Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MichaelQSchmidt 2

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

MichaelQSchmidt

Final(109/6/2). Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 16:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs) – Since January 08 Michael has made 35,000 edits and continues to make high quality content contributions to the project, mostly in the field of film and entertainment. Michael is a coordinator of Wikiproject Film and spends a lot of his time explaining our often obtruse rules/guidelines to new users - often in the area of deletion, which is where I mostly encounter them. Michael's first RFA around 18months ago was withdrawn in the face of what were, at the time, valid concerns about his approach to inclusion. Since then, Michael has continued to participate in xFD and his contributions have steadily improved to the point where I, as a regular closer of AFDs, invariably find them to be well argued, firmly grounded in policy and pretty much on the button every time. Michael has sometimes been labelled as an inclusionist by those that disagree with his votes, but as an admin often labelled as a deletionist, I can state very clearly that the arguments Michael puts forth in xFDs are based on community standards and the overriding meta consensus on where our inclusion standards should be. This reflects Michael's sensitivity to what we as a project do and I would have absolutely no concerns about putting the deletion buttons in Michael's hands.

Beyond this, Michael continues to be one of our most thoughtful editors, thinking about how to make our process and procedures more acceptable for new editors. The wikipedia primer is a stunning example of this although you might also like to look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about YOU, Wikipedia:Too Soon, Wikipedia:Improve the junk, Wikipedia:The GNG and notability for actors, Wikipedia:Future Films and WP:Other evidence of film notability.

For those of a statistical bent, Michael has authored or expanded 63 articles, improved or rescued 419 articles, brought 10 articles back from the incubator, received over 50 barnstars and been awarded 66 DYKs. Michael has also uploaded nearly 200 movie posters (see Here and here, which shows that he is also understanding of how to use non-free content appropriately on wikipedia.

In short, we have a sensible, kind, thoughtful editor who has shown over the last 3 years that they can adapt their approach to match community expectations and standards, which makes them, in my book, the perfect candidate for adminship. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I consider MQS one of our most reliable editors and judgers of notability within his subject, film and related areas of entertainment. If someone's notable, he knows very well how to find sources; if not, he says so. He knows what's bullshit. (I agree with Crusio that in the past, he was sometimes a little over-enthusiastic, but he's never dogmatic, and he learns from experience.) When I get involved in a subject where I have little background, I look around for someone I can trust, and for anything in his field, he's the person. Reciprocally, when something comes up that's not in his field, he asks for advice, and listens to it. He's one of the most careful people here in dealing with new comers, and he has not just good intentions, but knows how to word them effectively. Spartaz gave some details; I have no need to add to them (but I mention his recent contribution at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prosper Masquelier, where he showed in exemplary fashion his willingness not to just put up an argument, but to document it securely, and fix the article.) I hope our co-noms taken together will indicate the confidence that any middle-of-the road person about article inclusion/deletion will be able to have in him. In patrolling speedy, I look forward to being able to rely his ability to judge the many speedy nominations of people in his field that he can judge more confidently than most of us other admins. DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

It is with humility and respect that I accept this nomination from editors with whom I have occasionally disagreed. That Spartaz feels that I would use the mop properly and fairly and only through careful and reasoned application of guideline and policy, is a great compliment in and of itself. And that DGG wishes to co-nom is itself a welcome accolade. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Candidate's statement

I have met a lot of terrific editors here, and many who have benefitted by patience and education. The "primer" mentioned above was a two-year labor-of-love intended for just those newcomers... and created at the same time, WP:NAU was written to clue-in those new users who have a perhaps-misunderstanding of just what being an encyclopedia means. Many who I have met through my being active at AFD might worry that I would use the tools to close them in my own interest. Nope. Not gonna happen. While I have performed Non-admin closures in the past, those who know me through AFD know how I far prefer improving articles to address concerns than simply opining and leaving the work to someone else. Building the encyclopedia is far more satisfying. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: As they are related to my interest in ensuring properly encyclopedic content, I would help with the deletion processes at AFD and CSD and PROD.

The tools would NEVER be used to close AFDs in which I have interest, but only to delete or keep in respect to the consensus of those discussions, or to userfy back to authors those which may be too premature... or to incubate those whose time is nearly come, but which need just a few weeks with which to ripen through collaborative editing.

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

A: Just as does Spartaz, I consider WP:PRIMER to be one of my best contributions, as far too often a newcomer will be discouraged by our processes and leave... sometimes angrily. A close second to PRIMER is WP:TOOSOON, a another educational essay that instructs newcomers just when a topic might be considered ready for main space and just when it might not. My goal with such is to let newcomers know that their efforts are welcome but that they need to understand the policies and guidelines that keep Wikiedia running in order to best contribute.

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: While my own newcomer's education 4 years ago caused me angst at the time, it's ancient history... but a history which educated me into the ways of Wikipedia. I've moved on, learned, and become a better editor and contributor. I find it best to always maintain a cool head, and have reasonable, non-confrontational discussions.

Additional questions from Snottywong

4. Describe the differences (if any) between your mindset when you approach an AfD on which you intend to vote, and your mindset when you approach an AfD which you intend to close.

A: My mindset is "neutral" in when first viewing anything that is at AFD. I make no presumptions. My process is to first read the nominator's statement and then visit the article under discussion. If the nominator's concerns can be addresed through regular editing, I usually perform edits to address concerns before returning to an AFD, and then returning to the AFD offer a policy and guideline supported opinion based upon whether or not the concerns could be or have been addressed. I feel that closing an AFD must involve the same process of neutrality and aplication of our rules. I have NAC closed a few, using just that procedure, but far more often if I see a problem, I address the problem, rather that depend on others to do so.

5. Discuss how your tendency towards inclusionism (or the popular perception thereof) and your participation in WP:ARS might influence your work at AfD, CSD, and PROD.

A:The perception of my having a tendency toward inclusionism is what it is. I prefer improving articles to better serve the project. But equally, if something is unsavable and has no possibility of improvement, I am quite willing to offer an opinion that it be deleted.

In AFDs I would visit the article in question and evaluate the arguments made at the AFD through use of policy and guideline. If concerns have been addressed, a keep would be the result. If concerns were not addreessable, a delete would be the result. If there is litle discussion, a relist might be best to encourage that the topic gain broader input. At CSD and PROD I would read the prod reason and determine if the prod was correctly applied. If correctly aplied, I would then consider if concerns could be addressed. If they could be, I would deprod and explain why, and more likley than not, perform a few edits myself to show that the preod reason could indeed be adressed. If the prod reason is valid and issue could not be addressed, I would readily delete.

6. Assume you're an admin, and while closing AfD's you come across an AfD that has been around for more than 7 days and is ready to close. The AfD has 6 votes, all to delete, mostly for notability concerns and the fact that the article has no reliable sources. The article happens to be about something with which you are personally very familiar, and in fact you're confident that you could find one or two reliable sources from places others might not have looked. How do you proceed?

A: In such a case I would act as I would any other time. If I could address issues to properly assert and source notability in a circumstance where others less familiar with that particular topic might have had problems in researching, I would proactively address the issue and then make a reasoned "keep" at the AFD explaining what was done to address the nom's concerns. I would then contact those 6 voters and the nominator to let them know that circumstances had changed and invite them back to the discussion, and would then leave a comment requesting that a non-involved Admin relist so that those seven have the opportunity to revisit.

If it turns out that I could not find the sources and the issues were not addressable, only then would it be time to bring out the mop and close as delete per the consensus.

Additional question from NuclearWarfare

7. During your previous RFA, I opposed you for making arguments in certain AFDs that I thought were so weak that they ought to be discounted all together. Do you still stand by those arguments? If so, please explain why. If not, please show how you have demonstrated change since your previous RFA.

A: While now sometimes embarrasing, several years ago I did indeed offer some quite weak arguments at AFDs, and it was reasonable that you might oppose the RFA 18 20 months ago based upon examples of poor arguments from 2 and 3 years ago. And no, I do not "stand by" poor arguments from years past.

I have particpated in many hundreds of AFDs since my last visit to RFA. My demonstrated "change" is in my arguments now being strongly based upon community standards and the overriding consensus on where our inclusion standards should be. Recent examples of AFD's where I shared decent arguments supported by policy, guideline, include the deletes of Men from Nowhere, Killer Kabbage, Lauran Irion, Joe McStravick, Jan Heidebo, Mines are mine, Roaming Beasts of Terror, Oysters Rockefeller (film), Dante's Inferno Documented, Bryn Lucas, Millie Midwinter-Lean, Sean Treadaway, For Love Or Money (documentary), The Perfect Roommate, showing that I practiced diligence before commenting, and even when sharing sources, chosing to not let verifiability overrule proper application of notability guidelines.

