whether or not it should be kept, but I would like to know if you simply don't believe him or am I missing something here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not specifically or necessarily what he will do that worries me, it's what he can do. I do not honestly believe that he or anyone can be held to what they say at RFA, therefore if he claims here to stay away from BLP AFDs, it might be truly what he intends to do, or if I was to judge by the way he has attempted to falsely portray his views in nearly every answer, I would say it is not what he intends to do. Someone with such a firm POV cannot close AFDs with a neutral interest of maintaining the encyclopedia at heart, someone like Micheal cannot be trusted to close any AFD. I don't doubt that he would be able to close some of the AFDs that have a full consensus to keep, but anything with a delete consensus or close to a delete consensus, I do not trust Micheal to close properly, ever. So what it boils down to, is not the fact that I don't believe him, or even the fact that he's made it impossible to trust him, but instead the problem is, he can't be an administrator because he can't change his ideals on inclusionism, which when looked at closely are very, very dangerous ideals to have on one of the top 5 most viewed sites on the internet. I reference you to User:Coffee/Why we're here. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I could already be doing non-admin closures right and left, and yet do not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Coffee, I hold both yourself and Michael in the very highest of esteem but I think your above comment is deeply unfair. Although I'm only morally supporting, I think it is insulting to Michael to say he couldn't close AfDs in line with policy and consensus, even if he disagrees with them. I find it disheartening that people are opposing based on his wiki-philosophy (which differs from yours which, in turn, differs from my own). After all, surely a "rabid deletionist" would be as damaging, if not more so, to the encyclopaedia? Everybody is entitled to their views and to express them, even where the consensus is against them and Michael's lack of edits to DRV show that he is capable fo accepting a result, even if he disagrees with it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Coffee, re your comment "Pretty much everyone in the oppose section knows that those answers are not his real opinions, but are instead a way to look like they know policy" is an interesting comment on several levels, can you supply diffs to illustrate that assertion about the candidate? ϢereSpielChequers 23:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Re this thread: User_talk:Rlevse#Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2FMichaelQSchmidt, I've been asked some questions concerning this candidate. The only contact of note I can recall regarding the candidate can be found at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/L.L.King_(2nd) and User_talk:Rlevse/Archive_11#MQS. In short, these are about socking concerns. MQS was implicated in the L.L.King sock case and back in 2008 I was convinced they were the same. I could have blocked MQS as a block evading sock or permitted a WP:CleanStart. MQS said he was was attempting a cleanstart and I gave him the benefit of the doubt here. AFAIK, he has not been accused of socking since then. MQS has asked for a CU, but those are not for fishing nor for proving innocence. If someone has recent sock concerns about MQS, bring forth the evidence or cease such accusations. the sock issue is separate from the other issues in this RFA. What the sock issue re MQS boils down to is, if someone socks and then ceases/reforms, do we hold that against them forever? That decision is up to the community. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Strongest support per nom's Dlohcierekim 04:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
2. A very easy support - Good candidate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

   For real! Dlohcierekim 04:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

3. Strong Support Level-headed, helpful, enthusiastic about the project, a skillful editor and tireless contributor... Could go on... an excellent choice for Admin. Dekkappai (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

   Just like to point out, as others have, that the candidate's dignified and calm demeanor in the face of an outrageously biased smear campaign shows all the more that he deserves the tools and would use them impartially and wisely. Dekkappai (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

4. Of Course. Michael's work in film related articles is exemplary, and he is always ready to help out in this space. I see him so often at AfD rescuing articles and swaying judgment that WP:MQS should be the film equivalent of WP:Hey. —SpacemanSpiff 04:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
5. Support - Seriously, he's not one already? I appreciate the frank explanation of the early Wikipedia history, and it's hard to argue with a triple-nomination anyhow.--~TPW 04:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

   Support. Why not? -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Moved to Oppose. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

6. Support. I'm sure there are a number of AfDs where the candidate and I have taken opposing views. But the candidate's views are always well-explained, and instead of reflexively !voting keep, he works to find sources and improve articles. That's a very good quality, and being nominated by DGG gives me confidence that he is the kind of thoughtful inclusionist that would make an excellent admin. Absolutely no concerns. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
7. Support Sure, why the heck not. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
8. Support Seems to have clue. GlassCobra 05:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
9. Support - --Connormah (talk | contribs) 05:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
10. Support as co-nom. Franamax (talk) 05:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
11. Support as co-nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

    Support. Prolific content creator. Works to improve the encyclopedia. ^Bongo_matic 06:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Taking a breather to review some of the information unearthed here. ^Bongo_matic 00:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    Support looks good Polargeo (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

12. Support - A credit to the pedia. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
13. Support - I think MQS has exactly the right temperment and outlook to be an excellent admin, and I am very pleased to support his candidacy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
14. Support. Salih (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

    Support, without doubt. Trusted editor who will use the extra bits well and wisely. Trusted nominators. Trusted bunch lining up above me in support. What's not to like? And I loved the answer to Q9. Pedro :  Chat  08:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

15. Support I've seen him in some rather gnarly places, and seen him conduct himself reasonably in any number of potentially heated discussions. Has a clue and knows policy. Jclemens (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

    Support Can't find any reasons not to. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)I'm sorry, but in light of things down-below, I'm no longer comfortable here any more. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    Support: I wish they were all this easy Perhaps not so easy, after some of the concerns raised below. However, I think some of the oppose reasons suggested are irrelevant, and potentially-relevant ones regarding CSD/AfD judgment don't really concern me too much, because I'm convinced the candidate will stick by consensus and will not unduly favour his own opinions. So I'm sticking with my support. -- Boing! said Zebedee 22:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Have to switch to neutral in the light of some recent Oppose discussion, sorry. -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

    Support, an excellent candidate. --Taelus (talk) 09:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)_{Cannot support in light of concerns, but will not oppose. Candidate has many good qualities, but unfortunately overshadowed by a few issues that make me uncomfortable. --Taelus (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)}

    Sure. Tim Song (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Can't support, but would not oppose. Tim Song (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

16. Support, conscientious editor, I have no doubt that he'll make a good admin.   pablo_hablo. 10:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
17. Support has made good arguments to AFD and has practiced a variety of functionality including moving and uploading. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

    Support - I'm surprised he's not already an admin! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

    Striking support, for reasons explained below. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

18. Support. Good all-round record. Solid contributions on AFD discussions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

    Support – overall excellent candidate. ^Pepper∙_piggle 12:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC) moving to neutral ^Pepper∙_piggle 13:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

19. Support absolutely, it's about time.--kelapstick (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
20. Strong Support great all round contributor to content, discussion and process work. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
21. Support Excellent contributor and has a good head, what's not to like? Rje (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
22. Support. All the right qualities. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
23. Support. A fine contributor with good instincts and clue. But please don't spend so much time mopping that your content work suffers.... - Pointillist (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
24. Support. Extremely valuable, productive and trustworthy member of the project. I see absolutely no possibility of tool abuse and I think the extra buttons will be put to good use. Good luck, Mike! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
25. Support, recommending closing per WP:RIGHTNOW. Tan | 39 14:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

     Done on the WP:RIGHTNOW front :) Pedro :  Chat  20:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

26. Support. - Josette (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
27. Support.- I never comment in these and MQS and I frequently disagree at AfD, but he's earned my respect. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
28. Support, excellent candidate. Nsk92 (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
29. Support Good guy, and I've found him to be very helpful and reasonable! Hobit (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
30. Well-deserved moral support, but with great regret, moral only. Strongest possible support and early close! MQS is one of the finest editors I have ever had the pleasure of interacting with on WP. His article and AfD work is frankly amazing and he never neglects to provide a well thought out rationale grounded in policy and guidelines. The number of articles he has saved from deletion is astounding and the time he puts in to looking for sources for articles, particularly those at AfD never ceases to amaze me. If he opines in a discussion, it gives me cause to sit up and take notice and even question my own opinion and it's always reassuring when he comments in an AfD I nominated. MQS is a great editor and will make an even better administrator. If ever there were a editor for whom WP:RIGHTNOW should be bluelinked, it is this one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry, in light of your interpretations of RS, I can't, in good conscience, support you closing AfDs. You're a great editor and I'm sorry, but I can't. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
31. Well, finally! See, I knew this was coming many months ago, because I thought Schmidt was great even then. Now, let's face it, RfA is only going to confirm what we already know. Schmidt has become a de facto admin, and those are great people to have - and they tend to get better by giving them actual adminship. Master&Expert (Talk) 15:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

    The opposes have me concerned, though I still feel that his very strong inclusionism can be accomodated if he promises not to allow his prejudices to cloud his judgment. He has done so, and I will not oppose. Master&Expert (Talk) 17:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    Support I've seen MQS about, and never seen any problems. He should be an admin already! (puts on best Yul Brynner voice): "So let it be written. So let it be done." -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Moving to oppose

    Support – I was considering nominating myself, but I knew someone else was considering. I don't see any problems that stand out AFAIC. –MuZemike 15:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

    Moving to "oppose". –MuZemike 01:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

32. Support. My recent experience with Mr. Schmidt (during which we actually disagreed, but I respect his efforts and point of view) shows me that he is willing to go a long way to rescue articles in situations where no one else is willing to bother, including the article's creator. I think this is the kind of person we need to help new editors find their footing; I expect he will use the tools well. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
33. Support Happy to support, consistently works to improve and source articles, I'm sure he will use the tools to the betterment of the encyclopedia. J04n(talk page) 16:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
34. Support An extremely careful editor, no reason to believe that Michael Q. Schmidt won't be the same as an admin. TNXMan 17:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
35. Support - I think Michael's inclusionist views are rather extreme, and have had serious differences with him. But I trust that he'll put those views aside when using admin powers. He's rational and experienced, and communicates civilly, so I can't help but support him. -- Atama頭 17:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
36. Support An excellent choice for this role. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
37. Support - Michael's inclusionist views are somewhat extreme, but his article improvement work has been exemplary. PhilKnight (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
38. Support BOZ (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
39. Support Absolutely. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
40. Support - I have encountered MQS in numerous AFD discussions. We are often in disagreement -- usually concerning the reliability of his sources and interpretations of notability. Yes, his efforts toward inclusion tend to be extreme. However, I have always found him willing to listen, to discuss and to seek solutions. Michael's mature approach, cordial demeanor and collaborative spirit is what I look for in an admin. He will be fine. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
41. Support Seems to be a mature, sensible and good-natured fellow. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
42. Support. Strong content contributor and demonstrates ample cluefulness. I particularly like his draft essay for newcomers, which shows both knowledge and a desire to help less experienced editors. --RL0919 (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
43. Support Ray^Talk 18:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
44. Support Whatever Michael's "wiki-philosophy" may be, he knows his way around, is consistently civil, and has demonstrated that he will respect consensus even if he happens to disagree with it. I'm happy to support. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
45. Sometimes gets in the way of my deletionist rampage at AfD. ;-) Other than that, a knowledgeable and experienced Wikipedian who is unlikely to misuse the bit. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

