User:TheCustomOfLife/Adminship

TheCustomOfLife
Mike is an invaluable contributor with more than 7,000 edits and 300 articles started in the ~3 months he's been here. He is very good natured, and contributes well to the community in general. We would all benefit from his being an administrator. &mdash; Grunt 🇪🇺 02:20, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)

It's simply an honor to nominate Mike. There is nothing more to say. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Consider this a joint nomination; I guess we both wanted to nominate him at the same time. :) &mdash; Grunt 🇪🇺 02:34, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll accept the (joint!) nomination. Mike H 02:35, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Support:
 * 1) Of course. &mdash; Grunt 🇪🇺 02:20, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)
 * 2) STRONGEST SUPPORT EVER.  More than 7,000 edits and 300 articles to his name in less than three months.  One of the best contributors to come through Wikipedia in a while.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  02:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Edit history looks good.  Talked with him, too. I support.  CryptoDerk 02:30, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Definitely. To the extent that Wikipedia is a soap opera, what better man to document it. For those not getting the joke, Mike has tirelessly documented almost the entire US soap opera sub-culture, and to a great extent, has done so with succumbing to the temptation to "break-out" irrelevances that we see in some other popular culture subjects. &mdash; orthogonal 02:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) EXCELLENT. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) I also support Mike's evil twin brother Hank, who (when he regains his lost memory and returns from Darkest Peru, intending to frame Mike for his own murder) would also make an excellent (if evil) admin. &mdash; Finlay McWalter |  Talk 02:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) *Hahaha Finlay, you are by far the funniest kid ever to set foot in Wikipedia. blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  02:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Good edits, good articles, good person. I've been talking to him a lot recently. Good soap opera edits. Maybe if I revamp ATWT I could have a similar honor... ;) Lockeownzj00 02:44, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Absolutely. &mdash; Diberri | Talk 03:11, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) [[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|&#9997;]] 03:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC): Of course. This is an overdue nomination.
 * 11) Absolutely, unquestionably and enthusiastically support. I cannot adequately express my enthusiasm about this guy.  Mike is a responsible, knowledgeable, hard-working and highly motivated user.  He's also one helluva nice person who cares deeply about this project, its people and its success.  We need more Mikes! &mdash; Lucky 6.9 03:38, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Certainly. He would use it responsibly and politely. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 04:54, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)
 * 13) For sure. &mdash;Stormie 05:44, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Speaking as one of the only real wikipedia contributors to have had a conflict with Mike (over what was essentially an administrative misunderstanding), I feel that I am uniquely qualified to say that I support his nomination with no reservations whatsoever. In his time here he has proven himself to be a prolific contributor and will no doubt be a great administrator with the best intentions for Wikipedia at all times.  Congrats Mike!. &mdash; DropDeadGorgias (talk) 05:47, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Very much so. RickK 05:49, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) To beat the Rfa cliche further into the ground, "He isn't an admin already?" &mdash; Slowking Man 05:50, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) PFHLai 06:14, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)
 * 18) Strong support. Ambi 06:33, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) What they said. Gamaliel [[Image:Cubaflag15.gif]] 07:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) I have not greater pleasure than to endorse the nomination of Mike. A perfect user; expert in his field, polite, cooperative and humourous. Mintguy (T) 08:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) Dedicated editor - will be good admin JFW | T@lk  11:45, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 22) GeneralPatton 13:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 23) Jwrosenzweig 14:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) I opposed Mike H's first nomination over fears about his ability to control his temper and to handle disputes reasonably.  I am very pleased to say those fears have proven groundless, or perhaps it is better to say that Mike H has adapted with remarkable skill to the Wiki Way, and I have every confidence that he will act with caution, prudence, and wisdom as an admin.  Wholeheartedly support.
 * 24) Geogre 14:44, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) As every soap opera actress has said to every soap opera actor at some point in the show's run, "Yes."
 * 25) T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  15:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 26) Strongly support, would make a fine admin. Arminius 20:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 27) Great contributor. Support. --Lst27 21:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 28) *Plus he has a great sense of humor. See what he wrote on the hug! section of User talk: Lucky 6.9. &mdash; Lst27 15:16, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 29) I give my support. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 00:25, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 30) James F. (talk) 00:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 31) Mike was very welcoming to me and worked out a good compromise to my complaints that he wasn't including PBS in his network TV schedules. I think he will have a lot of good to contribute.  kmccoy (talk) 02:55, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 32) Absolutely! I'm so glad he accepted the nomination. He'll be an entirely advantageous addition to the cabal. ;) &mdash; Hadal 03:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 33) 172 04:12, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 34) ffirehorse 07:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 35) Mike is a good guy, lacking any particularly strong opinions but perfectly trustworthy with the keys to the Closet.  Austin Hair 08:03, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 36) BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 15:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 37) David Gerard 19:40, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 38)  &mdash;  Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;  (T&alpha;l&kappa;) 00:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) Woah...I forgot to add my name. Wholehardedly support.   &mdash;  Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;  (T&alpha;l&kappa;) 00:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 39) Most violently support! --mav 03:22, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 40) Of course yes.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 20:55, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * 41)  &mdash; Kate Turner | Talk 21:03, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)
 * 42) Antandrus 22:23, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) He's a good one. Strongly support.