Then we have discussions resulting in keeps, such as Eliza_Swenson, Flight of the Old Dog, Choker (film), Battle of the Bone, Jeff Szusterman, Steven A. Davis, Nivedita Jain, Rex Lease, Travis Gordon, Johnny Appleseed (film), Claire Rushbrook, Pol Goossen, Pink Ice, The Boy with a Thorn in His Side, Allie Gonino, Unidentified, as examples of how improving an article through actual editing and offering arguments based upon application of guideline and policy better the project.

I would hope any decision made here today is not based upon poor edits from a 2 or 3 or 4 years ago, but instead rather upon my work and contributions since that past RFA 18 months ago. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Reyk

8. In this RFC/U section you appear to endorse articles being nominated for deletion just to teach the author a lesson. Would you please clarify your position on this point?

A: I do not and did not support nominating an article to teach its author a lesson.

At the above-linked "Outside view by Feyd Huxtable", Feyd spoke toward CW's then-nominations of certain articles being seen as retaliatory toward those who had nominated some articles of his own and an expansion that CW's overall body of contributions wre generally positive.

My response was "The greater the number of edits, the greater the possibility of one being problematic. Being willing to discuss and correct is what is important, and such willingness is being seen from CW".

I was acknowledging Feyd's view that CW's edits were problematic, and offered that CW's willingness to discuss and modify his problematic behavior should be seen in a positive light. I was not endorsing bad behavior, I was endorsing an editor's willingness to correct such behavior.

Additional questions from Ebe123

9. What's your opinion on WP:ABUSE and WP:LTA?

A: My opinion is that they are tools that can sometimes prove useful in curbing vandalism and as such tools, they have a value to the community. I see the first is a means by which to track what may be abuse from IP ranges, which could then lead to posible action at WP:AIV, and the second as a means by which to track what may be determined as long term abuse by regular editors, which again could lead to sanctions. I wish to thank Ebe123 for bring them to my attention, and did not intend he feel I was ignoring him. He asked a reasonable question of what my opinon is of two areas in which I have not involved myself, and I needed to better understand them before commenting.

10. Write a convincing rationale to oppose you, and then a rebuttal. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 21:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

A:

Hypothetical oppose:

I "oppose" Schmidt because he failed in his first RFA attempt and I do not think he can separate himself from his personal interest in film and television. He involves himself far too often in articles of films and actors of which and whom he might have direct knowledege, and by being so involved could not possibly be unbiased in film-related articles. Sure... he might fix up an occasional article to meet the community's standards, but I'll retain my right as a Wikipedia editor to remain suspicious. I think his work since his last RFA has been a long-term subterfuge intended to lull the proper suspicians of others. - User:Anonymous

Rebuttal to hypothetical:

Anonymous User's points seem grounded in a desire to not acknowledge that folks can change. Sure, Schmidt's beginnings were shakey, and his last RFA failed, but we DO allow that editors can learn and improve, and this is better judged through evaluation of current work and not by things long past. So rather than living in the past, I prefer to use a little good faith and judge Schmidt not by his past, but rather from the last 18 months of edits showing he IS able to remain neutral, has achieved a decent uinderstanding of policy and guideline, is willing to engage in civil discourse, and wishesd to make Wikipedia better for new users. I see no conflict in a mathematician editing articles about math-related topics, nor in a school teacher editing articles about education. That we do have an editor provably able to remain neutral in editing articles related to his profession, I think he benefits the project by that knowledge - User:Rebuttal

Hypothetical debate:

- See! Schmidt's doing it again. Telling the folks what he expects then to hear. You're not gonna fall for that crap are you???? - User:Anonymous

- Crap?? So what is he supposed to say? The question was a hypothetical posed perhaps as a way to determine what Schmidt himself feels might be concerns. - User:Rebuttal

- So now you're attacking the man who posed the question????? - User:Anonymous

- Not at all. Just wishing to note that while we might create hypotheticals about anything, we do better as editors to leave preconceptions or bias at the door and judge by far more recent edits than those of his early and unschooled days on Wikipedia. - User:Rebuttal

- Then you're being a gullible fool. He'll never learn. Bad editors never get better. - User:Anonymous

- Sorry to disagree, but bad editors quite often become better ones. Wikiepdia encourages this and discourages the holding of grudges. The edits I see since that failed RFA are reflective of someone who has gained a significant amount of clue, and one who is trying to be a postive influence through actions and deeds. - User:Rebuttal

- I do not have a grudge. You're being a gullible fool. - User:Anonymous

- Already answered. - User:Rebuttal

- Harumph. - User:Anonymous

What relevance do those two questions have to this RfA? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is was a means by which to find out what I feel might be concerns to some. I am aware of concerns others might have and truely, the only way to maybe change a negative opinion is through continued good work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from HJ

11. If you were going through an AfD log looking for discussions to close, what would you do if you encountered a discussion for an article that you felt should be kept but for which the consensus seemed to be in favour of deletion? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's assume all the arguments I found there, both pro and con, were well-grounded in policy and guideline... my answer here is similar to my answer to the question posed in number 6 above. If I have the sense something can be fixed to serve the project, I usually choose to address the issue proactively... researching and improving the article as posible. And if I felt I was successful in adressing concerns, I'd come back to the AFD, offer a keep opinion and explain why, notify those who offered an opinion that their concerns had been addressed and invite them back to the discussion, and add a comment for whomsoever might follow requesting that it be relisted so that they can revisit.

If my research proved my impression to be incorrect, I would delete per consensus. Maybe slower, but perhaps more sure.

Additional question from Warden

12. You tend to work on movies which are on the borderline: low budget, film festival and other marginal stuff. We had The Human Centipede on the front page recently as a featured article and I gather that there was some disquiet that this had been done as a stunt to deliberately outrage and upset people. We currently have a big fuss about the use of images which may shock in articles such as Pregnancy. Where do you stand on this issue of censorship and good taste? Warden (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"Censorship" and "good taste" are subjective terms which vary widely, from culture to culture and from person to person. No matter the topic, I do my best to apply the community standards that have been built here through consensus on what our inclusion standards should be, and understand that any personal agreement or disagreement with a topic is to be left out of a consideration.

While there are topics that I could personally feel might not be quite suitable in a Wikipedia viewable by small children, I remain neutral in my application of policy and guideline and do not let personal opinion sway objective application of existing policy and guideline. IE: I apply the criteria we have created and fully respect that Wikipedia is neutral and uncensored. If those criteria change, I will apply the changed criteria.

Additional questions from Bongomatic

13. At a recent AfD discussion, you quoted a key policy, stating that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, seemingly suggesting that verifiabilty is a substitute for notability. Could you please elaborate on your interpretation of the quoted policy?

A: Verifiability and notability are different though deeply intertwined concepts. I am willing to be educated if I am incorrect, but my understanding is that verifability is the key to either notability established through meeting the GNG OR confirmation of an assertion made under an SNG. If a topic does not have coverage to meet the GNG or cannot be verified in a reliable source to meet an alternate criteria elaborated in the various SNGs, we do not find that topic notable enough for inclusion.

WP:V at its most basic means that topics must be verifiable, even if not neccessarily true. IE: Easter Bunny is fiction, but verifiable as being covered in multiple reliable sources. Thus meriting inclusion.

14. The general notability guideline is met when a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. What is the meaning—according to the current consensus of editors active in AfD and other notability discussions—of a "reliable source" in this context?

A: I believe consensus of editors is that we use guideline's telling us how to indentify and use reliable sources before using them. While there are inexperienced editors who might quote from a blog or press release or inapropriate non-RS at AFD (embarrassed that I used to be one), experienced editors at AFD accept and use sources that meet the criteria for determining such as set forth in the guideline.

And while blog coverage is never a sign of notabiity, increasing blog coverage could act as an indicator that we be alert for a truly reliable source picking up on the blog buzz and thus giving a source we can use. But even if only an indicator that we might use in "waiting", blogs are not usable and the topic is likely premature. As we do not wait on excpections, if a reliable source does not cover or cannot confirm, then so be it.

15. Given your answer to the previous question, how would you weight "keep" opinions at an AfD discussion that rely solely on reasonably detailed coverage of a topic in a single independent source that has extremely limited circulation or readership? ^Bongo_matic 05:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

A: At AFDs, I have occasionally seen editors dismiss a news source solely dependent on its location and small circulation. To do so can often be inapropriate. For instance if the news source is THE major news source for some small nation and the only one available to cite something pertinant to the nation, it is the one we use. One would not expect the lead newspaper in Fiji to have the circulation of the New York Times. To the other side of the coin, if the sole news source for an article is some podunk gazzette in a greater metropolitan area itself served by numerous large news services, that source, reliable as it might be for its teeny area, would amount to local coverage only, and not give much weight toward overall consideration of the topic's notability. We keep in mind though that for some topics the only available coverage might be in a smaller publication. We do not expect the New York Times to cover events in Fiji. Any evaluation of keep arguments must be in relationship to their supported sources and with consideration of what is being sourced and by whom on a case-by-case basis.