    You, a deletionist? Maybe in your wildest dreams. Polargeo (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

46. Support Great AfD work and is always polite and helpful--Sodabottle (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
47. Support - Definetly a trustworthy candidate. He wouldn't misuse the admin tools. The experience level is very high. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 21:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
48. Support His inclusionism is irrelevant to the question whether he can be trusted with the mop. Whether you agree with his views or disagree with them, it's quite clear that Michael is a clueful, patient and civil user with great editing skills who, despite often taking sides in discussions, has always proved to be neutral and impartial if needed and who can thus be trusted not to misuse the tools. Regards SoWhy 22:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
49. Per noms, a strong candidate. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
50. Support I've been looking through MichealQSchmidt's contributions, and he seems to be experienced enough to have administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia. He has excellent editing skills and he is trustworthy. Written by GeneralCheese 22:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
51. Support He has often times found numerous of sources for articles others said were unsourceable. He doesn't just glance at something, make a quick judgment, and move on without giving it a moment's thought. Instead he is diligent in his work, and makes certain things are done properly and thoroughly. He is always polite even when faced with the most rude and irritating people. Dream Focus 23:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

    Support After reviewing this users contributions I can find no reason to not give this user the mop. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Moved to Neutral -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    Strong Support - I couldn't think of a more qualified candidate. Mike is always calm, takes an smart approach to each and every thing he does, and has plenty of clue to spare. It's a wonder that he hadn't ran before; if I remember correctly, he's been asked to run before. ceranthor 00:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

    In light of the issues brought up below, I'm going to abstain. I think this candidate is still a strong candidate who is prepared to be an admin but there are several major concerns at this point, particularly their views on policy. ceranthor 15:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    Support - I think the AfD's linked below in the Oppose section are troubling, but your responses to the concerns presented are encouraging -- and the AfD issue is the only potential issue I can find. That said, even if I may disagree with what you sometimes think constitutes a reliable source, I absolutely appreciate the effort made in attempting to find sources for articles up for deletion. A lot of people don't do that, and finding sources that may be unreliable is better than making no effort to find sources at all. It actually adds something new to the conversation, and you clearly respect consensus. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

    Support One of the few inclusionist editors that I could ever support, because he's sensible, not rabid in his views, and knows when he's wrong. No problems here. Black Kite 01:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)moved to Oppose

52. Support. I had hoped to be the first one here--that there's a gazillion of you before me is a sign of MQS's popularity. He is indeed an inclusionist with clue (he's not the only one, of course), he is a conscientious editor, and I have always found him very helpful. He is courteous too, and I wish we lived on the same side of the continent, 'cause I'd love to go out on the town with him (one of my personal requirements for an administrator). MQS is an asset to the community, and I trust him with the mop. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
53. Support — no concerns here! Airplaneman ^talk 01:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
54. Strong Support I see only good things in candidate's answers and history. LK (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
55. My 2 cents I'll support per nom, editing history and everyone else. No concerns here.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
56. I-wish-I-could-devote-more-time-to-giving-this-editor-barnstars support - I think that about sums it up. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
57. Support — No concerns here, will make a good admin. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at 02:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
58. Support. I suspect that we're destined to disagree more than we agree. Doesn't matter, he deserves the mop. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
59. Support. An obvious benefit to the ranks, I've been impressed with their work many times. -- Banjeboi 04:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
60. Support. MQS is contentious, fair, and understands consensus, even when he disagrees with it. There is no reason to assume that he will abuse the tools. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

    Strong Support: - A qualified candidate who is calm, takes the smart approach to issues, is conscientious and helpful. Changed to oppose because of sock puppet offences- Ret.Prof (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

61. Support - Looks like an all round good editor who would make good use of the tools. ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 09:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
62. Support seems a good candidate. I've read the oppose section and may review this !vote if diffs are furnished to support the "abuse the tools and use them to further his personal cause by harassing" statement, but will disregard that as long as it is unsupported by diffs. The candidate may not be at the same place as me on the deletionism/inclusionism scale, but I don't see that as relevant to an RFA unless there are reasons to fear that the candidate might misuse the tools, and I don't think that this candidate is likely to go off on a deletion or restoration spree and delete or restore a pile of articles out of process. Rather I think this candidate is ready for the tools and would use them appropriately. ϢereSpielChequers 09:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
63. Support I personally think strong opinions are good; even aside from that, though, he is an excellent candidate. —Soap— 12:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
64. Support per above and continued willingness to improve the encyclopedia. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

    Support No problems. There appear to be problems. Moving to Neutral. Warrah (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

65. Support  fetchcomms☛ 16:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

    Support Very good editor, seems nice, and like AfD work. Full steam ahead. Buggie111 (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Cut the steam. Moving to neutral.

66. Support With over 18,000 contributions to Wikipedia and 210 articles saved from deletion, I'm supporting. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
67. Support I have mainly seen the editor at AFDs related to Indian films, where his opinion has always been well-thought out and, more importantly, backed up by sources. Best of all, MQS does not simply list the sources at the AFD (as I am sometimes guilty of doing), but makes the effort to add them to the article and improve wikipedia in the process. While he and I may on occasion differ on some borderline keep cases, I find his argument at AFDs to be fair and not simply ideological. I trust him to use the admin tools with the same diligence and sense of responsibility. Abecedare (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
68. Support Overall he's been a great editor. Not perfect, but I trust him not to abuse the tools. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
69. Support A review permits be to conclude with sufficient confidence that the net effect on the project of MQS's being sysop(p)ed should be positive, a conclusion I leave my semi-retirement to note. Joe (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
70. Support Yes please. DollyD (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
71. per Tan. m:Katerenka (d) 05:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
72. Support The opposes don't have a lot of meaningful content. Editor is suited by experience and integrity. --StaniStani  12:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
73. Support. Excellent editor. Everyking (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
74. Support A civil editor that respects consensus even when he doesn't agree and in such cases explains and expands his position if required. All that seems a positive way to interact with other. I therefore support. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
75. Support per nom - I don't always agree with DCG but I have a lot of respect for him. NBeale (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
76. Support makes reasonable arguments. Icewedge (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
77. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
78. Support while the editors view on inclusionism may not be in accord with consensus I see no indication that he would actually abuse the tools in support of that view.. Ajbpearce (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
79. Strong Support: I have taken the time to investigate this candidate. I have no doubt that he will do a careful, modest, and reasonable job. I think he is a good faith editor. Everyone's been fooled once or twice, including him--and me but, he has held up very well under pressure. All the insults are coming from the other side! I am quite sure that MQS will respect community consensus on his admin actions. See my talk page for further discussion. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC) PS Thanks to those who helped me sort out this situation.
80. Support - Being an inclusionist is forgivable. I've worked with him at AfD and he's been reasonable. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
81. Support because Michael is a competent and reasonable editor. He does not deserve the treatment he has received in this RfA, which has devolved into a deletionism vs. inclusionism debate. (I have no taste for these labels nor the so-called anti-label label.) I opposed at first because I disagreed with how he reads the reliable sources guidelines, but at least he tries to provide evidence for his arguments in AFDs. His comments in this RfA have reassured me that he is only requesting the mop to help maintain the encyclopedia. Knowing him, while I have disagreed with him, I cannot fathom him using the mop as a hammer. There is no assumption of good faith with many of the oppose !votes, and I am a little guilty of that here as well. Constructive criticism should be provided for editors undergoing RfA, but not in the tone I've seen here. The sockpuppetry case is very much in the past and it is being dredged up without merit. And like nearly all but the most benevolent editors, we have our moments where we are hot under the collar. Michael's own moments are being amplified as if they define his whole attitude. I changed my !vote because I will not be party to this vitriol. Wikipedia is more than fighting to keep or delete articles in that gray zone. Thus, I encourage Michael to be involved in other parts of Wikipedia, such as heavy article-building and WikiProject collaboration, lest he suffers this scarlet letter. We should all be multifaceted contributors. Erik (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

    WOW! Well-said Erik! — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

82. Support - Michael has a colorful history here, but he's always been well-meaning and good-natured, and he appears to have largely settled down as a clueful and responsible Wikipedian. (Furthermore, his inside knowledge of the entertainment industry makes him a useful resource for other contributors.) I expect that if given the extra tools, he will make some mistakes. However, everybody makes mistakes, and his history indicates that he will know how to apologize, clean up his messes, and move forward. --Orlady (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
83. Support I've supported deletionists before despite disagreeing with them, I can support an inclusionist by the same token. I'm disturbed by the oppose votes which seem to focus on taking what is essentially a wikipolitical issue and applying it to a realm that it has little relevance. Can the user be trusted? Yes. Does he understand policy? Yes. So let's give him the tools. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
84. Support Answer to #23 has addressed my major concern in regards to his administration of the tools. (move from oppose) Calmer Waters 09:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
85. Support of a moral nature if nothing else. I have never to the best of my recollection encountered this candidate before this RfA. Having read a few of the discussions this candidate was involved in / the subject of i can not in good conscience abstain any longer. A colourful history, yes. A misguided former publicist of his brought on so much of that colourful history. The google results for Leon L King and Michael Q. Schmidt would be an obvious to myself proof that they really are two unique individuals who once had a business relationship that Mr King brought into WP in his profession as a publicist. A colourful character, sure. A competent editor, ok. Having not already withdrawn after all the mess that has been brought up here in the last few days i see it as a sincere desire to help. I'm offering a little good faith and not just because he was in one of my favourite movies. delirious agus cailleadh ☯ 13:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
86. Support - Could use the tools competently. Although a bit too inclusionist for my taste, perhaps, I'll WP:AGF that the candidate will put consensus ahead of his viewpoint if/when they conflict. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
87. Support--Cube lurker (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose His inclusionist views are too extreme, judging by AfDs such as this. In my opinion, anyone who thinks coverage such as this and this [Warning: NSFW! Or in my case, NSF-editing-in-view-of-girlfriend's-housemate... Olaf Davis (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)] are enough to establish notability shouldn't be closing AfDs. Epbr123 (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

