User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Archive 011

RfA
 DGG would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then [ contact DGG] to accept or decline the nomination. A page for your nomination at Requests for adminship/MichaelQSchmidt. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Requests for adminship/MichaelQSchmidt
Glad I had it watchlisted, I would have missed it, and it was one that I did not want to. Best of luck, I am "out of pocket" (I am surprised there is no link to the use of the phrase I am speaking of, but oh well), these days so much of my watchlist is neglected. I suspect I will be more active when I get to Mongolia next week (long story), and will talk to you then if not before. Best of luck MQS. --kelapstick (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Best of luck to you on this. I have no doubt it will pass with flying colours. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both for your good wishes.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 14:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Related to the tools questions in the RfA, I just visited your monobook.js and noticed some syntax errors in the script inclusions, which I fixed. If you hadn't activated some of those scripts in your gadgets as well, you'll now notice some new tabs and links (might require bypassing your cache). Cheers, Amalthea  15:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No wonder the darn things acted screwy. Thank you very, very much.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 15:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Best of luck! I gave you support vote #50, and only two opposes so far... hopefully that will bear out. :) One good turn deserves another, as the saying goes! BOZ (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see that you are running, so far so good! J04n(talk page) 19:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you need this, my own first attempt went a bit pear shaped as well, so I know a little of how you must feel. Please remember that once the current Dwamah is over, attention will move on. I don't think that anyone actually objects to you improving and rescuing articles, and I suspect if you run again in a few months you'll have an easy time of it provided you've addressed the RS concerns.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh man, that was some serious tanking... when the supporters start switching to oppose, you know it's in trouble (you need about three support votes for every one oppose). Rest, recuperate, learn from past mistakes, and if you like then try again one day. The fact that you still have a majority of support votes means that a future attempt is probably not a lost cause. For what it's worth, when my RfA was on I merely suggested that I might get into closing AFDs, things started to turn ugly, but before it got too serious I made sure to swear off AFD closures any time soon (no broken campaign promises here - in almost a year I have yet to take one on) so you may want to reconsider your stance for your next attempt. :) People generally become quickly concerned when any outspoken deletionist or inclusionist say they want to become an admin, and even hint that want to get involved with the deletion process, and I can understand why. BOZ (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Trying to clarify
I was trying to clarify something by maybe pointing something out from a different angle in this. If I'm totally off base on it, please let me know and I'll take care of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You summed it up fine. If I'm involved, I do not close. Plenty of other stuff to work with on the project.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was trying to point out that you probably wouldn't end up closing as often as you would getting involved and trying to improve or save the article. In other words, my guess is that you probably would stay doing what you already do in AfD and not sit back watching just to be a closer. (BTW, almost feel a little guilty that one of my AfD noms is being used as an example against you).Niteshift36 (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If I can improve an article, I do so. If not, I do not. I've even improved some and still came back to opine delete an an AFD. So nope... won't be closing many, and never if I was involved. Too many other places where I can help.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to make sure you understood what I meant and didn't think I was talking out of both sides of my mouth. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, and the thought never crossed my mind.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: your future mop
If I may be so bold, the tide is turning against you. You seem like a straight-shooter but sometimes it appears you're shooting too quickly from the hip. From admins I have seen get the mop, the best wait a reasonable period of time to answer the question being posed. Then, they acknowledge the concern; do not necessarily concede but try to put themselves in the shoes of the questioner. If nothing else when you don't like the question, you acknowledge it and seek clarification. Example: If a vandal repeatedly gets warnings up to level three and then backs off for a month or two only to return with the same behavior, what would you if you are Admin on the next level three warning? My answer: If I understand you correctly the community by its warnings have identified a user as breaking rules and then laying low until the heat is off - so to speak. If I was the Admin in say a the third wave of warnings, I would not only leave a warning but amplify it with additional advice. Then in a week or two, I would revisit the user's contributions and talkpage. If the user is laying low, I would leave a calm note that encourages them to be a contributing member.
 * Now for an off-the-wall you don't like the question: It has been noticed that you tend to be an all-out inclusionist. What are your boundries? Here is where you either wait a little longer than your norm in preceeding answers, i.e., do your normal stuff and perhaps do article improvement stuff. Then you either seek clarification or punt. Punt in this case means you know someone has you pinned and it's best to acknowledge their concern while allowing yourself grace in answering the question in a thoughtful manner that indicates you will not do that type behavior.