Additional question from Hans Adler

16. What is your position on so-called paid editing? More precisely, under what conditions is it admissible for an editor to receive money or similar 'real world' rewards for improving our coverage of a certain topic? Where exactly is the line to ordinary conflicts of interest? Not every case is as clear-cut as the one discussed in the Signpost 2 years ago. Jimbo has made it clear that he will block "paid shills" personally, but how should the community deal with borderline cases? Hans Adler 10:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

A: I do not believe there are any circumstances where "paid editors" should use be allowed to use wikipedia to promote their own monetary interests. Wikipedia is not here to help shills pay for their new Mercedes. If a topic truly merits improved coverage, a non-paid editor will get to it in due course of time. If one does not, then perhaps that topic does not merit increased coverage.

While considerations of what is and is not COI might sometimes allow just a little wiggle room, generally speaking if an editor has knowledge and skills helpful to expansion of a certain topic's coverage and feels he can contribute to that topic, he should be able to do so as long as his content is encyclopedic, completely neutral, and properly sourced. If that editor has close relationship to the topic being edited, he should declare a possible conflict of interest while still ensuring his contributions be encyclopedic, completely neutral, and porperly sourced. If the editor has a too-close in relationship to the topic he wishes to edit, he should refrain. By way of example, if the edits follow the policy and guideline instructions for being encyclopedic, neutral, and properly sourced, I would expect that a school teacher should be able to contribute to articles on education generally, be very careful when contributing to articles about his alma mater, and absolutely refrain from editing articles about himself.

And to the last part of your questions, and as not all cases are as straight-forward as the signpost example, my presumption would be that borderline cases would need to be reviewed one-by-one dependent upon just how borderline they are and how urgent addressing the issue of a specific borderline case has become. The processes set in place hopefully prevent an editor being blocked or banned without due cause and sufficiant evidence of an offense... the investigation of course, being something done by those who have the neccessary tools for such.

Additional questions from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

17. In your RFA last year, you declared "I have never yet closed an afd, and I have no interest in closing them" and "I have absolutely no intention of ever closing a disputed BLP afd, except against my own opinion." Yet now, you declare that you expect your principal use of administrative tools will be the the deletion process, and have not restated your previous commitments. Why are these positions you stated in your first AFD no longer operative?

A: 20 months ago, I had no interest in closing them. But that was the "elephant in the room" at that RFA, and I realized since then that I could not think the elephant would go away if ignored. So I have indeed closed a few since then. I do not declare that my principle use of tools would be only in the deletion processes, but in question #1 state rather "I would help with the deletion processes at AFD and CSD and PROD". That is "Help", as in assisting where needed. As there are many non-contentious areas that could be addressed, I elsewhere on this page clarified and expanded "knowing that I need to prove myself to some, I fully intend to avoid even the mere consideration of closing contentious or controversial AFDs. I can let more experienced old timers handle those." And toward thoughts that my response to #1 was too narrow, I also elsewhere clarified and expanded "I absolutely do intend to expand into the more mundane and drama-free housekeeping duties if given the mop, and through careful study, learn in what areas I might best assist. My concentration above has been in and about AFDs for the most part because that is the area in which editors may most often see me outside my editing of articles. I need to doubly assure myself and others that I fully understand other areas before working within them."

18. In your response to question 7, you state that you wish to judged by "my work and contributions since that past RFA 18 months ago. But in Articles for deletion/Gabriella Fox (3rd nomination), more than a year after your first RFA, you were still repeating the behavior for which you had been criticized, including citing a porn vendor site as a reliable source and claiming a trivial mention in a mainstream source as significant, in-depth coverage. Even worse, you cited an article which quite obviously dealt with an entirely different person (a minor child) as somehow demonstrating the notability of a porn performer. When I commented that "it's pretty clear that Mr. Schmidt, despite his claim of diligence, hasn't actually bothered to check out the sources", you refused to explain your claims, but accused me of rudeness, incivility, etc. Please explain how a "diligent" editor could have looked at those sources you cited and made the statements you made with regard to them, and why you believe it is uncivil to point out an apparent lack of diligence in reviewing sources.

A: My error, the last RFA closed 20 months ago, not 18 (corrected it in #7 above). Yes, I invite editors to judge me by my work and contributions since that time.[1][2][3]

I definitely do not wish to involve myself in the closing of any discussion that becomes as contentious as do those surrounding porn articles. I'll leave closes of such to those with far more experience in doing so, as there are far quieter places where mundane tasks need assisting. And through your linked example from an AFD closed by User:Sandstein 19 months ago last April, editors interested in seeing how contentious porn discussions can sometimes be, may peruse it for themselves to determine if anyone was rude or not, to determine which persons remained civil or not, and to note my properly striking through, and thus no longer relying upon, those sources determined by our onsite porn-genre experts to be unsuitable.

My arguments then were based on existing community standards and the overriding meta consensus for those inclusion standards. These being

A topic failing the GNG might still be determinable as notable through aplication of an SNG.

A topic failing one applicable SNG might still be determinable as notable through meeting another SNG.

A topic failing an applicable SNG might still be determinable as notable through meting the GNG.

Sources verifying a topic's facts must be suitable and deemed reliable in relation to the topic being sourced.

And even if a source is used only to verify a simple fact, and not as evidence of significant coverage, it still must be considered suitable and reliable in relation to the topic being discussed.

When or if existing community standards and the overriding meta consensus on where our inclusion standards should be actually changes, my arguments will follow and be per the changed standards.

And just as I stated in that AFD from 19 months back last April, I still believe that there are a few topics in Wikipedia which are quite unsuitable for the minor children who might read them, but that's issue that might be addressable through use of an age verification system that could limit access to adult topics to adults only.

Mr. Schmidt, please review and revise your response. The AFD in question was mot "19 months ago", but closed in April of this year, roughly 8 months ago, far more recent than you state. I asked you to explain your claim of having been "diligent" in terms of checking sources, in light of the obvious and undeniable (and undenied) problems with the sources you cited, and you haven't responed to the question I posed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You are correct in that it was last April, and not the year previous. I have corrected that above in my response as you have asked, and thank you for pointing out that error. I am always happy to address an addressable issue.

As for the problems with the two of the multiple external links offered at the AFD, I already explained above that when their unsuitability was explained by those willing to spend time reading through pornographic web sites, I struck them and did not depend upon them. And, as those two pointed out as unsuitable were struck by me, and were thus subsequently not used by me to support my position, their having been struck was obvious and undeniable to the admin who weighed arguments and ultimately closed the discussion.

And as the nature of discussions related to articles about pornography being usually contentious and drama filled, this has made me even more determined to avoid closing them... leaving the close of such contrversial debates to more experienced editors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Please answer the question I asked, Mr. Schmidt! The question centers on what you did before you cited those most questionable sources, and has nothing to do with your striking them afterwards. Your comments here clearly miss the point; only one sources I mentioned was a pornographic vendor's website; the other was a mainstream news report. Let me fine-tune that part of the question: How could a genuinely diligent editor have concluded that this article[4], about an eleven-year-old child, clearly pictured and identified, some how dealt with a pornographic actress twice her age? Alternatively, if you again prefer to avoid the issue, why shouldn't other editors conclude that the repeatedly leveled criticism that you do not consistently assure that the sources you cite, especially in BLP discussions, meet Wikipedia consensus standards for reliability and significant coverage? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The request has been addressed, and my explaining is not the creaton of a straw man argument that you seem to imply in your recent edit summary My politely answering that I did not depend on the two external links when they were pointed out as unsuitable, is not the straw man being created here.

You contend above that editors should determine a lack of diligence because I even thought to bring two uncertain French external links to a discussion and receive input on them in the first place. I contend differently, as AFD is an expected and reasonable location where source suitability CAN be discussed though the benefit of more eyes.

Other editors might find enough diligence in that when informed that the two French-language external links were unsuitable, I struck them and did did not depend on nor defend them subsequently. They might find enough diligence in that when a situation arose through my not reading French, I was willing to address by striking those two external links and not depending on them. They might find diligence in my bringing external links to be evaluated at an AFD in the first place, and in my never including such as citations in the aricle. They might conclude diligence in that with my being aware of the requirements for proper soucing in a BLP, discussion of suitability or not was done in a place outside the article, thus not a violation of WP:CITE and avoiding a BLP or citation violation IN the article.