   While we may have disagreed at some AFD discussions, I would never close an AFD in which I had opined and would continue to have greatest respect for whatever consensus is reached in any such discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

   While I agree he's too inclusionist for my tastes, he'll make a damn fine admin. Dlohcierekim 16:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

   Oh my God. Got a look at those links. That is problematical. I actually thought someone had inserted a porn link as vandalism and tried to revert. While inspiring, those were poor choices for an AFD. Dlohcierekim 17:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

   Yeah, small-sized trout-slap on the questionable judgment. Still, I'm comfortable supporting given the breadth and quality of his work albeit in far more inclusionist vein than I personally would espouse. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose for now, while I am researching candidate's recent history. I don't know at what time I first suspected that he might run for adminship one day, but I watchlisted this page to be sure that I don't miss it. Over the last year or so I have only met him at AfDs, where I think he always had an extremist inclusionist POV. I first met him at WP:Requests for adminship/BQZip01 3, where he made an extremely bad impression on me. Seeing so many supports above I will try to analyse where exactly my bad impression came from. Perhaps it was just is bad choice of friends? Being a good friend of BQZip01 is almost a reason for an oppose vote, but not quite. Together with the wiki-extremism I think a provisional oppose vote until I have finished my research is more than justified. Hans Adler 17:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose I cannot in good conscience support this candidate because of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kristen_Eriksen&diff=prev&oldid=264973142 because 1) candidate was way too quick to offer pictures of himself, including nudes, to a supposed nubile female editor; and 2) "The Nordic Goddess Kristen" was the sockiest sockpuppet ever, and falling for that is indicative of poor judgment. Keepscases (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

   With the greatest respect to you, that was over a year ago and it did seem good humoured to me. Maybe I'm less easily alarmed than most, but it doesn't suggest he would make a bad administrator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

   Please read the whole page, not just the highlighted diff. Keep in mind this is a fifty-something man, and an eighteen-year-old-Swedish-nudist-female or whatever the hell that alt was supposed to be. Nasty. Keepscases (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   I have just read the whole thread and it leaves me with the impression that Keepscases lacks A) A sense of humour, B) Any romanticism, C) Perspective and D) Judgment. Polargeo (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   That's nice. Keepscases (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   What does this have to do with becoming a suitable admin? Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   It seems to be nothing more than a "he's creepy" oppose, which I find rather judgemental and sickening. —what a crazy random happenstance 03:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

   Keepscases has a history of opposing based on atheist userboxes etc, see for instance AN/I [3], other threads can be dug up there as well. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

   Oh, yes, now I remember. "Live and let live, as long as you live how (and say what) I want you to." Seems to pass as a valid philosophy these days. Most unfortunate. Someone ought to run a word replace on some of his comments ("atheist" > "Christian" or "Muslim") and put the intolerant filth spewing out of his holy orifices into perspective for him. But we've digressed, this is not an appropriate forum for discussing this. I would merely suggest that this oppose be taken with a grain of salt by the closing admin when doing the sums. —what a crazy random happenstance 13:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

   I think you are a bit confused. Keepscases (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

   Entirely possible, of course, though in this case I highly doubt it. Your vote is solely based on your pre-concieved judgement of this user's lifestyle. You have a history of such votes. Your vote is petty and personal. Let it be noted that I also opposed, but I did so with a valid reason. Your vote makes a mockery of RfA process. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

   You are incorrect. I am opposing based solely on what I have seen on Wikipedia (as I explained), just as I have done for atheist candidates (among others) in the past. For someone who is apparently attacking me for supposedly being "intolerant" and "judgemental", you sure seem to be getting worked up about my vote. Keepscases (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

4. Strong oppose: You're a good editor, but I don't trust that you know reliable source guidelines well enough to be closing AfDs (I assume you would be doing so, as you have been quite active in the area). Oppose #1 gives a fine example. In addition, I found your arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Quinn (pornographic actor), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariel Kiley, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel D'Amours (all within the past month), among others, quite weak – I had closed those AfDs, I probably would have discounted or weighted your argument very less. Please do feel free to respond. NW (Talk) 20:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

   I dislike porn. And as Wikipedia is a site visited by minors, I think the project might be just fine without such articles at all. That said, they're here... and if they can be made to follow existing guidelines, then they are allowed. So, I thought to at least offer opinions that added balance to the discussions. I abide by whatever consensus is reached at those discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

   I have to confess, I wrestled with the "inclusionist" part before I gave my support !vote. We frequently disagree on what significant coverage consists of or what a signigicant role is (in one of the aforementioned AfD in fact) and my concern was how MQS would look at such arguments as a closer. However, I guessed that he'd be more likely to stay "in the fight" trying to improve or save articles, thus precluding himself from being the closer. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Niteshift36 (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

   That pretty much sums it up. If I opine at a discussion or have strong personal feelings about the subject matter, I will naturally let someone else close, and fully respect the consensus. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

   I am researching candidate's recent history because of the allegations that "candidate was way too quick to offer pictures of himself, including nudes", the "porn issue", that he is an "extreme inclusionist" etc. I particularly found this [Warning: NSFW!] upsetting. Such a pervert should never be an admin. However, as I reviewed his edit record I found the allegations to be very unfair. He is not the pervert that has been suggested. He is a respectable actor and model. He dislikes porn. Indeed their is nothing that would upset a conservative Christian such as myself. In any event Wikipedia is not a conservative Christian site, thus even if he was a porn star, that should not be held against him. Finally he has been accussed of being an extreme "inclusionist". In fact he is a lot less extreme than many editors including myself. If you look at his edits you see he is about about improving articles ... about finding the good that can be preserved. He is a constructive editor in the truest sense of the word, yet fully respects consensus. I feel strongly that before being swayed by the oppose arguments (which I believe are unfair), that one takes the time to verify. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   and fwiw, Kiley is not a porn actress. The real question there was whether a role in only 2 episodes of the Sopranos and a role of unknown significance in one PBS series without an article was enough for notability. Interesting question, and MQS was not the only keep !voter. The article for Quinn closed as no-consensus, so his view can not be considered unreasonable no matter what one thinks the result should have been; the article for Ash had to be relisted twice until a consensus emerged, and again MQS was not the only keep !voter. Myself, I didn't !vote in any of them, and don't feel qualified to judge sources in this area. More generally, I too will sometimes try to make whatever case can be made in order to see if anyone wants to follow it, but I never hold off commenting in order to close instead the way I would want. Someone deliberately doing that is what would be wrong. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   DGG, I have to respectfully disagree. However, it was not your comments that I found unfair. By the way, when I said I was a conservative Christian, I meant like The Rev Martin Luther King Jr. as opposed to George Bush. Happy editing! - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   Clarification "I too will sometimes try to make whatever case can be made in order to see if anyone wants to follow it" is what I disagreed with. (Dangling Part.? per my talk page) I do agree that Schmidt is a great candidate! - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   I was the nominator on the Kiley article. As DGG said, that was simply a matter of differing views on what "significant role" meant. We had a civil difference of opinion, each made our points and let consensus happen. I'd add that MQS dropped by my talk page while the AfD was still going on and left a comment about how he appreciates someone making him stay on his toes. [4]. That's the type of conduct that made me come here (since I never vote in these things) and support the RfA of someone with whom I'm frequently on the other side of the issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

5. Strongest possible oppose extremist inclusionist from the controversial ARS who still continues to demonstrate a lack of understanding of RS in his use of unreliable sources. Firmly believe this person who abuse the tools and use them to further his personal cause by harassing and making inappropriate judgements in AfD and against anyone he considers a "deletionist". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   Again an unfair comment. Please give some examples of his "harassing and making inappropriate judgements" - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   Have you assigned yourself as his personal defender that you are attacking anyone who dares oppose this RfA? I said he WOULD. He doesn't have the tools yet, so obviously he hasn't yet. Anyone looking at over half the AfDs he participates in can see his weak arguments for keeping clearly unnotable topics, and his constant defense of some of the most extreme of ARS members shows extremely poor judgement. If he already defends them without the tools, what more will he do with them? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   MQS is not an "extreme inclusionist" any more than the Democratic Party in the US is advocating a Socialist agenda. That comment paints everyone to the inclusive side of Collectonian (that is, most of us here) with the same brush; Collectonian has leveled the same kind of comment at me over an article which was in the DYK column a week later.