 * 43) Michael Snow 01:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 44) I hereby declare my support for Mike H as an admin :D Sean 01:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 45) &#8212;No-One Jones 02:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 46) I suppose at this point, my vote is a mere formality... ugen64 03:33, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * 47) So long as his uni work doesn't suffer... - Mark 03:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 48) Danny 05:15, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 49) Bishonen 15:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) I've been hesitating to vote because I hardly know Mike, but the edits and the golden opinions from all sorts of people on this page are impressive. I'm sure he'll be a very responsible and useful admin.
 * 50) oh yes! - Lan3y - Talk 17:02, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * 51) a little odd, but a good guy! Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 17:26, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 52) Support.  He's a nice guy, even though he does look down on RfA self-noms.    &mdash; i386 | Talk 17:36, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 53) Andris 21:12, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * 54) Very much support.  One of the things I very much enjoy at WP is it's a place where all kinds of people may contribute what they know.  Mike and I have a quality about ourselves that others tend to despise - a mind predisposed to trivia.  We have different fields of interest, but the more the better!  He's a constructive, caring guy (though I've never previously told him that in any prior communication)  Mike deserves our full support, and may many more like him come as well.  --avnative 07:44, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 55) Merovingian  &#9997;  Talk  13:47, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 56) JCarriker 18:24, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 57) WhisperToMe 23:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 58) OwenBlacker 00:23, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * 59) Adam Bishop 09:47, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 60) Seems reliable and rsponsable. Always seems to be around. Fair play to the man.Crestville 19:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 61) MykReeve 22:47, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 62) He has good Wikipedia sense and will be good with adminship. --Bumm13 08:03, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 63) By now, this is a mere formality, but he certainly has my vote as well. SWAdair | Talk  08:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 64) Andre 15:24, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 65) He has my vote, certainly. Aphrael Runestar 21:15, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
 * 66) I think Mike has the project's best intentions at heart. &rarr;Raul654 01:00, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:
 * 1) He wants to speedy delete perfectly legitimate stubs on no other basis than they "get on his turf" - he thinks he somehow owns the entire soap opera section of the encyclopaedia. When I removed the speedy delete tags, he told me: "I think removing these tags is really counterproductive and it aggravates me to no end. Personally, this guy is causing much trouble for me and my work and you're just aiding him. [...] I work in this section. I've written probably 100 (or more) legitimate articles on soap actors that I'm quite proud of. When I see things like this, it undermines the work I have done, and I feel like I am obligated to clean them up, to bring them up to my other articles. Sure, I don't HAVE to, but let's be honest, would you like someone shitting on things you liked to do?" I replied: "That doesn't make any sense. First of all, factual stubs are in no way "shitting". How do they undermine your work on different articles? You are not obligated at all at improving them. You're not responsible for the entire section of soap actors." Whereupon he said: "Apparently you're just not choosing to get how I feel about it, so there's no use talking about it anymore." Apparently he thinks his "feelings" should be the law of Wikipedia. Gzornenplatz 08:35, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Sorry, but the whole attitude towards substubs/stubs/ incompetent users does not befit an administrator. Scottbeck 22:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:
 * 1) I strongly dislike the angry warning at the top of his user talk page; no admin should have such a hostile attitude towards discussion. I also strongly disagree with the idea that the substubs are vandalism and should be speedy deleted, but since he promises not to speedy delete them until/unless consensus on the matter is reached, for now I won't oppose outright, given his impressive number of contributions. Everyking 20:02, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the statement in question. I don't have a hostile attitude towards discussion either. Mike H 22:01, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:
 * I think the B-Movie Bandit is a very hot-button trouble user and I still stand by my objections regarding him. I also feel a lot of those quotes are personally being taken out of context in an attempt to make me look bad, but I respect your vote either way. Mike H 12:04, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * That user is not hardbanned, so you have no right to blanket-revert his contributions. Whatever he may have done elsewhere, the stubs in question were not candidates for speedy deletion, and your argument that their existence makes you feel obligated to clean them up, but at the same time you don't want to do this, and therefore you prefer to delete them, is really not acceptable. As to quotes being taken out of context, anyone can read the whole exchange on my talk page. It doesn't speak for you either that you accuse me of attempting to make you look bad, as if my specific criticism here were just a pretext for some unrelated animosity I would have towards you - I don't. Your