As my input at the AFD was per WP:DISCUSSAFD, editors might conclude that a genuinely diligent editor would do just this... offer sources for evaluation by editors, respect the opinion of those far more familiar with pornographic websites, stirke them when found unsuitable, and not depend on external links determined by those experts as being unsuitable. While the AFD was closed against your wishes as nominator to have the article deleted, it was not closed by me... and neither will be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriella Fox (4th nomination) when the Fox article comes back to a deletion discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The subsequent discussion has been redacted. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the following in response to Cunard asking for oversight. I posted it, but apparently it was completely ignored by the server because it somehow collided with the redactions. It is still very much on topic, I don't think it is at all inappropriate or oversight-worthy, and it is very relevant for judging the candidate's suitability:

That's an overreaction. The name "Michael Schmidt" is common, in Germany even extremely common. (More than 50 in the phone book of Berlin alone.) There is nothing remarkable about the existence of a criminal who happens to have the same name with a different middle name that doesn't start with a Q. The original post was already revision deleted by Spartaz. There was no need for additional oversight because the source code of old revisions is not easily searchable and anyone who might find the text could not help seeing the context.

As has been mentioned elsewhere on this page, in a porn actress AfD, Michael Q. Schmidt linked to an article that mentioned actress Vanessa L. Williams' daughter who happens to have the same name as that porn actress but is still a child. He simply struck this out, no oversight. Why would Michael Q. Schmidt need more protection than the young victim of his own carelessness? Hans Adler 21:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I asked for oversight only of the news article link and the references to its content but the entire discussion was oversighted. I agree that the example, though extreme and distasteful, provided an apt parallel to MQS's approach to sources. However, the connection of the similarly named individual's misdeeds to MQS could have a damaging effect on his life (he mentioned background checks in the discussion). The link understandably was causing him further stress in a heated RfA and even though the harm was unlikely as you note, it was prudent to completely remove the news article link and references to its content.

I would support restoring the remainder of the discussion as being harmless and reflective of MQS's continued refusal to acknowledge that it is imperative to read the sources he cites prior to posting them. Cunard (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

For those who missed it: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz gave a drastic practical demonstration to the candidate of what kind of problems his nonchalant approach to BLP sourcing can cause. I can't blame the candidate for not being happy with this and asking for redaction, but he went beyond that and pretended that HW's demonstration had nothing at all to do with his own behaviour and had simply been a change of topic towards a personal attack. This is precisely the lack of self-criticism that I have come to expect from this candidate and that can be observed in some of our most disruptive admins. Therefore I hope that parts of the discussion will be restored so that everybody can see them. Hans Adler 21:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is this discussion extremely painful to read? I caught the beginning of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's practical demonstration, but didn't have time to comment before leaving for work. I missed the subsequent discussion before the redaction so I cannot comment on the candidate's alleged overreaction. Both the "Pure People" link provided by the candidate on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriella Fox (3rd nomination) and the redacted link provided by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on this page suffer from clear BLP issues. The difference was that the candidate appeared to act in good faith when he offered the inappropriate link to the AfD discussion, which he later admitted was an ignorant mistake. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's link was not only inappropriate, but it was neither an ignorant mistake nor made in good faith. Sure, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz successfully made his point here, but it bordered on a personal attack in my opinion. By the way, from WP:RFO: "Anyone, at any time, may report issues potentially needing suppression in whichever ways are fastest and easiest". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, why didn't you request oversight for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriella Fox (3rd nomination) at the time if you feel so strongly about the struck link? I sincerely hope that the demonstration on this page wasn't the materialization of a personal grudge you've held against the candidate because of disagreements in past AfD discussions. Jusses2 (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, the contentious interplay at AFDs to my mind reflects a personal grudge held by Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Schmidt approached/canvassed me privately, asking for assistance (and, implicitly, for support) in preparation for his first RFA. I wasn't able to respond to him at that time, but I declined to support him in the RFA. Shortly after that, my interactions with him at AFDs, particularly when I was the nominator, changed sharply.

I completely deny your allegation that my edit was not made in good faith. One of the unfortunate aspects of the aggressive and unnecessary redaction is that it removed the substance of my comment, including my explicitly pointing out that citing such links in discussions without making sure the correct person was discussed was inappropriate, but that Mr. Schmidt argued that he did not need to review the content, or even read the cited source, to do so; he insisted that adding the link based only on search engine results amounted to "diligent" editing.

If you would like an example of a claim that was not advanced in good faith, I suggest you examine Mr. Smith's insistence here that he was unable to recognize this page[5] as a pornographic site, because the text was not English-language. (Be warned, the images are graphic, and if you let your mouse hover in the wrong location, you will be greeted by a cascade of extremely graphic popup videos). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup. That's really bizarre and suggests an inability to see with how much bullshit you can get away without being taken for a liar. Even using Firefox+Adblock without Java or Flash, the page has several "Films X" and "Stars du X" references at the bottom that can't be hard to misunderstand for an English speaker. Once you have answered a "oui/non" question correctly, as you must in order to even see the name for which MQS cited the page. Once there, even with all my security measures I got an empty popup, a big sidebar "XXX FILMS EN VOD" / "XXX TOP STARS DU X", and further down an image that wouldn't leave any doubt even to someone who doesn't know what "XXX" means. Either he didn't click on the link at all or he thought he would get away with anything based on the theory that other editors wouldn't examine a source in French, but in either case it was deceptive.

Since RfAs are essentially just about vote counting (although apparently sometimes with vote rigging by bureaucrats (see my exchange with Xeno at WP:Requests for adminship/Sphilbrick) and this one is almost over, what we say here can't make a difference. But it is painfully obvious to me that this prospective admin is manipulative and should not be allowed to block other users or close discussions. Hans Adler 07:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, you seem to imply that Écran Large was not advanced in good faith because it contains pornographic content, but Wikipedia is not censored. Diligence and good faith are two separate issues, but the main problem I see here is WP:BLP. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriella Fox (3rd nomination), Mr. Schmidt incorrectly classified Écran Large as "non-porn". There was no BLP issue there because multiple other sources confirm that Gabriella Fox is a porn actress; the Écran Large porn link could not possibly damage Fox's reputation. On the other hand, [6] could damage the reputation of Vanessa Williams's daughter because she could be mistaken for the porn actress by the same name. This could be considered a borderline BLP violation on Mr. Schmidt's part, although the language barrier somewhat complicates the matter.

However, just because Mr. Schmidt violated BLP in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriella Fox (3rd nomination) does not give you the right to commit a BLP violation towards Mr. Schmidt on this page. You had very diligently selected a link describing a serious crime committed by a different Mr. Schmidt, illustrating how inclusion of inappropriate links could be problematic. The situation is further compounded by the fact that Mr. Schmidt uses a real name account, and you must be aware by now that ramifications resulting from on-wiki activity can extend into Mr. Schmidt's real life. This was exactly the reason why his withdrawn RFA #1 was courtesy blanked. Your demonstrative borderline BLP violation may have already damaged Mr. Schmidt's on-wiki and real-life reputation, not to mention the subsequent disruption to this discussion resulting from the oversight. It is never correct to violate WP:BLP. Jusses2 (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

General comments

• Link to previous RFA [7]
• Links for MichaelQSchmidt: MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for MichaelQSchmidt 2 can be found here.

Oversighted

29 comments/votes were removed and oversighted. This merits an official statement from the oversighter rather than a 'courtesy' note, and why legitimate votes were removed, . Please consider a 24 HOUR EXTENSION to enable all those whose legitimate votes or comments were removed to respond and/or replaced their votes. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Kudpung, if you look at Cunard's and Hans Adler's comments under Pedro's oppose you will see an explanation of sorts. The oversighted revisions look the same as the ones that I earlier revdeled but as a non-oversighter I can't double check. Since the revisions happened some time after the offending text was added the intermediate revisions all had to be deleted to remove the linkage from the history but the text would have remained the same as when Cunard redacted HWs comment to remove the linkage. I hope this explains somewhat. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• I requested the oversight and saw the edits prior to their being oversighted. I do not believe that any of the votes were removed and do not believe an extension is justified. I believed the RfA would fail based on MQS's participation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriella Fox (3rd nomination), in which he supplied for a porn actress a source mentioning Vanessa L. Williams's similarly named 10-year-old daughter. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's linking of that AfD has remained on the RfA page for several days and has surprisingly not swayed the community. It is unlikely that a 24-hour extension would change the consensus to overlook the AfD. Cunard (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats on talk -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
2. support as co-nom, if it wasn't obvious. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
3. Support - A "rabbit" inclusionist, but also thoughtful, hard-working and competent. I've had the pleasure of dealing with MQS about two weeks ago at an AfD and thought he had done commendable—if not outstanding—efforts to improve an article in the face of pending deletion, which resulted in a withdrawn nomination. I am not too sure how well he will deal with deletion, but overall I have faith in his abilities, and do not see any reason to doubt he will respect consensus when it comes to closing AfDs. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
4. Support Outstanding editor. Hopefully, will be a great administrator too. Wifione ^Message 08:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
5. Support a hero. jorgenev (t|c|s) 09:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
6. Support. Will make a good admin.--Michig (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
7. Support. Outstanding work at AfD. I have closed many AfDs in which MQS was the one who swayed the debate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
8. Support. An outstanding content creator, mentor, and overall keeper of the faith. ^Bongo_matic 10:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