   I first got to know MQS in an AfD debate, where I was the hardcore deletionist, I guess, and after working with him for quite some time have found him to be on the inclusionist side, of course, but always within reason (in my experience with him anyway--and no nudity was ever involved). There are plenty of real extreme inclusionists here, and some of them really not so reasonable, but MQS is not one of them. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   A very apt comparison, Drmies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   Please don't dirty the discussion with politics. Is he the worse of them? No, there are far worse. But he also continually argues for the inclusion of unnotable topics based on the thinnest of claims, unreliable sources, and throwing out "cites" that are purely directory listing confirming X exists. I do not find his views reasonable, and *gasp* I'm entitled to that opinion. Further, I have found interactions with him to be laced with a rather annoying drool sarcasm and snarkyiness that is not the sort of attitude that would be appropriate for an admin, who should be a model of civility, calmness, and patience. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   No I am not his his personal defender and I was not attacking you. I would simply like you to back up your harsh statements with some evidence. Also we should be able to disagree, without being disagreeable - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   Last time I checked, Michael is an adult. If he wishes to respond to opposes, he's free to. I see no reason you or others should feel the need to pounce on each oppose and ask anything. I've already clarified my statements all I intend to. I do not believe he is suitable for adminship. I do believe he would abuse the tools if given the chance. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   The evidence in support of your harsh statements has been weighed, measured and found wanting. You have played an important role in my decision to support this candidate. Thanks for the help. - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   Can we agree that views differ here? We have an oppose !vote, discussion, then a reaffirmed !oppose. That's fine, everyone gets their viewpoint, and no-one is forced to change their opinion. Anything further, can we move to the talk page? Franamax (talk) 06:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   We should perhaps clarify what is meant by "drool sarcasm". Is this a pron thing or what? Colonel Warden (talk) 08:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   Typo of droll? – Athaenara ✉ 10:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   Collectonian, if you would be able to provide some diffs regarding sarcasm and snarkiness I would be appreciative, because if I agree with your assessment I will reconsider my position here.--~TPW 15:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   Calling for an ANI on his disagreement with several noms I made after an editor went through and made a ton of one-line sentences on various film articles, most of questionable and non-existent notability[5], his response in another AfD to my refuting his speedy keep based on "numerous sources" that piped to WP:BEFORE rather than actual sources[6], his response to another editor's legitimate question of why there are no sources in the article if they exist and why it read like fancruft was "Why? Why Not?"[7], while agreeing with an AfD nom, also claiming it was bitey[8], claims articles are exempt from meeting WP:N if they meet any other claimed notabiltiy guideline[9] all I have time to go through at the moment. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   All of those examples seem disagreements with you specifically over the interpretation of various guidelines. For example, your last example has him just stating what is actually current consensus (that not every subject meeting a specialized notability guideline needs to meet WP:GNG). But I digress...why I wanted to reply is this: Do you have any examples where you were not involved? I think you overestimate the "harmfulness" of his actions because you interacted with him on opposite ends of a discussion and using those examples might lead to people assuming that your !vote is some kind of "revenge" against Michael. So some example where you were not involved in might be beneficial. Regards SoWhy 15:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   At least one of those was not a disagreement with me specifically. And no, I have not hunted up examples with others. Whether he and I disagree and whether the examples are primarily with me does make them less harmful. The question would seem to indicate he can be snarky and make incorrect statements with me, and that's fine so long as he does it with no one else? If people want to claim it is "revenge" that is their choice and no amount of examples and links will make them think otherwise. I've expressed me view, and honestly I am not obligated to continue trying to defend it. In my opinion and from my interactions with him, I do NOT feel he would be a good admin at all, and I do believe that he would abuse the tools, including quite understandably the concern includes the worry that he would use them as revenge against myself and others he deems a "deletionist" (whether right or wrong) and to enforce his inclusionistic views at AfD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   Would you offer the same opposition for someone designated an 'extreme deletionist'? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   Yes, I would. I don't think administrators should have extreme views in either direction. While its good to claim "oh I can be neutral", basic human nature says otherwise. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   Thank you for your quick and thorough reply, Collectonian. I will review those links later today or tomorrow when I have a moment.--~TPW 15:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   The first link she has seems a bit misleading. If you read what everyone else said on that page [10] it makes more sense. There were 16 who said Keep, and only one person agreed with her that it should be deleted. And other film articles she nominated around the same time, ended in speedy keep as well. Someone before him posted links to various reliable sources, so there was no need for anyone else to repeat them. Dream Focus 17:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

6. I do not feel comfortable supporting at the moment. I do not feel Michael adequately understand our reliable sources guidelines. "I suppose I am more accepting of some slightly lower down the scale... though you and I are in complete agreement about the many that are totally worthless" is troubling because the two porn links noted above are completely worthless. Babepedia and foxyreviews have no informative content whatsoever, and could be considered spam links. "Click here to edit information on ..." seems to represent the reliability of those sites. —Dark 11:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   I am considering striking my support, per above. MQS, can you explain your consideration of babepedia and foxyreviews as sources? Tan | 39 16:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   Oh, that AFD had no chance of being a "keep", so I offered them at the discussion as minor WP:V of the person's existance, to offer a bit of perspective, and to encourage that at least some amount of actual discussion happened at that AFD, as repeated "fails" and "per noms" aren't exactly a discussion. I am happy that I was able to encourage others to actually discuss the consensus they were reaching and am quite fine with the article being deleted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

   But you used that rationale to !vote "keep". You didn't simply make a comment to facilitate discussion. I don't find your consistent claims of being quite fine with outcomes justification for the extremely poor rationales used. The more I reflect on this, the more the picture seems to emerge of an inclusionist who will dismiss (or seriously contort) policy in order to rationalize keeping an article. As one who considers this sort of issue to directly impact Wikipedia's larger credibility, it concerns me. I should not have been so hasty to support, especially with such a strong statement. Lesson learned... Tan | 39 17:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   If it had been a !comment rather than a !keep, the AFD could then have been snow closed early and without any discussion. In the many hundreds of AFDs in which I have commented, I have never sought the overturing of any of them... which indeed supports my statement of being able to accept consensus. And please... I will never ignore, dismiss, or contort POLICY... though I might always encourage common sense in reasonable interpretation of guideline. If that places us at opposite poles, I'm sorry. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

   I'll disagree with you there, Michael. One of the reasons why I consider you to be rather extreme as an inclusionist is this AfD, which closed as "no consensus". In that AfD, you argued that despite the complete lack of coverage of the subject, and the subject not meeting any notability guidelines at all, that it should be kept because "it can be improved". That opinion fits in rather well with your answer to Question 9 above. I'll note that 9 months later, the article still is unsourced, and there still seems to be no significant coverage of it (at least in online sources). Your keep rationale in that discussion was basically WP:IAR. A similar argument was made here. I'm still staying with a "Support" vote myself, for now at least. After all, to ignore policy is sometimes okay to do, if you have a good reason for it (that's why we have IAR). I don't think ignoring policy in an AfD is generally a good idea, but it's not a deal-killer for me. -- Atama頭 19:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   But Atama, the close on E-rotic, the article you mentioned was "no-consensus, leaning to keep", from Xymmax, a careful and neutral closer of many types of articles . I do not see how an opinion that was actually endorsed by about half the people there are not rejected by the closing admin can be regarded as an unusual or erratic or out-of bounds opinion. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   It's not the !vote that I question, and certainly as you pointed out the discussion did close in his favor. What I question is the rationale for the !vote. The idea that any article that can be "improved" (with or without providing independent sources) should be kept is certainly an erratic opinion. I still think Michael's good qualities outweigh any inclusionist opinions, but I think that this illustrates why even a number of people who support him believe that he has some unusual ideas about what merits inclusion. -- Atama頭 23:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

7. I have to agree (possibly for the first time ever) with Epbr123 and DarkFalls. "Extreme inclusionist" is acceptable providing you can set it aside when you're judging others' comments; what appears to be a serious misunderstanding of the coriest of all our core principles ("All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy") isn't. – iridescent 15:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   Hmm.. I don't remember any instances when I dissented with your opinion ;) —Dark 06:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

8. Oppose. Fundamental misunderstanding of BLP policy and the need for reliable sources therein is a non-starter for any consideration of adminship. Tarc (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
9. Oppose has a vested interest in protecting self-promoters (i.e Michael Q. Schmidt), does not understand what a reliable or non-trivial source is, and is powerfully vested in a rather strange ideology that is hostile to standards that would lead to accurate, verifiable and strong encyclopedic content and also put the protection of living people at to the top of the projects priorities. Such editors do great harm. Such admins do even greater harm. Bravo on the offline coordination for the "early supports" though, ARS.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   I couldn't agree more regarding "self-promoters". This guy's a nudist version of MBisanz. Keepscases (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   Your vote here implies that the candidate is a self-promoter, and that the biography on him is proof of that. Yet, the candidate did not initiate that biography, and in fact he has only made two edits to that article. The last AFD on the article ended overwhelmingly with a consensus to keep, so the implication that the article's presence is somehow unjustified seems rather strained. I see no evidence at all of self-promotion from this candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   The candadate most certainly did initiate that biography, and has almost 100 edits to it. – iridescent 17:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   Could you elaborate the link? From what I can see, there were two cases that named Michael as a suspected sock (your link and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/L.L.King (2nd)), but in one he was cleared by Alison (talk · contribs) and the other was never checkuser-ed and neither one has anyone concluding that the candidate was L.L.King (talk · contribs). Regards SoWhy 19:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   I don't see how you can conclude "vested interest in protecting self-promoters" anymore than you can say I have a vested interest in protecting CNC turret punch press experts. The circumstances around creation of that article are explained above and most of the edits were done by a related party. It was certainly what brought MQS (the "good" MQS) to Wikipedia, but there are the other 20,000 edits to consider. "Hostile to standards", no, I'd say interested in refining standards as in his quite reasonable approach to figuring out what parts of IMDB could be used as RS here and detailed explanation of his ideas on reliability of sources. Where is he shouting or undermining articles? Where is he insisting on his way? Where are the clues he intends to go on an admin rampage? Also, body model is a legal living, how do you think all those paintings of nude people get into museums and galleries? Franamax (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

10. Oppose Too many examples of questionable judgment. Townlake (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
11. Surprised and sad that this looks to pass, given the concerns raised immediately above. BLGM5 (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
12. Oppose I've re-evaluated my opinion on this editor and am changing my opinion. I do not agree with people suggesting that he's a risk for going on some kind of "admin rampage" -- he seems like a considerate, thoughtful editor -- but I am increasingly concerned by his AfD contributions, based on the comments above. Candidate is clearly an adept and good faith editor, but I have concerns about his judgment in some instances, some of which are recent (per above). Sorry to be changing my !vote on this, it's a tough call. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
13. Oppose Yep, sorry - as you clearly want to work at AFD I'm afraid the various diffs above instil no confidence. I also have a bad feeling about those sockpuppet investigations (feeling - not fact - I am opposing based on dubious outlook on RS and V). Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  20:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

    My work at afds has and always will be in trying to bring articles up to standards. If I am successful and they are kept, the project benefits. If I am unsuccessful and they are deleted, the project benefits. Seems to be a net positive... and no, I have never closed an afd although I might have, and have no intention of using tools to force my views on anyone. Such abuse would be unacceptable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

14. Oppose Changed my vote, sorry. this is horrific and shows no regard for policy whatsoever. Should this RfA pass, I would be very wary of MQS going anywhere near closing AfDs based on that diff. Black Kite 20:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

    Note: This was a Prod/AfD on a Disney film directed by Don Chaffey, based on a novel by James Aldridge, and reviewed in The New York Times. MQS helped prevent its deletion by improving the article, and therefore saving the article from a reckless AfD. A testy comment to the reckless nominator harms the encyclopedia far less than the article's deletion would have. Dekkappai (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

15. Oppose I find I am unable to trust the candidate's judgement per some of the diffs presented. Sorry. --John (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

    I was going to oppose based on the issues raised, but on a closer look they simply were not true. The candidate does not have "questionable judgment" nor a "vested interest in protecting self-promoters" nor is he "powerfully vested in a rather strange ideology" nor is he "hostile to standards that would lead to accurate, verifiable and strong encyclopedic content" nor did he improperly conspire re "offline coordination for the early supports" nor is "he a nudist version of MBisanz" nor has he committed "sock puppet offenses" nor does "he have fundamental misunderstanding of BLP policy" nor is he an "Extreme inclusionist" nor does he have "a serious misunderstanding of the coriest of all our core principles" nor is he "an inclusionist who will dismiss (or seriously contort) policy" nor does he "spam links" nor does he go around "harassing and making inappropriate judgements". The allegations that "candidate was way too quick to offer pictures of himself, including nudes", and the "porn issue", are bogus.

