Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/MichaelQSchmidt: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:25, 13 March 2010

MichaelQSchmidt's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 03:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC):[reply]

{{{2|}}}

Closing AFDs

Based on this edit (well, in combination with the one before it), I don't think you understand, Michael, what the concerns are. It's not a matter of people worrying that you'll close AFDs in which you've participated. That'd be a quick way to find yourself in a lot of hot water. The issue is that people don't trust you to close any AFD. Your views and voting history leave a lot to be desired. If you're willing to vote to keep such horrible and unworthy articles as you have, it's likely you'd be willing to find consensus to keep where none exists. It's likely you'd be willing to give weight to votes that are worthy of none. Your judgment has legitimately been called into question. That is what people are concerned about. It's not specific to AFDs in which you've voted or BLP AFDs. It concerns all AFDs. Lara 21:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically my position. Don't trust him to get any of the important judgement calls right. I'm also far from convinced about the "firing" of the "publicist" and concerned about the self-contradictory, meandering explanations on the RFA page.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100%. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I trust Michael to close AfDs 100%. As a general observation, I have found inclusionist editors far more objective when closing AFDs than those who claim to be deletionists or anti-inclusionists, whom I frequently see closing discussions as delete for which any neutral editor would have closed as "no consensus," "merge and redirect," and in some cases even "keep." I would say such admins as DGG and Casliber lean slightly inclusionist, although I do see both argue to delete more than say I do, and yet they do not close discussions as keep that they might otherwise want kept. Similarly, I do not make non-admin closes even for discussions that look like snow keeps. I do by contrast see the opposite with admins who lean in the deletionist direction. To suggest that Michael would not follow the path of other inclusionist leaning admins like Casliber and DGG is to assume bad faith and to do so with no real basis. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 : That's basically my position. Don't trust him to get any of the important judgement calls right. I'm also far from convinced about the "firing" of the "publicist" and concerned about the self-contradictory, meandering explanations on the RFA page.[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 21:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 :Agree 100%. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<font color="#090">have a cup</font>]] // [[WP:ARK|<font color="#4682b4">ark</font>]] // </small> 22:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
-:I trust Michael to close AfDs 100%.  As a general observation, I have found inclusionist editors far more objective when closing AFDs than those who claim to be deletionists or anti-inclusionists, whom I frequently see closing discussions as delete for which any neutral editor would have closed as "no consensus," "merge and redirect," and in some cases even "keep."  I would say such admins as DGG and Casliber lean slightly inclusionist, although I do see both argue to delete more than say I do, and yet they do not close discussions as keep that they might otherwise want kept.  I do by contrast see the opposite with admins who lean in the deletionist direction.  To suggest that Michael would not follow the path of other inclusionist leaning admins like Casliber and DGG is to assume bad faith and to do so with no real basis.  Sincerely, --[[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]]<sup>''[[User talk:A Nobody|My talk]]''</sup> 22:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
+:I trust Michael to close AfDs 100%.  As a general observation, I have found inclusionist editors far more objective when closing AFDs than those who claim to be deletionists or anti-inclusionists, whom I frequently see closing discussions as delete for which any neutral editor would have closed as "no consensus," "merge and redirect," and in some cases even "keep."  I would say such admins as DGG and Casliber lean slightly inclusionist, although I do see both argue to delete more than say I do, and yet they do not close discussions as keep that they might otherwise want kept.  Similarly, I do not make non-admin closes even for discussions that look like snow keeps.  I do by contrast see the opposite with admins who lean in the deletionist direction.  To suggest that Michael would not follow the path of other inclusionist leaning admins like Casliber and DGG is to assume bad faith and to do so with no real basis.  Sincerely, --[[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]]<sup>''[[User talk:A Nobody|My talk]]''</sup> 22:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)