contributions are great, but you're too possessive of your section. Just as with Lucky 6.9, I'm not convinced at the moment that you should be given access to the delete button. Gzornenplatz 12:21, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with your vote and your reasons for it but I respect it either way. Thank you. To prove that I have cleaned up substubs, see Jed Allan or Taylor Miller or Catherine Hickland, which I nominated for did you know? I have cleaned up many more; if you wish, I will go back and find the ones I've done. The first two were done by myself and the last one was with the help of RickK, who is also an aficionado of soaps. Mike H 12:23, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * I would also like to add that I would not speedy delete or otherwise remove any contribution from this user until a majority vote or consensus is reached. However, I will be campaigning to make a speedy delete system policy, as I feel this user is contributing in ill form and is tantamount to vandalism. So, my feelings? Don't delete now, make it policy first. Mike H 12:28, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * How did I get in the discussion? The B-Movie Bandit is about to be hard-banned.  Unless you are ready, willing and able to do more than format these substubs, you're only encouraging the idiot, IMO.  Please reconsider. - Lucky 6.9 17:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, "about to be" is not good enough. If and when he actually is hardbanned, his stubs can be deleted, not before. Gzornenplatz 20:07, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should have supported that arbitration against RamBot... anthony (see warning) 18:32, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Gzornenplatz, if you have an ongoing dispute regarding Mike H's conduct, perhaps Requests for comment would be a better place to further it, as opposed to the Rfa page. Also, I believe comments on votes belong in the below Comments section. I'm not trying to be anal-retentive or anything; I just don't like it when vote pages get horribly bloated. --Slowking Man 17:32, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * I moved the comments. Gzornenplatz 20:07, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I had a failed nomination attempt in the first part of July. I rejected the nomination, but it was evident it wasn't going to pass anyway. Someone took it down but I asked HCheney to reinstitute it so I could formally reject the nomination. You can see the attempt here. Mike H 02:22, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, for clarification purposes, before I started making edits to my RFA nomination, I had 7,257 edits as of late night in the eastern U.S. on August 30. Mike H 03:06, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

In case one is not familiar with the B-Movie Bandit, please see User:B-Movie Bandit for a list of contributions. Any contribution attributed with his start that is more than a substub with the format "Actor so-and-so stars on soap opera from date to date" was the work of another user. Mike H 12:23, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * My stance on why these should go: Keep in mind that I would not delete until a majority vote, consensus, or a decision to hard-ban is reached. These stubs have been dropped for months. Now they number well over one hundred, if not two. It's not that they "get on my turf" (although the quotes that ostensibly "represent" that statement are correct and are my opinions), it's that they are not much of anything. I liken them to an unrelated IP dropping a stub on Margaret Truman in which it said "That daughter of Harry S. Truman". Sure, it's factual, but so is a hypothetical article called 4 (solution) with the text being "The sum of 2 and 2".


 * With these soap stubs, most people who are searching for these actors have watched soaps for a number of years (or long enough to know the actors' names). Simply listing years for a TV show is information one would already know. It's too brief, completely uninformative, and hardly helpful. I am not a believer that most of these stubs will blossom into full articles, because in many cases, time has proven that they have not. That's why I feel the way I do about this issue. Again, I will not use my deletion powers to serve my own interests, as cooperation is key to a Wiki and not self-service. Mike H 19:24, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * From my observation, Mike H has been the most consistent savior of the B Movie Bandit's work. While others have either said "Every stub is sacred" and let them go after wikifying, and others still have speedy deleted them, Mike H has put in the work to save them.  As someone who is as close to an expert on minor TV personalities Wikipedia has, he is also an expert editor with an informed opinion.  If Mike says that an actor or actress is tangential to a show that is already minor, I take his word for it.  Note that Mike has never, to my knowledge, wanted the minor figures to be deleted.  He has felt personally responsible for fixing them and has only argued for speedy deletes of those that were overwhelming in number and lack of significance.  (Confession: I'm of the "delete substubs" camp, but I don't think it has bearing here.) Geogre 14:55, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well said. I think the fact that Mike feels a personal responsibility to these subs is laudable.  I've fixed and redirected lots of these, as have others.  I only adopted a more militant stance once I was convinced the Bandit wasn't going to play nice in our little cyber-sandbox.  Mike's nomination should not hinge on the actions of a pest and his well-meaning attempts first to help said pest and later to stop him once we all realized that in no way was the Bandit going to answer.  If we are going to set our standards so low as to allow this guy to continue his foolishness simply because what he does is factual, then perhaps we should all start dropping half-baked substubs, stand back from our computers and shout, "Voila!  We have an encyclopedia!" - Lucky 6.9 17:17, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)