    I have been accused of having some nefarious relationship with the guy. Not true. The reason I am really really pissed off upset is that I hate seeing a good candidate being unfairly trashed. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

    But you had already supported before my oppose. So I'm not sure how my oppose could have caused you to shift to support. A puzzle, there.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

    Bali, you were not the first to oppose. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 15:10, March 12, 2010

    Dgg: Yes, of course. But he quoted me at length as a reason. A true puzzle, that.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

    Ret Prof - your comments should be in the discussion section. Your (as usual) poor use of indentation makes it look like John stated all the things you put in quotes. Please learn to use indentation properly as, frankly, your poor effort above (and at another RFA the other day) are increasingly looking like basic rudeness as opposed to a legitimate mistake. Pedro :  Chat  21:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

    Hi Pedro, Sorry you got confused. John was having difficulty with being "unable to trust the candidate's judgement" as are many others. Indeed I was having difficulty until I looked more closely at the comments and the Diffs. This upset me as I hate seeing a good candidate being unfairly trashed. Sorry if you or John though he stated all the things in quotes. Happy editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

    I didn't get even vaguely confused. YOU need to learn how to indent. Complex stuff, clearly. Pedro :  Chat  21:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

    Pedro, please see my talk page - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

16. Oppose I have no problems with the hard work and clear good faith that he has put into many articles and he seems like a thoughtful editor. Unfortunately, however, he seems too susceptible to poor judgement and in areas such as AFD it is crucial that an admin can put aside their own opinions and views and properly judge concensus. -- BigDom 21:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
17. Oppose. It's pretty rare that I involve myself in an RFA, but I feel particularly strongly here. Per John, iridescent, Black Kite, and Pedro, among others. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
18. Oppose extreme inclusionist to the extent of harming the encyclopedia. Fell full-bore sexist mode for notorious and obvious trolling. Abusive sockpuppetry as recent as 2008. I would also ask that the candidate submit to voluntary checkuser. Hipocrite (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

    I assumed good faith, and reacted professionally in my capacity as a fine arts model in response to someone supposedly an artist. The fact that the that editor was later determined to be a sock was indeed sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs)

    You should not be proposing to model nude for 18 year-olds that you meet on the internet and expect to be elevated to a position of any authority. Hipocrite (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

    As a fine arts model I work with artists ranging in age from 18 to 88, in studios and schools all over southern California, and have been doing so for over 15 years. Professionalism is professionalism and I respect artists of both genders equally. And I also do not believe that adminship is "authority", nor that it should be seen as authority... it is rather responsibility, and as such requires professionalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs)

    You didn't suggest a "school or studio," you suggested a one-on-one meeting. This was unnaceptable - in this case, because you fell for the obvious troll. In other cases, it will be unnaceptable sexual harassment. It will never be acceptable for you to offer to model nude in unstructured settings for 18 year olds on the internet. Why is it you can't sign your comments, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

    Yup, I fell for a troll in my assumption of good faith. As I have many times worked for individuals for projects outside of academia, that it was a troll was not as obvious to me as it was to you. My offer was a polite and professional one made to someone I thought was also a professional. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

    Michael, the issue is not whether you model for art schools or even that you fell for an obvious troll; the point is that this is Wikipedia, not an art school and not a pick-up joint. We're here for one purpose and one purpose only - to create an encyclopedia and if you want to flirt with women or make nudist modelling apointments, please do it some place else. I realise the troll pretty much led you by the nose in that discussion but the fact you don't step away from it even now and don't seem to recognise any inappropriateness in using Wikipedia to speak to a young woman editor like that really concerns me. I would find an admin leaving suggestive comments to a self-declared 18-year-old editor about meeting off-site for nudist modeling and artwork deeply and genuinely concerning to the extent I would immediately write to ArbCom. Besides this, I don't like the attitude that I feel is reflected towards women editors in your feeling generally entitled to write messages to women editors like that and I don't care if you have been doing nudist modeling for the last 15 years, it's not the purpose of Wikipedia and it's not what women editors come here for. I'm just grateful for the fact that you were actually talking to a male troll and not an actual woman or teenage editor. Sarah 10:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

19. Strong oppose. Your attitude to the notability guidelines, as shown through the diffs provided by others, does not exactly instil confidence. If I cannot see you acting reasonably when voting, I have no reason to believe you'll do so when deciding consensus. Ironholds (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

    Yes, such diffs were no doubt chosen for a reason. Other[11] pertinant[12] diffs[13] that might show I do have a clue try to improve the project were not offered at the same time to balance the equation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

    I must have missed WP:RFA IS A BALANCING GAME. RfA is not based on the balance of probabilities; it is based on near certainty that, given your past record, you'll be a good admin. The fact that the full record shows "you might not be a bad one" as opposed to "you're going to be a bad one" does not change my !vote. Ironholds (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

    Having respect for you as an editor, I just felt that basing opinion on a specialy selected handful of edits out of 18,000+ decent ones seemed to place far too much weight on the handful while ignoring the others. But yes, you are correct, RFA is not a balancing game. And no, I am not requesting you reconsider or change your vote. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

    That's fair enough; I appreciate your candour in the matter, and apologise if I misinterpreted what you meant by bringing more points to my attention. Ironholds (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

20. Seems to be such a strong inclusionist it could damage the encyclopedia if he had the final say on some CSDs, particularly BLPs. Sorry.  f o x  (formerly garden) 21:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

    I assume that was you that made the un-logged-in edit I moved to the discussion section. I'll remove that next edit. Tan | 39 22:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

21. Pace SoWhy, MQS is one of the few editors whose inclusionism is relevant to the question whether he can be trusted with the mop. ÷seresin 22:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
22. Weak Oppose- sorry, but this user's extreme inclusionism and faulty reasoning on AfDs- particularly the insistence on turning around WP:BURDEN on to those who question sourceless material rather than those who add or defend it- do not make me confident that he will use the tools responsibly. I can definitely see myself supporting this candidate at a later time once these concerns have been dealt with. Reyk _YO! 22:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
23. Sorry, but I have serious concerns about this user's interpretation and enforcement of our core policies. As an admin, you will deal with BLP issues and areas where WP:V and strong sourcing is particularly crucial. Nothing wrong with inclusionism, but your strong position is worrisome. Admins must be firm with maintaining content standards. To be frank, from what I've seen I have no confidence that you'll uphold important policies – WP:BLP and WP:RS in particular. JamieS93^❤ 22:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
24. Oppose I'm not comfortable you'd be able to close AfD's correctly if they conflict with your opinion. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

    Comment Aware of growing concern that I want to use tools only at AFD, I have tried to clarify this in a statement above. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

25. Oppose per Jamie et al. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
26. Oppose Initially I was inclined to be neutral/oppose, but after looking at edits I held off. However, this has ultimately proved to be a good thing, because I couldn't have made a good decision without the diffs above. They give me a somewhat sour taste, especially the sock issue. In most cases it is long enough ago I would assume good faith, but as per the other diffs showing some inclusionism that goes so far as to violate policy, I'll !vote oppose this time around. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    Strictly and only on the sock issue, I can strongly assure you it is not an issue at all. I'm familiar with the whole story, I watched very closely and questioned intensely once I became aware of the situation, I'm always happy to fill in details privately. Franamax (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

27. Oppose Strong Oppose - While commenting at this RFA, you have so far attempted to show a "well-versed" comprehension of our most essential policies (BLP and DELETE), however, your actual edits to this site, say otherwise. So many people have already opposed who I hold a rather high esteem for (NuclearWarfare, DarkFalls, MZMcBride, Ironholds, PeterSymonds), that it was getting nearly impossible to think of me supporting you. I've seen you in several AFDs, and have closed several AFDs you've participated in, and your knowledge of our policies, per the way you vote there, is sadly lacking; the two links that are provided at the top of this section, only further that description of your knowledge. Another thing: While I understand not wanting to place editors into polarized groups, there is no debate that there are polarized groups. Whether you truly consider yourself to be part of one aside (even though your supporters can't deny that you are an inclusionist), your answer to question 13, is just a backhanded way of avoiding the question of inclusionism vs. deletionism entirely. While I do not identify with either group, I do acknowledge that they exist, and I believe that the idea of inclusionism, when allowed to get out of hand (especially when working with biographies of living people), is detrimental to this encyclopedia. I'm sorry, but you are someone who I will never be able to support; and I would go so far as to say most people interested in actually maintaining, and truly improving this encyclopedia, would agree. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    The fact that you couldn't even professionally answer the questions that you had left unanswered before I !voted oppose, leads me to oppose you even further. I can see some frustration in even having to answer them, but remember this is a discussion, and if you can't act like a professional in this RFA itself, I highly doubt that you can act professionally outside of this RFA as an admin. I don't ask questions to get a right answer, I ask to see the persons real knowledge and opinions, all of your answers were devoted to ensuring that you got that right answer; that's why I decided to oppose before you could answer the rest, as there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that you were going to actually give me your real opinion on anything in any answer on this page. You made the choice to not answer the questions from your opinion, I made the choice to oppose, and if that makes you start to act immaturely by adding "Oops... sounding like an inclusionist, aren't I." after all of your answers, then so be it, as you're only making yourself look worse. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

28. Oppose Strongly oppose You clearly intend to perform admin work in AFD. I do not think that militant inclusionists can fairly close AFDs, be they biographies or not. The evasiveness shown in the answers to the RFA questions is unbecoming as well. Skinwalker (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    A glance at Talk:Michael_Q._Schmidt/Archive_1 shows even greater cause for concern. Vanity article + COI + probable sockpuppetry = not admin material. Skinwalker (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    I have never been even fleetingly refferred to as militant. So I suppose I should thank you. However, and since I do not want the tools so as to be some sort of a bully at afds, I have tried to clarify my stance about afds and my participation therein in a statement above. And yes, per your glance, the editor from two years ago would not have been suitable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