   Note: Despite troubling answers to the questions I asked—question 14 most especially (a radical position in contrast to the consensus of revealed opinions—and the co-nominator's opinion and considered conclusion of consensus opinion—despite the seeming adherence to guidelines), I am not revoking my support. However, I will strongly recommend that the nominee refrain from closing AfDs at all, or at very least where there is controversy over the application of guidelines, and that instead he apply his partisan viewpoint to providing an opinion in such cases. ^Bongo_matic 18:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

   I've already closed a few AFDs, but understanding your concern, and knowing that I need to prove myself to some, I fully intend to avoid even the mere consideration of closing contentious or controversial AFDs. I can let more experienced old timers handle those. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

9. Support Logs for moves and uploads look good. Deleted content has not revealed stupid taggings. But this user has not done any Patrol yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
10. Support. Has made a great effort to address the concerns raised in his last RfA. A very mature response to a failed RfA. Epbr123 (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
11. Support. I really wanted to support last time, but felt I had to go neutral. But the editor's performance since then has made my decision much easier this time - I think I see excellent admin material -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
12. Support MQS is a great asset to the 'pedia and his access to some resources makes him an excellent contributor to tv/movie/book articles. Always presents a reasoned arugment whenever I've come accross him. Would make a great admin.--v/r - TP 14:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
13. Support In patrolling (then) and CSD deleting (now), and in AfD, I see MQS around. Very often rescuing something I would have thought past help. And also voting 'delete'. If he does that, I am sure whatever it is is definitely past help of any other sort. He may have "not done any Patrol yet" as such, but, by heck, he's been around in there and knows what's what. Peridon (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
14. Support excellent candidate, I have absolutely no concerns. ϢereSpielChequers 15:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
15. Without reservation. An outstanding contributor. ceranthor 15:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
16. Support Excellent contributions and in improving the encyclopedia. No concerns here. HurricaneFan25 15:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
17. Support Baseball Watcher 15:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
18. Support - I've seen him around at AfD quite a lot and he always gives well-reasoned replies. I'm fully confident that MQS will be a valuable admin at Wikipedia. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
19. Support I have no concerns or issues - I have only encountered excellent contributions. Royalbroil 16:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
20. Support -- Qualified Editor Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
21. Support - a great nomination. Michael is not only a prolific and high-quality contributor, but I've seen countless Afd-ed articles that he's brought back from the brink with some perfectly executed sourcing. He knows the rules inside-out, and is cool-headed when dealing with potential conflict. His essays, and general manner when dealing with newcomers, show that he's a fine example of what Wikipedia should be about. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
22. Support WE disagree on philosophy. bu there is no doubt I respect his commentary. Courcelles 16:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
23. Support No concerns here. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 16:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
24. Support - A glowing nomination from an admin who is experienced in deletion and who shares differing editing philosophies to the candidate. I see no reason not to support. Mato (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
25. Support - as I said in his previous request, Michael's inclusionist views are somewhat extreme, but his article improvement work has been exemplary. PhilKnight (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
26. Support. Almost 4000 AfD !votes, with a consistent 85+% accuracy and a strong tendency toward inclusion. A quick look at his rationales showed that he has a sound knowledge of policy. No concerns.--Slon02 (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
27. Support per past observations of work (largely at AfD) plus a modest review of random contributions. Thoughtful AfD opinions backed by diligent research warrant my support. --joe decker^{talk to me} 18:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
28. Support. Knowledgeable, experienced, hard-working and cool-headed. 28bytes (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
29. Support Yes one of our most strongest non-administrators. Excellent user. Secret ^account 18:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
30. Has absolutely the right mindset about improving content. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
31. support Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
32. I legitimately thought you were already an admin. Let's make it official. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
33. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
34. Support He can be trusted with the tools. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
35. Support- I opposed last time but my previous concerns seem to have been addressed. I am satisfied with the answer to my question. Reyk _YO! 23:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
36. Support, I supported him before and he is now a stronger candidate. J04n(talk page) 00:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
37. Very strong support — As before. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
38. Support He's the man Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
39. Support – MQS is an outstanding editor. He is definitely qualified for the mop. —mc10 (t/c) 01:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
40. Support per above and previous. Buffs (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
41. Don't see any immediate problems. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
42. Support Definitely a very knowledgeable experienced editor. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
43. Support Can't see any reason why not. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 03:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
44. Support —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:46pm • 06:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
45. Already thought he was an admin. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
46. Jclemens (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
47. I supported last time and clearly MQS has only become a better editor since then, so this is pretty obvious for me. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
48. Support --NellieBly (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
49. If you are good enough for both Spartaz and DGG, you are good enough for me. T. Canens (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
50. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
51. Support I've seen his work at AfD before, and he'll make a great admin. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
52. Support…What more can be said. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
53. Support…Long term dedicated user who's shown good work and decisions. PumpkinSky talk 03:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
54. Total Support A living legend. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
55. Support - Qualified candidate. Why not? Swarm ^X 18:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
56. Support Satisfied with answers to my questions. MQS has mellowed quite a bit since his last RfA, and I think he'll do just fine. —SW— ^talk 18:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
57. Support Reviewing his contributions at this time, I think the reasons I supported the first request are still valid, so I'll just refer to that !vote instead of repeating it here. :-) Regards SoWhy 18:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
58. Support, improvement in areas of concern since last RfA, why not? Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
59. Support I'd been waiting for this one to come up again. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
60. Support The candidate has addressed my personal concerns from the last RFA where I opposed. I agree fully with Snottywong above that the user has "mellowed" - a remarkably apt description. Pedro :  Chat  20:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
61. Support. As far as I'm concerned, MQS is a great content editor who I've worked with quite pleasantly on many occasions. I am not concerned that he'd abuse the tools, I am confident that he'll keep his mop out of AfDs he's been involved with, and I am pretty sure there will be plenty of oversight of his work as well. Good luck, Michael. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
62. Support. Great editor. Supported last time. Supporting this time too.--Sodabottle (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
63. Support. MichaelQSchmidt is an excellent candidate. The opposers' reasons are unusually weak. Extra kudos for ignoring questions 9 & 10. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

    Bah, I'm disappointed to see that MichaelQSchmidt has now answered those questions. :-( Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

    Don't frown. They were reasonable enough, but I had to research before being able to respond. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

    I would like to add that I have read the extended commentary from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Hans Adler and Cunard. (I have not read the oversighted comments.) However I still believe that MichaelQSchmidt will be a good admin. Axl ¤ [Talk] 03:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

64. Support Most definitely! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
65. Support Just loading on. ResMar 22:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
66. Support clueful content contributor, collaborates well - Pointillist (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
67. Support Good contributor, we can always use another sysop. Thanks for answering #9 and answering #10 in 9! ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 23:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
68. Support, excellent editor. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
69. Support Always polite, helpful and informative. I run across Michael often at AfD and, at least in the past year or so, he has shown a good understanding of reliable sources and notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
70. Support - MQS is a decent editor who will use the tools appropriately. LadyofShalott 01:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
71. Unqualified support. He's a better candidate now than last time, and I was comfortable supporting him then. His work at AfD always has been a strong point, and has only improved with time. And, to my way of thinking, there's far less danger that editor whose identity is known will abruptly change behavior for the worse than with those of us who use psuedonyms. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
72. Support. As I did last time. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
73. Support Every time I've come across him, mostly at AfD, I've been impressed. Give him the tools. First Light (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
74. Support No reason to suspect that he would be anything other than a good admin. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 07:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
75. Support Yes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
76. Support Collect (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
77. Support I feel an admin needs experience, courtesy and necessary toughness to prevent vandalism or mistreatment of articles. MQS displays all those. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:46 29 November 2011 (UTC)
78. Me too. Michael: I do want you to recuse from closing AfDs involving the ARS for the foreseeable future, please. You might be well capable of doing so, but there's no need to open yourself up to any accusations.—S Marshall T/C 15:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

    I will so and most readily recuse. ARS members should be on notice that they will not get any special treatment from me, nor expect me to close in their interests. I fully agree with you as what you advise makes great sense. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