 * I hope this helps. If I read the tea leaves correctly, you will at least 100 more Supports to get your mop. Good luck. --Morenooso (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please remember: relax. If the RFA or a question gets to you, take a break. Be thoughtful in your answers. A spoonful of honey always appeases a bear versus stirring up a hornet's nest (not that you intend to do that. Show the other Admins your good side that will make them want to give you the mop. If necessary, kicking a can down the street always works - trust me! --Morenooso (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Observation
I would have to say your RfA has the most absurd and shameful opposes I have ever seen an RfA. The ultimate hypocrisy is seeing accounts with the deletionist userbox label you who does not even have such an inclusionist userbox an "extreme inclusionist." I have seen you argue to delete on occasion, probably more frequently than some of those accounts have argued to keep. You are a moderate who just happens to proactively help improve content being mischaracterized by bad faith accounts that are bitter that articles they merely don't like being actually improved and kept. The sad thing is that once they generate enough false appearance of something, others get unjustifiably nervous and jump ship, I suppose following the old, "where there's smoke there's fire" misperception. Well, actually, where there's smoke, there may not be fire, but a smoke machine... And that is what we have in your RfA, ludicrous attacks against you put out by a handful of obviously biased accounts successfully deceiving others: as a nother saying goes, if someone repeats the lie enough times others may start to believe it. If nothing else, your RfA has revealed at least which accounts are fair and reasonable. So as that number is still the majority, have faith in that. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Look.... this place is a collection of personalities and strong opinions, so if some folks are fearful of me because of my work in actually improving articles that they apparently could not or would not, then so be it. They might find my AFD arguments weak, and that's okay too... because the proof is in the results of the improvement and not the reasoning. While sure I have been testy at times, I have never stooped to insults, backbiting, or lies simply because someone did not agree with me. I have never nominated articles for deletion in retaliation, nor have I stooped to digging through thousands of decent edits to find one or two to wave over someone's head as representative of how bad their work must then be... most spedcially when the thousands of other edits might show otherwise. And what is most surprising of all is the repetition of the stated worry that I would use tools to be a bully and close AFDs incorrectly... as one does NOT need the tools to close an AFD... which makes the claims ridiculous... and based upon my never closing an AFD when I could have, totally unfounded. I might argue in defense of an article up for deletion and lose that argument, but at least I spoke up and engaged in actual discussion for good or bad... and as far as I see it, THAT is what consensus and creating consensus is all about. I was warned that RFC is the place where editors truw personalities are revealed, and it is definitely educational. So.... and without the tools... I will spend the next few months declining improper speedies, patroling new pages, and closing AFDs... if only to show that I do not need the tools to work in those areas, and that tools do not make an editor a bully... as bullyism comes from personality and attitude and not from the tools.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.
 * You and I both know that's real world. However, in the RFA process, humility will get you further along. For as with Jennavecia's recent vote, it appears that that user feels you two have butted heads before. I guess what I am trying to say (as friendly support) is that going into the RFA, you know you're going to get flak. Handle flak with grace and you come out smelling sweet. But, fail to address the concern of the questioning Admin and you lose support. As an Admin really told me on a frustrating day, when the edits are going against you (as in you feel the world is against - whether it's true or not); step away from the computer, take a coffee break and get some fresh air. Direct quote: Your head will feel much better. I truly wish you, success. --Morenooso (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Jennavecia is a good person. She was my once-adopter and to my memory she and I have never bumped heads. I respect her decision even if I might not agree with it.  But when opposes pile up based upon allegations of puppetry or an unfounded prediction of improper use of tools, trying to address them all feels like trying to drain the ocean with a dixie cup.  Thank you for ofering some well-needed perspective.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not him. Take a break; get some coffee. If necessary,kick a can down the street. You'll feel better. --Morenooso (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to see the absurd turn the RfA has taken, Michael. But when some Admins imply you're either a Contributor or an Administrator, and never the twain shall meet-- i.e., implying that no one who supports your efforts to improve articles could possibly have the good of the encyclopedia at heart-- then I think you will agree with me that it's better to be a Contributor... at least for now... ;-) Dekkappai (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not wish to ever stop contributing... as Wikipedia is by no means complete, and has the potential to surpass its paperbound breathren is every area and in every way.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Right-- No one who really has the good of the encyclopedia at heart could think that contributing and saving sourced information is in any way a black mark against an Admin hopeful. Just wanted to remind you you don't get only one shot at it ;)... I'll bow out of that... ah... "discussion" for now, but wish you the best. Dekkappai (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Need input