29. Oppose - no one specific thing - just too many situations and diffs with unsatisfactory explanations. Some might oppose (some have) on the basis of one particular item, but I try to see the total picture. Alas, I see enough individual problems that, added up, convince me to oppose this candicacy. I note as a nod to more than a couple of supporters that their opinions make this more difficult; I realize that's little consolation but I strive never to be cavalier with opposes, and it's harder when editors I respect have opined differently. Still, I'm convinced this candidacy doesn't present an editor who should be thought of as representing community consensus - the most important criterion, in my book. The bit itself really is no big deal but its application...well, that's the road less traveled and it makes a difference.  Frank  |  talk  01:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
30. Oppose Sorry, but you don't seem to have a good "grasp" in WP:AFD. BejinhanTalk 02:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    Disagreeing with you does not mean lack of grasp... it means difference of opinion. If I improve an article and it is saved, the project benefits. If I cannot improve an article and it gets deleted, the project benefits. And no, I never intended to use tools to close afds, as trying to fix issues is far more beneficial to the project than simply talking about them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

31. Oppose due to his weak grasp of what a reliable source should be and that he argued for a lowering of the reliability bar due to the context of pornography in the Lachelle Marie AfD. I am not comfortable with his enforcing wikipedia policy and guidelines as an admin. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
32. Oppose. Per above and concerns with judgement and experience. Sorry, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose: per the sock issue. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Happy with the sockpuppet situation. Changed to strong support. Sorry for having doubted you. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

    That's awesome. It doesn't matter if you support or oppose; it's always amusing. Tan | 39 03:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    Or awful as the case may be. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

33. Oppose. Lower than expected grasp of policy for an admin, dubious judgement, and reliance on wikilawyering to subvert rules for personal goals. Not even good wikilawyering, come to think of it. —what a crazy random happenstance 03:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    I opposed, but...really? And some wonder why so few editors are willing to go through RfA. Even if this is true, it could have been said in a much better manner. NW (Talk) 04:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    He's correct, I am not a very good wikilawyer. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

    By "much better manner" I assume you mean with kiddie gloves? Would it be preferable were I to apologetically append 'but's to each of those and point out one of his positives in turn? Or perhaps ramble on about how I feel about this and that? How comfortable he makes me? Preface my oppose with "I'm sorry, but... "? I am opposing the candidate for the reasons I have succinctly outlined; as soon as he moves to address them I will reconsider my vote. Simple, and honest. Only an assumption of bad faith turns my vote to some sinister maniacal ploy. —what a crazy random happenstance 07:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

34. I really cannot help but oppose this RfA. First of all, I am very unimpressed with their AfD track record, especially with those incidents brought up. I fear that if MQS were to get the bit, his inclusionist tendencies would end up influencing the decision. Additionally, the pornography links shown above indicates that he has troubles determining reliable sources, something critical for an AfD admin. Finally, the answers to the questions, especially Q13, are quite worrying for me, and as such, I cannot support this request. (X! · talk)  · @193  ·  03:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
35. Oppose. As others have said above, too cliquey, questionable judgment. Fran Rogers❇ 03:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose. I have been reviewing the editor, his answers, and contributions since the request was first submitted and regretfully have to oppose. I believe you to be a valuable editor who has worked hard helping to save articles and adding references. My issue revolves around how strongly you feel towards the saving of an article. I hate to say it like this, but given the way your answers all lean towards the keeping of an article and improving it rather than answering based on what is presented as evidence and whether it passes policy concerns me greatly. From the above diffs and concerns raised, I don't think I could confidently trust at this time that you would be able to unbiasedly close a close AFD discussion discounting your own views, as I would if someone leaned very strongly to the other side of the inclusion / deletion spectrum. Every editor haves his / her own views, but I would need to see that the editor is able to put them aside when rationalizing the merits of a discussion debate, I just don't see this at this time. (move to support) Calmer Waters 04:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

36. Oppose, I have no doubt that this user means well, but they are far too militantly inclusionist for my liking. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC).
37. Oppose from support Having reviewed further the candidate's contributions, I am reluctantly having to agree with many of the opposes here. I do not have the confidence that they would impartially judge consensus, and would be inclined towards keeping the article. I cannot find evidence that the candidate can put their views to one side, and so I am not comfortable supporting him - but I feel too strongly to be neutral. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
38. Oppose, concerns about the candidate's interpretation in AFDs, and particularly with regard to what the candidate views as reliable sources. -- Cirt (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    Candidate's comment No one is perfect, no. When I am wrong and an article is deleted, it gets deleted, with no squawk from me. When I am right (and that's happened more than a few times), an article gets improved and the project benefits. In either case I move on to the next problematic article and try again. So the equation I see is that when I am wrong, the project gets improved with my blessings... and when I am right the project gets improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

39. Oppose - Although a great contributor in his current state, like others I believe that the user's extreme inclusionist attitude combined with his previous use of bad sources would get in the way of fair AfD discussions. Forenti^talk 12:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    Discusions are discussions. Articles with bad sources get deleted. Articles with good sources get kept. And I have never closed an AFD and had never intended to do so, despite the "what if" quiestion by Coffee. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

40. Oppose Good contributor, but his inclusionist views are far too extreme for him to be an effective administrator. AniMate 13:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
41. Oppose. Per many of the above: abusive sockpuppetry, poor understanding of sourcing guidelines, dubious judgment on the Nordic Goddess thing (partly because he didn't seem to notice that she was a sock, and partly because even if he wasn't, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a place to trade nude pictures with eighteen year old women). Steve Smith (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    I suppose that's the built in problem with WP:AGF, and it encouraging editors to see a glass as half full and not half empty. I prefer to assume the good rather than the bad. The editor was found to be a sock some time after my exchange on the talk page. That was for the bad. My courtesy before that was not... myself and others being duped aside. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

    Unfortunate oppose, but the tone of a lot of these !votes could be more amicable. First, I have enjoyed interacting with Michael on quite a few occasions despite our occasional disagreement about the threshold of notability for certain films. Michael does a very commendable job to identify sources to demonstrate notability, but I strongly disagree with certain shoddy websites qualifying as reliable sources "in context". At Ice Queen (film), he cited this in the article as part of a rescue measure, but the page is extremely questionable. (The About us page is not much more convincing in authoritativeness.) It is tough to translate this to admin involvement at AFD. My chief concern here is that he may not make the best decision about closing AFDs if there is significant coverage from sources that are not considered reliable. This now applies outside film as well, having read others' BLP concerns. In addition, while it was not going to be a deal-breaker, I think admins should have experience in article building, such as getting one up to Good or Featured status. Erik (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

42. Oppose as candidate does not seem impartial enough, and appears to lack understanding of identifying reliable sources. Aiken ♫ 15:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
43. Oppose. Questionable judgment, thinking that sourcing requirements should be faith-based rather than reality-based, and evasive answers all add up to "no", even before the doubts about his ability to weigh arguments appropriately in AFDs come up ("improvable" is an utterly meaningless standard for judging the notability, suitability, possibility, or even encyclopedic worth of an AFD candidate) and his associations with the ARS crowd. --Calton | Talk 15:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    I'm sorry to diagree, but per WP:DEL improvability is not a meaningless standard. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

44. Answers to most of the BLP-related questions are fantastic. Based on those, I'd say he'd make a great admin. Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of saying what people want to hear, as it's just not supported by his edit history. Extreme inclusionism, questionable judgment, poor decisions in the area of BLP. All considered, regretfully, I must give former-adopter oppose. Lara 16:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Part in italics added to clarify at 18:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    Candidate's comment Thank you, I am grateful for your very courteous comment. Many here do not seem to realize that it does not take the tools to close AFDs and I have not closed any... BLP or otherwise, nor does inclusionist or deletionist ideology matter if using the tools to work in DYK, revert vandalism, or to do any of the thousand other support tasks that keep this place running. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    Well, first thing I notice is you didn't address the issue of your answers not matching up with your edit history. I appreciate that you haven't closed AFDs before and that you're suggesting you wouldn't; however, that's not the only concern I expressed. Were it, I'd probably support, as I have for others whose judgment in AFD I questioned. The majority of my editing for more than a year was in the are of BLP and more times than I care to recall, your stance on issues in that area left me disappointed. Others have raised concerns about your judgment in other areas as well, and it all causes me concern. Lara 18:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    As I stated above, I had no intention of closing afds, much less heated BLP afds, allowing others more experienced in that area do what they do best... and I thought the tools might allow me to work more effectively in other far more mundane areas. As the BLP problem has raised a great deal of consternation all across the project, until it is finally resolved, my course is to source such articles as I can to bring them into line with policy. Those that get improved, get kept. If not improved, they get deleted. In both cases the project is improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    I'm not sure why you continue to focus on the issue of AFD as if that was my only concern, particularly after I just emphasized that I have greater concerns than that. However, as you are continuing to discuss it, allow me to expand on my concerns with you and AFD. I just read over further answers and responses from you in this RFA and did not see anything where you clearly stated you would not close AFDs. In fact, at this point, I believe you're being intentionally misleading. In your initial answer to the question to what you plan to do in administrative areas, you responded "[I] will always give decent rationales for AfD closures." In your responses to concerns since, you seem to have taken care to suggest but not actually promise that you wouldn't be closing AFDs. Regardless, in that you vote keep for articles that in no way should be kept, merely to prevent SNOW closures, is enough for me to oppose. As it is, however, there are far more reasons. If you want to continue this discussion, I will be happy to list out everything I find worrisome wrt your editing. Lara 20:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

45. Oppose. Hardworking Wikipedian who has provided valuble content. Unfortunately lacks the proper honesty (Rlevse summing it up here), and judgement (exmple: an exchange withToddst1 here) skills required for an Admin. Senor Reparar (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

    Rlevse's summing up was twenty months ago on 12 July 2008. As Rlevse asked (diff) just a few minutes before your post, "What the sock issue re MQS boils down to is, if someone socks and then ceases/reforms, do we hold that against them forever?" In this case I don't think the reported socking is sufficient grounds for rejecting this user at RfA. I respect your opinion, of course, but do you mind reviewing the evidence a second time? - Pointillist (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