79. Strong Support Neutrality, experience and courtesy.--Cavarrone (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
80. Support without reservation. MQS has the temperment to be a very good admin, and a fine sense of judgment as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
81. Support a very helpful and understanding editor. Has made quite a few guidelines in order to help new editors. Of course the opposers are going to throw around these dumb made-up words "inclusionist" and "deletionism". It's just so much easier to type "delete" in AFD than to try and research the article in question and improve it and since Michael takes the time to do so, he's labeled some type of Nazi evil "inclusionist". —Mike Allen 01:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
82. Support, very good and polite editor. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
83. Strong support - fully meets my standards: one of our best, friendliest, and most responsible editors, and who has saved many a crappy article written by a newbie. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
84. Very strong support. MQS is one of the best editors on Wikipedia. Competent, civil, and knowledgeable about policies and guidelines. He's not infallible, but that wasn't a requirement for adminship the last time I checked. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
85. Support: Schmidt would make an excellent admin. SL93 (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
86. Support: I personally am somewhat of a deletionist. However, one of my own created articles was submitted for AFD, and the nominee came in and really improved the article to the point where the AFD turned around. While I am still leaning deletionist and think we have lots of crud pages, he did teach me a lesson about lending a hand and improving, rather than just taking things as they are and giving the boot. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
87. Support – He appears thoughtful and communicative, willing to learn from community feedback, and unlikely to make rash decisions with the tools. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
88. Support Definitely! --Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
89. Support I believe he will make a fine administrator. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 06:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
90. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
91. Support. comment: not often I've seen a DGG nom. — Ched :  ?  22:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
92. support worth a go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
93. support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
94. Support. A competent and knowledgeable editor that is perfectly able to handle the tools — Frankie (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
95. Support. Good stuff. — Cirt (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
96. Support. Candidate was both extremely helpful and civil in a recent AFD discussion. He assumed good faith, made a rebuttal, and waited for the nom (me) to do the right thing. It was only after browsing his talk page when we started discussing the episode that I learned of his RFA. Good guy! Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 04:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
97. Support. An outstanding content creator (and fixer) who has also shown a willingness and ability to deal with structure, procedures, and policy. I especially appreciate his responses to questions 6 and 11, which confirm that he will seek to follow consensus in his acts as an administrator, and at the same time that his admin activities will not deny us his continuing energy and skills in building the encyclopedia. Arxiloxos (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
98. Support. The opposes are not convincing enough in my mind to sway my vote. Otherwise, looks fine to me. Malinaccier (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
99. Support. Per previous RFA. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
100. Support. What I see here is someone who is readily willing to listen and learn, and who is conducting himself admirably through an excess of grilling in this RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
101. Support Clearly a thoughtful and knowledgable editor who will make a first-class admin. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
102. Support - Happy to add my support. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 01:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
103. Support. Adding my support to a thoughtful, seasoned editor. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
104. Support: Absolutely. With nearly 4000 AfD !votes, with 85% accuracy he obviously knows what he's doing. To pick out one or two that backfired from that number would be silly. Probably everyone has some slight leaning towards either deletionism or inclusionism, so what? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
105. No concerns: I am pleased to support. Acalamari 14:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
106. Support. Likewise. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
107. Support- Capable editor with interests beyond main subject area; while mistakes have been made, they were not automated, ignored, or irreparable. Dru of Id (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
108. Support No concerns Jebus989^✰ 23:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
109. Support The opposes are not sufficient to stop me from supporting. Davewild (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I do not like that the previous RfA has been blanked. I feel the nomination here minimizes the various reasons for opposition, as well as the sheer amount of said opposition. Voters deserve to see how the last RfA went in order to make informed decisions. Keepscases (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

   The last RfA can be viewed once you master the "history" button at the top of the page. —SW— ^soliloquize 17:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

   I opposed in the previous RfA and would not feel comfortable supporting in this one, but your point about the blanking is ridiculous. When editors edit under their real names it's a gift to the community. They are offering to be accountable as real people, and they are removing for themselves one of the causes for unnecessary suspicions and assumptions of bad faith. Blanking the last RfA was just an act of common sense and the least any user with a real-name account could expect under the circumstances.
   That said, I think for the duration of this RfA there should be a convenience link to the previous one at the top of the page. Hans Adler 17:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

   Good point. I have added a link above but I'm not sure if its in the right place. I'm sure Michael won't mind if you want to change it round but personally I'd prefer to dwell on where Michael is now rather then 18 months ago. He has changed so much in that time its like comparing chalk with Cheese. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

   Oppose: I was going to support, but I can't get why you're not answering my questions (at least #10). It will give me what's your weak spot and how you will patch it up. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 20:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

   This oppose has no weight to it. Answering questions is not obligatory. HurricaneFan25 21:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

   I am not contradicting you, but I think you can trust the closing bureaucrat to weight the !vote accordingly so that we need not discuss this here. Hans Adler 22:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

   Ebe123, examine the questioner, not the questionee, and then consider your vote. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

   They asked the same question at Tom Morris's RfA, and Tom answered it. Of course MQS can come up with some standard answer ("Well, sometimes I'm TOO concerned with adding too many reliable sources...") that actually indicates a strong spot--or he can just leave it be, since the question really doesn't merit an answer. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Oppose. I am very suspicious of this editor. The behaviour before the previous RfA looked to me as if he was following a guide on how to become an admin to the letter. Being inclusionist is generally a good recipe for that, but in that one instance that featured prominently in the last RfA, he overdid it far more than any reasonable editor could have done in good conscience. He has corrected his course since, but whether the underlying problem is one of competence or one of bad faith, it does not seem very likely that in an editor with his position in life it has been corrected. To put it more succinctly: I think the candidate is very good at playing the role of a good admin candidate. The question, then, is whether I trust him to be motivated to play the role of a good admin in a way that will convince me. I do not. Hans Adler 22:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

   To be fair to MQS, he's been under the microscope so often that I can't fault him for following the letter maybe more than (you think) is necessary. I have faith that his spirit is fine as well. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

   WP:AGF? It's just adminship, not the nuclear football. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

   OK, I tried not to say it so directly, but as I pointed out there is strong evidence that this candidate is either very stupid or a turncoat. Therefore it is my considered opinion that this candidate would likely cause more disruption as an admin than he is worth. We don't need colourblind admins lecturing other users with authority on the the hues of colours in our policies, and we don't need admins closing discussions based on how they think it will affect their popularity. Hans Adler 09:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

   There are two types of editors: those who do whatever they feel without regard to what the community has to say about it, and those who pay attention to positive or negative feedback and adjust their approach accordingly. The candidate appears to be the latter, which in my view is a good thing, and not a sign of either stupidity or traitorous intentions. 28bytes (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

   I don't think you can fake being an inclusionist—it's too much like hard work! Over time, the duck test will apply anyway: if you rescue hundreds of marginal articles you probably are an inclusionist, whatever your motives. - Pointillist (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

   I don't know where the idea that being an inclusionist is typically "a good recipe" for adminship comes from. other than Jclemens, who talks a very good talk, I've seen few candidates passing who are obviously significantly more inclusionist than the norm in a long time. MQS is an honest-to-God inclusionist (unsurprising to an extent when one considers his own article has gone through three AfDs); there's certainly no faking here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

3. In the previous RfA, there were concerns about MQS's understanding of identifying reliable sources.
   
   At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pablo Alonso (30 September 2011), while MQS did not support keeping with a bolded vote, he presented a number of sources to indicate notability. That some of those sources did not even mention the subject concerned me. When I noticed this RfA, I decided to review MQS's contributions at other AfDs.
   
   I have concerns about MQS's understanding of WP:BLP and WP:V, shared by participants in the previous RfA.

   In June 2011, MQS supported retention at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Datari Turner. The nominator had noted that there were V and BLP concerns ("embarrassing content" sourced to TMZ), that the subject was of "borderline notability", and that the creator (who claimed to be the subject) "demanded deletion" after being unable to purge the negative information. MQS's retention rationale did not take these factors into account, leading me to worry about how he would approach closing such AfDs. Admins should take a calculated stance on BLP to avoid harm to living persons.
   
   In his March 2010 RfA, there were concerns about his assessment of reliable sources in pornography-related AfDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lachelle Marie.

   More recently, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiwi Ling (15 November 2011), MQS initially supporting keeping the BLP per PORNBIO despite the article's failing verifiability. I note that he revised his opinion to "delete per lack of verifiability" after other users discussed the reliability of the IMDB website. The AfD participation indicates that while he is willing to change his position per other users' comments, he supported retention of a poorly sourced BLP without due diligence of checking whether the article complied with BLP and V.

   At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Edwards (poet, writer & independent film producer) (5 November 2011), MQS supported retention per WP:CREATIVE but did not take into account the fact that the article was an inadequately sourced BLP, as noted by the closer.
   
   I do not have confidence in MQS to ensure that his closes do not retain articles that violate BLP and V.
   
