Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/MichaelQSchmidt

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

{{{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)

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)

Agree 100%. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 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. 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)

I second what A Nobody said, with the caveat that I have not seen inclusionist or deletionist tendencies in closing AfDs that weren't dealt with shortly afterwards.

To be clear Lara, you are stating that you don't trust him to follow the policies of Wikipedia and think if would "go rogue" and do whatever he wanted? — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As his nominator, you're not doing him any favors. This request is beyond saving anyway, however; so I guess it doesn't matter much that you've decided to go for the "let me completely skew your words and distract from the point" technique. Anyway, since A Nobody mentioned inclusionists and deletionists, it's also worth noting that Michael's definition of each, as expressed in his answer to one of Chet's questions, was a bit ridiculous. That he is clearly an extreme inclusionist yet claims not to be is also concerning. Own up to your positions. I'm normally a deletionist. Extremely so in cases of BLP. See? Not difficult to identify one's positions. Lara 23:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "completely skewing your words to distract from the point", I'm asking if this is what you meant, because that's the way I took it. I am asking for clarification.

Personally, my position is that I see the labels too often as ways to vilify those with whom one has a disagreement; "extreme inclusionist", "rabid inclusionist", and "militant inclusionist" are just a sampling of the labels used in this RfA. Each use is intended to marginalize MQS, despite the fact that not one of them has an actual definition ("militant" implies violence to get your way, "rabid" implies irrational behavior). I can also agree with you that he has the tendency to "root for the underdog" and take a lower view of WP:RS than others. I also think he's giving the article one last chance to show notability. I think some of the works he has asked for should not have been kept, but that was his opinion on the matter and I'm willing to respect it, much as I respect yours. I've disagreed with him on some AFDs, but I also think he's willing to accept consensus and knows when he's been "beat".

As for "vote counting" and believing he will place a higher emphasis than is warranted, are you saying you believe he will give undue weight to opinions that are not rooted in policies like WP:RS, but instead will allow keeping an article based upon emotional arguments or (god-forbid) personal/professional relationships (such as in his relationships with people in Hollywood)? If so, I can certainly understand your opposition. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I was going to reply on my talk page, but this works just fine. What we're saying is that he can't be trusted to be an admin, purely because of the way he currently edits AFDs. A Nobody is a rabid inclusionist, and therefore I would be more surprised if he didn't want Micheal to close AFDs than if he did. He won't just go rouge, he'll give (as Lara said) weight to votes that are worthy of none. I've seen it before, and I'm sure I'd see it again with Micheal. The inclusionists love to count votes instead of actually weighing votes per policy, and when they have an inclusionist mindset then they will probably give undue weight anyways. I simply do not trust Micheal to actually follow our policies, as he has shown a lacking of comprehension of them on every AFD he's commented on. Why should I trust someone to be able to walk, let alone run, when they have no legs to stand on? — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I have actually argued to delete more frequently than some of those who oppose Michael argue to keep... Moreover, I have probably supported a bunch of admin candidates since my name change who have argued to delete many articles I might have argued to keep. And we see far more deletionist admins give weight to weaker delete votes than stronger keep arguments when they close. Yet, we just don't in reality see inclusionists admins like say Everyking doing the same. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be something to do with the fact that he doesn't close AfDs at all. If he has started to do so, please let me know. Ironholds (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Which goes to show that an inclusionist has lived up to his "campaign promise." If we assume good faith, then we have no reason to doubt Michael would not be as impartial as he suggests here. Indeed, there is no evidence, Michael would go on some kind of article keeping frenzy just because he is an admin. After all, one does not need to be an admin to close discussions as keep. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So one inclusionist keeping a promise means we should assume another would, when that user isn't even honest enough to admit to his beliefs? Assume Good Faith has a limit, and that limit is around the time the user decides that passing an RfA through dodging questions and giving deliberately vague answers is more important than being honest with the community. Ironholds (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Not just one, but many inclusionist admins do not close contentious Afds or ones for which they could potentially have a bias. The hypocrisy that I am seeing in the oppose sections is from those on the opposite end of the wikiphilosophy spectrum who either support, ignore, or do themselves close discussions that any neutral editor would close "no consensus," "merge," "redirect,", or even sometimes "keep" as delete out of their own bias. Moreover, I have participated in hundreds of deletion discussions (Afds, MfDs, etc.). I have a good sense of who if anybody is an "extremist" and Michael is not. It is little more than character assassination to say that he is. What he is is someone who actually tries to find and add sources to articles (isn't that what we are supposed to be doing here, i.e. building an encyclopedia?). I have encountered deletionist accounts have declared they would never argue to keep (and I checked, they never have!). That is extremist. By contrast, Michael does argue to delete. I don't know if some who say don't like me or some others are giving him an unfair shake because he has been in agreement with someone like me in a handful of discussion and if so, then for shame, because here we have a moderate editor who actually builds articles being maligned as if he were someone else. The comments being levelled at him are what someone would say about me c. 2006 on Wikipedia when I admittedly had a lot of ignorance about this project and edited according to that ignorance. But not Michael in 2010. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)