    Knowledge and Attitude issues can change with time, Integrity and Judgement issues are more enduring. The referenced summation by Rlevse could not have been stated more clearly, or have been quoted from a more respected editor. Senor Reparar (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

46. Oppose Having seen too much on OTRS of the problems caused to real people by junk articles generally, not just BLPs, I have zero time for extremist inclusionist attitudes. I'm sure Michael is well-meaning and wants to do the right thing by the project and if we could break up the tools, I'd have no hesitation in giving him block/unblock and protect/unprotect tools but I just don't trust his judgement in the area of deletion. The Lachelle Marie AFD cited by Olaf is extremely alarming for being only last month! I'm astounded anyone would raise "Babepedia" and "foxy reviews" as sources in an AFD discussion and come to RFA a month later. And as an actual real woman on this project, I really dislike the "Kristin Eriksen" conversation referenced above and I find it really disappointing. It's exactly that kind of attitude that makes many of us decide it's just more simple to edit under male or ambiguous names. I appreciate it was a year ago but it's not actually about the incident itself, but an underlying attitude. I also just want to add that I personally have no doubt that Michael was behind the LLKing sock-ring (Hello, User:MikeTheModel??). Having just read the evidence on that case, King's writing style is identical to Michael's writing style at the same time, based on emails I've seen that Michael wrote at the same time, down to the rather unusual and abundant use of ellipses (...) punctuating his writing (which you can see demonstrated in his replies to themfromspace in the neutral section below). The socking issue doesn't make any difference for me because I think he's more than made up for his rocky beginning but it would be nice to get a full and frank explanation if he expects to be entrusted with admin tools.Sarah 07:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

    Hi Sarah, I have looked into the candidate's edits and he is not an extremist inclusionist. I am more of an inclusionist than he is. But that is not the point. We all have our views. The issue is can he put his views aside and respect consensus. If you look at his edits the answer is yes.

    Secondly, I am about to change from oppose back to Strong Support. I asked a crat to look into the sock allegations, and I do not believe the candidate uses SP. More importantly I have taken the time to investigate the other allegations, all of which seem bogus.

    My Conclusion: The first Oppose-- an editor who loudly bragged the candidate would use his position to stop "extreme inclusionism" as soon as he became an Admin-- throws in the "porn" bomb, and then all the Opposers fell all over themselves. It looks suspiciously like baseless character-assassination of an excellent candidate who, a large, organized group feels, won't delete enough... or, more accurately, will stand in the way of their efforts to delete more. See this I hope all of the good faith opposers will take the time to to rethink the positions. I believe we have been stampeded in the wrong direction. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

    What are you, MQS's attack dog? You might help your man more if you didn't start screaming at every other oppose. I find it hard to picture a less likely "large organized group" than the current opposers, a fair few of whom aren't even on speaking terms. – iridescent 12:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

    An organized group dedicated to screwing with deletion decisions? My, where have I heard that before. Speaking as one person, my oppose was not based on the, quote, "porn bomb". Very few of the opposes are based on the porn bomb, or solely on the porn bomb. Before you talk about baseless character-assassination you might want to think about what accusing people of cabalism sounds like. Besides, you know the theory on cabals; a lot of people agreeing on a certain issue might be a cabal. Alternately, and this is something you don't seem to have considered, it might be that there's an issue so obvious and pertinent even people who would otherwise shove each other in front of cars can see it. Ironholds (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

    Ouch. I guess it is my turn to take a beating. I am not MQS's attack dog, nor anybody's dog and I will never be a lap dog. He is not my candidate. Nor would I shove others in front of cars! Nor do I believe there is a cabal. What I have seen is a lot of allegations that are baseless. It is not just the "porn bomb" It is the "kitchen sink approach". Throw enough mud and some will stick. All I am asking is that people take the time to carefully check out the allegations. Is not that a good thing? Please take my views in good faith. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

    Ret Prof, thanks for your concern, but I have examined the evidence and reached different conclusions to your own. I strongly disagree that he is not extremist in his inclusionist ideology. Saying over and over that he isn't extremist isn't going to change my or anyone elses' views on that because we've seen him in action on AFD plenty of times for ourselves. He will argue to keep absolute rubbish on the basis of the most absurdly unreliable references. Babepedia! I've seen no evidence of any shennanigans by opposers and, in fact, to be entirely frank, I would have predicted that any RFA for Michael would go down exactly as it is, just from my own observation of him, so the comments here come as no surprise at all to me and I don't see anything suspicious in the opposition. By the way, I don't know if you think you're helping Michael with what you're doing, but you're not. You're not going to change anyone's mind with these comments and for new people coming in to review his request, your constant replies to opposers look bad and reflects poorly on the candidate that he doesn't tell you to knock it off. I can't see your oppose comment but I honestly can't believe you ever seriously intended to oppose. It seems more likely this was all merely a strange ploy to try (unsuccessfully) to discredit opposers. Sarah 13:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

    But Sarah you missed my point. Why do you believe he will put his views ahead of consensus? Should all people who believe in ConstEdits be banned as Admins? - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

    Because part of determining consensus involves judging the weight of arguments on both sides of the debate. If he considers things like Babepedia and Foxy Reviews to be reliable sources, then he obviously has a poor understanding of the policy and thus will not be able to accurately judge the validity of arguments posed at AFDs. 67.48.116.106 (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

    Sarah, no reason to assume bad faith here. Some people just jump from one extreme to the other, sometimes repeatedly. It's a bit funny to watch from the outside, but probably genuinely felt. Hans Adler 14:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

    Don't assume bad faith here. I did not have the skills to figure out what was causing the voting anomalies, nor the skill to verify Sock abuse. Therefore I turned to some trusted Admins and Crats. The evidence points to baseless character-assassination of an excellent candidate by an organized group or at least some behind the scenes emails. All I ask is that people check his edit record and the facts will speak for themselves. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

    Really? the "evidence", does it? Please show one teeny, tiny shred of evidence that the oppose section is in any way organised or withdraw your "baseless character-assassination". Lots of people agreeing could be cabalism, yes. It also could be (and you don't seem to have considered this before going off on a little one-note crusade) that this candidate is flawed. Ironholds (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

    Ret Prof: I don't think the socking is important but for the issue of transparency and honesty and if early socking was the only issue, I wouldn't be opposing, but I disagree strongly with you that it is "baseless character-assassination". Have you actually taken the time to examine the accounts and edits? The socks used names that can be closely connected with Michael personally such as "User:MikeTheModel", other model/art/actor themed names and the names of websites owned by Michael, and the writing style of the sock-ring is identical to Michael's. Have a look through some of their discussion edits, for example - [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] and compare with Michael's own edit to this page - [19] and note the repeated use of ellipses and not just the use of the ellipses, but the format of them - no space, three periods and a space. See also these early edits by Michael: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] and note the unusual repeated use of the same formatted ellipses (no space, three periods, space) and that when Michael and the socks refer to Wikipedia, they all usually call it "Wiki". I also noticed in their edits an obvious tendency to use hyphens, i.e "mis-direction", "mis-quote", "mis-use", "de-construct", "un-biased", "un-adopted", "dis-organized" etc. I've also seen a set of emails Michael wrote back then about the issue with Cumulus Clouds and the Paris Hilton dispute and the writing style and words used by Michael in the emails were near identical to what the socks wrote about the same dispute on-site. None of these things would be particularly convincing on their own but all together and with the special interest in Michael Q. Schmidt-related articles and I'm left with absolutely no doubt at all Michael was behind the socking. I don't believe he's continued socking since then, though - let's just say he was a terrible and obvious sockmaser and I'm sure he'd have been caught again if he was still doing it. He seemed to learn from it, and has come back as a constructive user, which I think is a very good thing. It would be nice if he were open and honest with the community about the past if he wants to be entrusted with admin rights and not being open and honest is a valid reason to oppose in my book, though I personally wouldn't oppose on the basis of the socking alone given the time that has passed and the work he has done since then. But I think your description of the socking as "baseless character-assassination" is completely innacurate - it's certainly not baseless and it's also not character assassination; it seems to me like a reasonable conclusion to reach after an examination of the accounts. Please examine the edits of the accounts in the LL King sock category and compare with Michael's early edit history. Sarah 03:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

47. Oppose. Cannot convince myself that MQS will be able to apply policy neutrally and not substitute his own heavily inclusionist viewpoint for it. Stifle (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

    We've bumped at many afds and I have found the discussions worthwhile no matter the outcome of those various afds. And while I might have used personal opinion and non-admin closed hundreds of afds by now, I have not. So please pardon if this question is somehow naive, and in considering how an admin's actions are are under greater scrutiny than non-admins, could you share how policy can be applied in any way other than as policy? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

    Ultimately, I am doubtful that you will not colour your admin activities with your views of inclusionism; in chemistry terms getting adminship requires activation energy — one can maintain a lower standard after getting the flag without then losing it, and that is, sadly, what I expect you will do; once given adminship, it will effectively not be possible to review the decision as ArbCom does not desysop people for being too inclusionist. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

    Could that be because there is no policy or guideline which states "inclusionists are ineligible for adminship" or, more to the point, "Because reasonable people have differences of opinion, we must declare one view and one view only to be appropriate". ArbCom doesn't desysop because it isn't against the rules. It also is merely a difference of opinion between reasonable people. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

48. Oppose. (ec) The candidate's extreme inclusionist views are incompatible with WP consensus and policy, per the comments and diffs presented by other editors. Given this, I don't trust giving him the mop at this time. Sorry. Majoreditor (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

    Why do folk keep calling Michael an extreme inclusionist? He often votes delete for articles that clearly arent attack pages or hoaxes. Compared to a proper inclusionist like the legendary dreamfocus MQS is scarcely an inclusionist at all! FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

49. Oppose this thoroughly likeable and genial editor. His good points to one side, he's a member of the Inclusionist Taliban and this renders him unsuitable for adminship. Crafty (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

    Inclusionist Taliban? Please explain. I must say you can turn a phrase. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

    Great news! I have found the leader of the Inclusionist Taliban - see Mr Big - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

    "Inclusionist Taliban" struck. That's quite unnecessary. NW (Talk) 01:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

    You have apparently unstruck it, but I request that you restrike that comment as quite uncivil. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