 * Would you please provide requested info here User_talk:Rlevse  — Rlevse • Talk  • 16:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth
We've had our disagreements at AfDs in the past, and although I think you may have tried to stretch some guidelines past their breaking point to retain some articles, I have always respected your calm demeanour and ability to disagree without becoming disagreeable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you... I feel the same in return. Folks might think I would use the tools to bully at AFD, but that would be the fastest way to a de-sysop I could imagine... silly and kind of ironic too, as I could be already non-admin closing AFDs right and left were that ever my intention... as I see the tools as a means to help out with the perhaps more boring mainatenance tasks.   What I do enjoy is the many opportinities to actually create and partake in discussion about a subject... whether it is kept or deleted, your input has always kept me honest, helped me consider possibilities, and despite or perhaps because of my pushing, no article was ever "saved" unless it met guideline. Thank you very much.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm genuinely sorry about the unfair course of your RfA, and I hope you do not take it personally. A lot of us forget that at the end of the day, it's just a website.  We'll have to work out our differences about reliable sources, but I'll be damned if you aren't well-meaning. Erik (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The latest oppose called you part of the Inclusionist Taliban. I don't think it was a compliment. I want to tell you that I have been really impressed by way you have handled yourself. I hope you have a thick skin. The truth of the situation is that you did not fail Wikipedia, we failed you. I hope you do not leave as many other have. Picture what Wikipedia would be like with only rabid deletion monkeys. Not a pretty sight! I am stepping back for a couple of days, because all this excitement is not good for an old guy. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is precisely (one of) the reason(s) I feel he would make an excellent administrator. It is hard not to lose one's cool during this process, and your handling of this process is commendable.  Cheers.  kelapstick (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yikes. Taking an oppose to that grevious of a personal attack is the exact kind of thing that could result in some serious real-world repercussions. Not good... not good at all. I hope oversite is on it.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, some of the "names" you have been called would flagged by Canadian Intelligence Service. When you step back a moment, I think it is fair to say that oppose went over the top - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... I've stayed away from the RFA for a few hours. Just looked in. Apparently the descriptive is "Inclusionist Taliban". And yes, even then it seems a bit over-the-top... specially to intentionally conect a real-life name on the internet with a terrorist organization. As I'd hate to be put on Homeland Security's no-fly list because of his action, perhaps someone might be good enough to refactor that particular word from his oppose?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Michael, I have to agree with what DC said above. I haven't struck my support for you and don't plan to. I think a number of things said about you at the RfA are unfair and frankly shameful, you don't deserve that stuff. Kudos for not blowing your top in all this. --  At am a  頭 17:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Your help
Besides, have You ever heard about Children of Lieutenant Schmidt? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delightful article. Thank you for sharing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional question at your RFA
Hi MQS

I don't know if you've seen it in the river of activity at your RFA, but I did ask a follow-up question there.

Regards, Bongo  matic  06:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll look in... and thanks for the heads-up.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for one of the best real questions ever asked. Those hypothetical ones are cut-n-pasted from repeated AFDs and don't really allow a look at what an editor really believes or understands... and the spurious trap ones repeated in the last many dozen of RFAs when there is no right answer would show any editor in a bad light and sadly tend to reinforce division within this community.... but your question 23 was by far the best I have read and the one I felt most confident in answering. Again, thank you.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional question at your RFA 2
I feel that I should honor your answer to my question by giving you some response. I'm very unhappy that your RfA got so extremely personal, over the quite technical issue of being made admin or not, so I'm reluctant to post there any more, and since this is getting so long again anyway I thought I place it here, hope you don't mind. I hope you can take this only as constructive criticism, despite the last few days. If you don't feel like it, just skip it, I don't expect an answer.