   At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Devil Inside (film) (3 November 2011), MQS wrote:

   Speedy Keep per inadvertant errors in nomination statement reflecting perhaps a lack of WP:BEFORE and misunderstanding of pertinant policy and guideline. To the nominator, and with respects, a topic's notability is not to be judged by an article's current state...

   I find this comment problematic for two reasons. First, the "speedy keep" recommendation met none of the requirements at Wikipedia:Speedy keep#Applicability. I worry that MQS will be too inclined to speedy close discussions when reviewing AfDs.

   Second, the links to WP:AGF in "inadvertant" and "reflecting perhaps [a lack of WP:BEFORE]" are veiled assumptions of bad faith. The "[t]o the nominator, and with respects" after the AGF links gave the nominator the opposite impression and is faux civility. I reviewed the nomination statement and was unable to comprehend what provoked this comment. I am concerned that MQS's AfD closing statements may contain such a harsh tone directed to nominators who had operated in good faith.
   
   My review of MQS's AfD comments revealed an indefatigable AfD participant who frequently provided insightful rationales. I liked the in-depth research MQS performed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pain in da Ass (5 September 2011) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Treadaway (5 October 2011) and the sensitivity for the BLP of a minor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Dell (21 September 2011).

   I am particularly impressed with MQS's rescue work at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Article Improvement & Rescue. 424 articles to date. His article-rescue work is invaluable. However, I cannot support his adminship request at this time owing to the concerns about his understanding of BLP and V that persist from the previous RfA. Cunard (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

   To User:Cunard: In your example #1, In not being able to ascertain notability, I specifically did not !vote, and instead simply offered links to articles I could not read to hopefully encourage input from Spanish-reading Wikipedians. When you yourself responded in great detail source by source by source the article was properly deleted. I prefer to not presume that because sources are non-English that they should be discounted. You proved that in the instance they could. Thank you.

   In your example #2 My rationale was based directly on the nominator's own statement which itself stated "Borderline notability", and based upon the nominator's statemernt, I suggested that article issues might be addressed through regular editing.

   At your example #3, while I initially offered only a "weak keep" per an applicable SNG (I had some time back learned that searching for porn-related sources is somewhat distasteful), and when those who do search those sites reported back, I properly reversed myself when it proved we had no verifiability.

   At your example #4, I responded to questions from User:EEng to lead him to an SNG he was seeking, and then, and based upon the preceding discussion, offered an !vote based upon my belief that addressing addressable issues is usually the way to go. As the author's involvement in the creation of notable work was determined as not showing notability under the applicable SNG, the closer determined that the issues could not be addressed, and the article was properly deleted.

   In your example #5, the nominator's rationale was provably incorrect. My own keep rationale politely offered in good faith that a sense of lack of BEFORE could have simply been inadvertant. The nominator then responded and explined the difficulties he faced due to the film's common title, showing his awareness. But to disagree with you, I do not feel politely and respectfully reminding a nominator to check pertinant policies and guidelines is too way out of hand nor incivil. But you are quite correct... I should should have typed "strong" or "snow" had I felt them applicable, and not "speedy"... and I certainly could have simply avoided the AFD entirely and approached the nominator or others on talk pages (a process I am now using far more frequently [8][9][10]).

   I do not think the examples you shared show a penchant for persistant error, so much as they instead reflect my wish to apply community standards fairly while involving in civil discussion, and my willingness to quickly reverse myself if I am wrong.

   I am appreciative of your compliments toward my other work since my earlier failed RFA. And in your linking to the RFA from 18 months back, and its examples of admitedly poor judgements from two and three ago or older, you remind me that I always have room for improvement. I do, and freely admit it. Thank you and best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

   Example #1—You cast an implicit "keep" vote: a list of sources followed by the comment "My question beocmes... just how much English language coverage do we expect for an Argentinian artist and performer? I would think that notable for Argentina, no matter his profession, should be notable enough for en.Wikipedia." The list of defective sources gave me no indication that you had reviewed them for quality. Fluency in Spanish was not necessary to determine that the sources were trivial coverage. A search of each article for the subject's surname sufficed. (Result: No mentions or one mention of the subject.) Had I not commented, the AfD would have been closed as "no consensus" and a poorly sourced, non-notable BLP would have remained because of your list of sources.
   
   Example #2—Your comment did not address the crux of the discussion: A marginally notable, poorly sourced BLP where the subject had requested deletion usually defaults to delete. As the AfD nominator noted, the article was poorly sourced and contained embarrassing information sourced only to TMZ. Your comments about improving the article did not address the subject's request for deletion. I am uncomfortable that if you come across such AfDs as a closer, you will not err on the side of caution.
   
   Example #3—I agree that porn-related searches frequently return distasteful results, which is why I nearly never participate in such AfDs. Before you entered the discussion, Madison-chan (talk · contribs) had already searched for sources: "All Ghits are for videos on porn sites, only Gbooks hit is trivial, award she won is not prestigious nor important". You supported retention per WP:PORNBIO despite her noting that she had found no reliable sources. Your initial comment indicated that passing WP:PORNBIO translated into automatic keeping, regardless of whether there were sources. I am worried that as an admin, you would give more weight to subject-specific notability guidelines than BLP, reliable sources, and verifiability.
   
   Example #4—This AfD similar to example #3 because you considered the subject-specific notability guideline WP:CREATIVE to justify retention. In your reply to EEng (talk · contribs), you wrote:

   The essay NOTINHERTITED is set more to deal with relationships between people and does not overrule the guideline WP:CREATIVE which is set to deal with the results of creative efforts, when SIGCOV is not met. IE: verifiable involvement in the creation of notable works DOES impart notability.

   I found this concerning for two reasons. One, no sources were provided in the AfD for verification. Two, WP:CREATIVE falls under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, which states (original bolding preserved):

   People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
   
   A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.

   Passing a subject-specific notability guideline, as noted here, does not automatically confer notability. You invoked WP:CREATIVE as being sufficient to justify retention, although no sources had been found. SNGs are meant to supplement SIGCOV in establishing that a subject will likely have sources. If no sources for verifiability purposes can be provided when they are requested, then the SNG is insufficient to justify retention, especially when the article involves a BLP.
   
   Example #5—I disagree that you "politely and respectfully" reminded the nominator of the relevant policies and guidelines. Your comment caused the nominator to say "Ease up on the judgement on the nominator would you?" The two links to WP:AGF could reasonably have been interpreted as sarcasm, in that you were not in fact assuming good faith. The numerous blue links to policies and guidelines, and the liberal use of caps, underlining, bold, and a combination of the aforesaid, was condescending to the nominator, who has had years of experience at AfD. I consider a few blue links to the most relevant policies and guidelines to be acceptable. However, when seeing them excessively used, I feel that they are being used patronizingly. My feedback about this does not form my oppose rationale; it is merely a suggestion about modifying your comment style to be more agreeable. I thank you for your acknowledgment about the inapplicability of "speedy keep" and agree that your approaching the nominators on their talk pages has been conciliatory and non-patronizing.
   
   I agree that lapses in the application of BLP, V, and RS are not overly frequent; they are sufficiently frequent, however, to give me pause in supporting your candidacy.
   
   As a side note, I commend you for your composure in addressing my critique of your editing. Some editors I have criticized have engaged in unfounded aspersions to silence my input. Your willingness to rationally discuss my feedback speaks volumes about your character.
   
   Although I cannot support your candidacy, I wish you the best of luck when you become an admin (as the trend indicates). I ask that you be careful when closing AfDs to avoid retaining articles, especially poorly sourced BLPs, that violate verifiability. Cunard (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

   I think only Example 5 requires further comment. The film appears to have been translated into numerous languages (no reliable source for this!), so it seems likely that there are reliable sources, or rather that there will be once the film has actually appeared. But to this day not one of them has been added to the article. The outcome of the AfD appears based mostly on the following comment by Lajbi: "IMDb is a good source to begin with as it gathers 72 news articles about the subject [...]". Two others then agreed that reliable sources must exist because, well, it somehow seemed obvious that they exist. The candidate then talked down to the nominator as follows:

   "Speedy Keep per inadvertant errors in nomination statement reflecting perhaps a lack of WP:BEFORE and misunderstanding of pertinant policy and guideline. To the nominator, and with respects, a topic's notability is not to be judged by an article's current state, but rather by the actual avaiablility and quality of reliable sources that deal with the topic, even if NOT in the article. And, as shown by those above, topic notability was easy to establish. Further, WP:FUTURE specifically DOES allow and encourage discussion of future events, just so long as the event is properly sourced and the information about the topic does not contain unsourcable speculation or original research. And toward WP:NFF, please understand that a completed film, with imminent release, that has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, IS allowed by that guideline. This is explained at WP:FFCLARIFY. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)"

   I have looked at the list of "news articles" listed at IMDB at the time of the AfD. Here is what I found:

   Beyond Hollywood, Best-Horror-Movies.com (2), bloody-disgusting.com (6), cinemablend.com (2), CinemaSpy, Collider.com, Comingsoon.net (2), Dark Horizons, Deadline New York, DreadCentral.com (7), EmpireOnline (2), FamousMonsters of Filmland, FEARnet, Film-Book, FilmJunk, FilmShaft.com, firstshowing.net (2), GeekTyrant (2), HoolywoodChicago.com, Horror Asylum (2), Horrorbid, JoBlo.com, Monsters and Critics, MovieWeb (3), Movieline, shocktillyoudrop.com (5), NextMovie, Reelzchannel.com, Rope of Silicon (3), ShockYa, Slash Film (2), The Daily BLAM!, The Film Stage (2), The Hollywood News, The Playlist, Upcoming-Movies.com, WeAreMovieGeeks.com (3), We Got This Covered, WorstPreviews.com (3).