50. Oppose - The above opposes have convinced me that the candidate can't be trusted with the tools. Swarm^(Talk) 22:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
51. Oppose. So far I've opposed only two RfA candidates ever, but nominator DGG seems to be on a campaign to grant Admin status to editors willing to find consensus to Keep in AfDs where none exists—this is the worst nomination since Father Goose. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

    3 in 1 sentence. I appreciate your concision. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

52. Oppose -- He doesn't seem to understand notability guidelines. See here. —Mike Allen 23:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
53. Oppose I have concerns about the judgement of the candidate as well as their grasp on policy. Although I think the candidate is a good editor (for the most part), good editors do not necessarily make good admins. The questions about alleged sockpuppetry are, from what I can tell, quite irrelevant to this RfA - Rlevse's statement in the header was enough to persuade me that the decision should be made purely on the edit history - and there's plenty there on which to validly oppose IMO (including in deleted contribs). Orderinchaos 01:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
54. Oppose – (from "Support") The later answers to the questions are very worrisome, and I am rather surprised and slightly disappointed in them. I mean, some of the questions asked I would normally disregard (mainly those that would earn "opposes" regardless of how you answer them), but the "flippancy" I not comfortable with. Sorry. –MuZemike 01:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

    While certainly respectful of you changing your mind, I do hope you accept that while my brief flippancy did not approach the level of the hostility shared above by a few the oppose votes, I did apologize and request clartification from Coffee of his questions... nearly 24 hours ago both above and on his talk page. Even when in a somewhat stressful environment, such as this somewhat heated and unusually divided RFA, I do try to maintain or return to civility. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

    You are right about that. First off, keep in mind that I'm not opposing for any reason because of your beliefs. What has concerned me is that as witnessed above you have let others get to you too easily. Given that I don't expect admins/admin hopefuls to be "choir boys" as far as civility/behavior are concerned, but they need to set a good example for the rest of the community as that's who the "outsiders" as well as most Wikipedians likely come to first. –MuZemike 16:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

55. per DGG. -Atmoz (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

    Wrong section perhaps? DGG was a nominator. NW (Talk) 01:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

56. Oppose - Changed to oppose. While some of these philosophical concerns may be valid; my main problem is that less than 30% of his edits concern article work (mainspace and talk pages). I know we all help the encyclopedia in different ways, but that number seems awfully low for someone who's been on here over two years. I want admins who keep their focus on the goal of building an encyclopedia. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
57. Oppose - Reviewing the canadits history, I found too many issues to assume he could have good judgement at this time on closing AfDs. Many of them stated above. --ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 03:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
58. Oppose. The candidate's past actions and comments here (including attempts to defend said actions) make me uncomfortable with his judgement. —David Levy 06:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
59. Sorry, but extreme inclusionism isn't good when you handle BLPs. Oppose per JamieS93. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
60. Oppose porn links in recent AfD were just crazy. Extreme inclusionism is not good. Polargeo (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I have issues regarding your interpretation of reliable sources. I'll probably switch to support or oppose after I think about this some more. ThemFromSpace 06:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   Well.... I believe that when guideline instructs that reliable sources need be considered in context to what is being sourced, it would seem to indicate that RS might actually be graded on a sliding scale... with some absolutely superb and others absolutely worthless... in context to whatever is being sourced... and seperate from WP:V. While certainly it would be ideal if all were absolutely superb, I suppose I am more accepting of some slightly lower down the scale... though you and I are in complete agreement about the many that are totally worthless. Though we may have bumped opinions many times, our discussions have made me a better editor. So whatever you decide here, please never stop keeping me on my toes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

   It seems you are referring to the lead of WP:RS: "How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context." I'm a bit surprised because there are two ways in which I would have interpreted "depends on the context", and yours is a third that I haven't seen mentioned explicitly before. That's not to say your interpretation doesn't make sense; I think it does. Can you think of some other ways in which reliability depends on the context? Hans Adler 10:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   An example might be made by comparing Rutland Times with the Daily Sun. Both are considered RS, but if I was to source an article on Maple Syrup and both covered the topic, it would seem more prudent to give greater credence to the Vermont Newspaper over the one from California... though both are seen as RS and both might cover the topic. A more pointed comparison can be drawn from work on film articles. Film Threat and Fangoria are accepted as decent RS for sourcing independent or genre films... but they would be unsuitable for sourcing an article on a major political figure or athlete. Conversely, political or sports journals would be fairly useless for sourcing independent films. My conclusion here is that an unspoken "sliding scale of reliability" exists... because per guideline, how reliable a source is... from it being "extremely reliable" to "very reliable" to "generally reliable" to "fairly reliable" to "rarely reliable" to "never reliable"... depends on the topic being sourced, by which RS, why, and in what context. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

   If I might add a little in here, Message Board X (fictional) is likely not a reliable source for most things, but if you are stating that the site claims ABC, a link substantiating that fact would certainly be appropriate within certain contexts (like the article about Message Board X) as a statement of fact: "Message Board X claims ABC.'". It would NOT be appropriate to do so on an article on the New York Times unless it has direct bearing on that topic and can be substatiated elsewhere. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks Michael, that's what I wanted to hear. I think that's actually the most important way in which we must consider context. Another, even more important in the rare cases when it does arise, is when different sources contradict each other. Then we must evaluate the entire situation and can't claim something that is clearly not true based on what would otherwise be a very reliable source. Hans Adler 20:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   Couldn't agree more, Hans. The solution there is, as long as both sources are reliable, to state both as "X claims ABC while Y claims DEF" or "Estimates vary from ABC to DEF" and cite both sources. EXCELLENT points there. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

2. I've been aware of Michael for a couple of years now, and can confirm that he has more-than-satisfactorily put his rocky start long behind him. I can't in good conscience support or oppose his bid for adminship, as I haven't reviewed his most recent work, but I'd like to see more evidence of his ability to put aside his own opinion as to whether an article should be kept, in favour of site policies that he seemed at one point to disagree with. However, I can say that when our paths have crossed he has always come across as intelligent and well-mannered, and he doesn't hold grudges when opinion goes against him. See his replies to me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse (2nd nomination) for evidence of all of these qualities. Based on these interactions, I can at least agree with the nominator's statement that he "is always calm and courteous, researches issues before he opines, states his position clearly, and is always open to feedback". Steve ^T • C 11:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   "[E]vidence of his ability to put aside his own opinion" is a rather difficult request to satisfy. Acceptance of consensus usually results in silence, which is very hard to prove with diffs. :) The only proxy I can think of is evidence of inability reflected in freaking out over deletions and taking them to DRV. Looking at the DRV "page family", I'm not seeing such evidence. Franamax (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   I agree. Michael has made some questionable arguments at AfD, but then again, so have I. Avoiding DRV is probably a good sign that he is okay with what consensus decides. I also don't see any tendentious hounding of editors who disagree with him at AfD or other venues. I'm still a little uneasy with giving someone with unconventional opinions about article retention the ability to close deletion discussions, but I still don't think Michael will abuse the tools. If the RfA passes as it seems to be, I hope I'm not wrong. -- Atama頭 19:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   An excellent point, Atama. Tan | 39 21:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

3. Neutral Moved from support, per the above opposes (specifically user:Coffee). While I think I could support you at some time in the future the diffs shown above do not allow me to support at this time. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral, moved from support. A few concerns brought up make me uncomfortable supporting, my apologies. --Taelus (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
5. Neutral Moved from support due to a number of serious concerns being raised. I apologize for changing seats while the game is in play. Warrah (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
6. Neutral. Was initially going to support but after reading the oppose section it slowly eroded my confidence. Not sure where I stand with this editor. -- œ^™ 12:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
7. Neutral – per OlEnglish; that is exactly how I feel. ^Pepper∙_piggle 13:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral Would like to hear a comment from Michael on the sockpuppet case. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

   I'm sure he will respond in his own time, but here's the basic situation: MQS initially logged into Wikipedia to make an article about himself. After facing initial opposition, he gave up and his publicist (who has since been fired) took over, making a general mess out of everything and creating sockpuppets galore. MQS eventually came back under his current name. He was accused of sockpuppetry by another user and the sockpuppetry case was upheld and blocks dished out. MQS has since rejected the actions of the past (these were 18 months ago) and has committed to a single account ever since. I'm sure he will answer further questions and confirm this, but I was just trying to get you a quick answer. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

   That somewhat fits with what I'd gathered myself, so I don't understand the opposes based on sockpuppery, so I guess I'm leaning towards support. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

   Not quite sure on those rationales either. Thanks for your input. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

   Candidates comment 2 There is no active sock case against me, real, alleged, or imagined. I do not use socks and do not even have an alternate account. LLKing and his group created a slew of puppets 2 years ago and were quickly banished. Those actions made me swear to never be like him, and my edits over the following 2 years have shown that I am not like him. If opposers or neutrals above wish to judge me by the actions of someone else two years ago, nothing will sway that opinion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

   Do you consent to a checkuser being run on your account? Hipocrite (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

   As far as I know, asking for yourself to be CU'd never works. Franamax (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

   CU is not for fishing nor for proving innocence. If someone has recent sock concerns about MQS, bring forth the evidence or cease such accusations. If the someone is still concerned about the issues from 2008, see the post I'm about to make. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

   FYI: Here is the aforementioned comment — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

   Happy with the sockpuppet situation. Changed to support. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

8. Neutral: Still debating this one as some concerns have popped up. South Bay (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
9. Neutral Switched from Support in the light of some recent Oppose discussions -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
10. Neutral Moved here after viewing some of the rapidly escalating oppose discussions. Buggie111 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
11. Neutral Per concerns raised above, but I don't want to pile onto the opposes. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Candidate's withdrawal

For the good of the project in seeking to avoid any further controversy or disrupuption, I hereby tender my withdrawal from consideration for adminship. I wish to express my deepest thanks to co-nominator's DGG, BQZip01, and Franamax... editors who know better than almost any other, having helped and encouraged my growth from a rank and unschooled newcomer to my becoming a productive contributor. I also wish share my heartfelt appreciations to those many supporters who had the courage to stick by their initial opinions and for their encouraging my continuance in this RFA even against the various comments from some opposes. And to the editors who opined as neutral or voted oppose, and this whether they started that way or switched from support later, I wish to extend my thanks for your participation and wish to share that you have all given me a great deal upon which to reflect. Best regards. See in the pages... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)