   This is obviously a list of blogs that indiscriminately post and comment on what they get sent from marketing departments, so I haven't looked at all of them. (I have looked at a few, and in once case encountered a broken link.) If there is a reliable source among them or two, then I hope someone can point out which one it is. The only thing that is even titled like a reliable source is "The Hollywood News", so I looked at the two articles over there.

   1. "Very little is known about this horror movie [...] This clever visually striking image on this poster certainly give you hope that the film may be a cut above the usual demonic possession pictures, although William Brent Bell is directing and unfortunately his last film was the dreadful STAY ALIVE." [11] -- This is speculation as a reaction to the company sending the film's poster. Note the poor grammar of the last sentence and the indicators of non-notability in what is said about the movie.
   2. "Following an impressive poster that was released yesterday, here is the first look at the trailer for the demonic possession movie THE DEVIL INSIDE. [...]" [12]

   So what's going on here? One of the IMDB's sources gives an explanation:

   • "[...] Paramount Pictures [...] created Paramount Insurge that would focus on developing low-budget films [...] expect Paramount to first launch a grassroots marketing campaign, similar to the one for 'Paranormal Activity.'" (my bold) [13]

   I was already suspicious in this direction but did not have any specific evidence that I could point to. But this "Speedy Keep" supports my worst suspicions. I now have a question that I will formally ask the candidate. Hans Adler 10:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

4. Oppose. For all the good work that he has done, Mr. Schmidt has persistently shown an utterly wretched understanding of WP:V and WP:RS, in particular with regard to their application to BLPs. As his answer to my question 18, above, demonstrates, he sees nothing wrong with citing a source in an AFD without bothering to determine it satisfies RS -- and, even worse, without checking to make sure it actually involves the correct person (as in the AFD I mentioned, where he identified a 10-year-old child as a porn performner). Equally disturbing is his interminable wikilawyering, to deny the obvious fact that he screwed up quite badly. Wikipedia should have no use for administrators who shoot first and avoid questions later. His answer to my question 17 is also disconcerting, since he acknowledges that he tailors his RFA statements to promote his chances, rather than accurately reflecting his positions/opinions. And, as Cunard quite accurately noted, only last month in a sometimes contentious AFD Mr. Schmidt initially insisted the article subject satisfied an applicable SNG , without bothering to verify the claim, even though the nominator's statement (admittedly by one HWolfowitz) pointed out that the claim was belied by the actual announcement of the awards. Administrative authority should be accompanied by demonstrated responsibility, and Mr. Schmidt's determined and repeated insistence that an editor need not bother to verify that sources they cite in Wikipedia discussions meet Wikipedia standards, or even actually deal with the correct person, is a demonstration of acute irresponsibility. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
5. Oppose - Hullabaloo says it well, and I agree with Cunard too. I simply don't trust Schmidt closing AfDs. Imagine if an extreme deletionist editor had the same history... how would that RfA go? Shadowjams (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

   *cough* I think you might struggle to find a more deletionist admin then I am and I have no doubts. I have probably closed hundreds of AFDs that Michael has particpiated on and his contributions over the last 3-4 months have been slap bang on the money - and that's from the point of view of an admin that taking sourcing arguments extremely seriously - often to the exclusion of others. I'm confident that Michael can separate his personal philosophy from his official admin activities and enough eyes will be watching him to refer duff decisions to DRV for review. Honestly guys, this is a reasonable bloke who isn't going to break the wiki. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

   COUGH, I know your name and i like your work, but 2007 was a very different time. For instance, MQS hadn't made his first edit at that point... I think my point remains intact, and while your support is significant, and I don't discount that, my original rationale remains. It's too bad adminship is a bit like a U.S. federal judgeship; removal is so hard that we simply can't trust people based on their word. Accountability after the fact requires some enormous transgression. The admin system is enormously broken for this reason which leads to most of the acrimony that goes on at RfA. Digressing... MQS has a long history of, what I consider extreme inclusionism. That's my opinion, but his view on notability I think is outside of the mainstream. The most recent examples don't relieve any concerns I had before. I'm not the only person with this concern I suspect. Shadowjams (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

   Thank you anyway for taking the time to consider the argument and responding. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

   I want to clarify here, because my tone before is stronger than I like on reflection, that I don't think MQS is untrustworthy in the sense of honesty, but that his opinions on notability will color how he closes borderline AfDs. I think that MQS is a good editor and I don't want to suggest that when I say "trust" I mean anything about integrity. My point is purely to his wiki-philosophy. I have no doubts about MQS ability and integrity; but we all bring our own biases to any job so that's what I'm speaking to here. Shadowjams (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

   Oppose Oversight, likely ARBCOM, interference in this discussion. As most bureacurats are not to be trusted to read consensus but simply work on percentages I cannot just withdraw my support but must register an oppose. Shame. Looked like a good candidate. Pedro :  Chat  22:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

   I hate to discourage one of the few fellow oppose voters, but I am pretty sure that there was no conspiracy. It was Cunard who asked for the oversight, and you can see for yourself what his opinion on the candidate is. I said above that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' example was drastic. That was an understatement. Removing it was absolutely necessary, and one doesn't need a conspiracy theory to account for it being oversighted as well. Hans Adler 22:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

   Hans, you honestly are a "class act" as they say. Whilst opposing the candidate, your honesty forces you to point out errors in my oppose. Thank you for your integrity. I'm afraid, however, that having been at the hand of ARBCOM deceit I know it too well. The raft of deletions (I note your comment to Acalamari too) gives me far too much concern. Shame - I think the candidate would have done well - but with the CLUB ^TM getting involved so quickly I suspect collusion. The Risk / Benefit ratio has shifted too much.Pedro :  Chat  23:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

   I agree with Hans Adler that there was no conspiracy. I requested oversight because Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's example linked MQS to a similarly named man who committed an atrocious crime. It was highly inappropriate and understandably causing MQS deep stress. HW used the example as a parallel to MQS's use of this article about Vanessa L. Williams's 10-year-old daughter who shares the same name with pornographic actress Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriella Fox (3rd nomination). Cunard (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

   Thank you as well, Cunard, for your integrity and honesty. A much lamented position at RFA these days. Oppose stands at the moment. Looks like MQS has ARBCOM in his hand, but I will review again later. Pedro :  Chat  23:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

   Flipflopping, so apologies. I think my initial support was correct. Pedro :  Chat  13:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

6. Oppose per Hullaballoo, particularly the answers to his questions and a few of the earlier ones. Beyond495 (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I really want to support here: MQS has come on leaps and bounds as an editor, particularly since his last RFA, and his edits outwith the realm of article deletion are exemplary. But it's disconcerting that this is RFA 2 and MQS's sole area of contribution admin-wise still seems to be AfD. Admins do not need to work everywhere, but when they're given access to the whole box-o-tools at once it makes sense that they have experience in at least a few of the main tasks; I don't see any indication of that either in the nomination nor in examining MQS's projectspace contributions over the last couple of months at least. This will likely pass with flying colours (especially given that out of the three current opposes, one is moronic and one other appears... well, vindictive), so I hope that MQS does broaden his scope to include helping the project out in areas other than AfD, and obviously that he proves his doubters wrong when it comes to using tools in that area. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks Chris. I absolutely do intend to expand into the more mundane and drama-free housekeeping duties if given the mop, and through careful study, learn in what areas I might best assist. My concentration above has been in and about AFDs for the most part because that is the area in which editors may most often see me outside my editing of articles. I need to doubly assure myself and others that I fully understand other areas before working within them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Neutral I find myself siding with Chris here ... I will admit that I often put some extra weight on the comments of MQS on film-related AFD's, so it's an area where I might consider him an expert. There's a lot of good work, but at the same time I do become occasionally minorly concerned that some borderline articles might be puffed up a little. In my mind I have flipped the penny a few times on this, and the damn thing won't land one way or the other (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.