First, I believe you are a good guy, have no concerns at all about past socking, have no concerns about most issues brought up by opposers there. In fact, a couple of them should be ashamed of themselves, please don't take it too much to heart. Second, since you mentioned "distaste" about porn site links in your answer to my question, that hadn't affected me at all. Me at least, not sure about others, but the things I've looked at for Wikipedia make those two pages look quite disney, it comes with the job. Nonetheless, I'm afraid I disagree with pretty much everything related to your answer to my question.

In agree with Stifle when he says that changing the admin flag (either way) requires and should require an "activation energy", similar to a defaulting to status quo in most discussions here. From an admin candidate I thus hope to see exemplary behavior, even more so than from an established admin, but at the very least a willingness from past mistakes (that is, what I in my subjective view think or know the community considers a mistake). As such, I am not happy with the "context-dependent reliable source" issue preceding the RfA (and similar cases in other AfDs), and what I read in your answer to Q17 about it:
 * 1) "Even a self-published source like an open Wiki is acceptable if we're using it to show what it says about itself." - well yes, a primary source is a primary source is a primary source. It can be used as such. As far as WP:V is concerned, we could say in the article "foxyreviews.com has an entry on Lachelle Marie". WP:V wouldn't allow much else.
 * In complete agreement.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.
 * 1) In that particular AfD, existence of the topic was well established by the AVN award nomination PDF, a reliable source for existence of the actress and the AVN nomination. Existence was not in question. Your wording argued for "coverage in reliable sources", along the lines of WP:N and WP:V, which I believe simply wrong, and I haven't seen you distance yourself from that. Even finding babepedia.com a reliable source to prove existence is wrong. I could look up several elaborate hoaxes we had here, where pages on several user-generated content sites throughout the net where set up, as references for fake persons and their work in their Wikipedia articles. As a matter of fact, you might remember the most memorable Durga Maa Telefilms yourself, I believe you picked those up. As far as WP:V/WP:RS is concerned, entries in any such site don't have any value, not even to show that a person exists. WP:V is key, as I said, and mustn't be softened, it only hurts us.
 * Again, I am in complete agreement, it was an error to !keep only to perhaps avoid a premature snow. I should have simply stated that as the subject's award nomination approached pornbio, any rush to close per snow would not best serve in allowing input from others either more able or more willing to do research toward sourcing... and then place trust that an admin or non-admin would avoid an early close and thus allow further input by others.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.
 * 1) If you want to facilitate discussion, fine, do so with arguments, but not purely with the goal to prevent snow closures. A proper snow close is by definition an improvement to the project. If you say that "it had absolutely no chance at all of being a "keep"", then why did you still argue for it? To prevent an improper snow close in this case, and to show the indication of notability, it would have sufficed to mention the AVN nomination with source, and emphasize that she thus almost meets PORNBIO.
 * Yes, see above answer. This last has become a lesson thus learned very well, and will not be repeated... though in the future, some will no doubt gleefully point to this error as somehow an indicator of unsuitability-in-perptuity.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.
 * 1) If you think that Wikipedia should cover topics like that particular actress, but know that community consensus doesn't agree, then don't try to argue with policy references. You claimed that the topic passed WP:ENT, based on the imdb filmography. I don't see that it does, and you provided no reasoning why it in your opinion did. You claimed it passed "common sense intent of WP:PORNBIO". I don't see that it does, and you provided no explicit reasoning.
 * Because current guideline allows such if they can be made encyclopedic and pass criteria for inclusion, I have argued for inclusion of some based upon guideline. Multiple significant roles in multiple productions, porn or not, seemed to meet the definitions at ENT and I did not realize I realy needed to repost the text of the specific guideline in my coment... but you are quite correct, simply declaring WP:ENT is not an argument, and I will elaborate the whys and hows in future discussions.  And toward "common sense intent of pornbio", I believe that the intent of the criteria listed at pornbio was to express that certain topics existed, even if rarely covered in mainstream press, that might still have enough notability within their genre for consideration toward inclusion. That was my reasoning.  But as with ENT, I will be sure to include complete thought processes in future comments.
 * Articles about porn film and porn actors usually have links or suggestions of links that could lead to even more explicit materials not suitable for children. That said, my "opinion" is that such subjects do not serve the greater good in an encyclopedia anyone can read if that "anyone" includes minor children.  There may likely be a time when Wikipedia is subscription only... or when it will require some form of adult registration.  But until that time, shall I cease defending something because I personally do not like it?  Shall I opine a keep only if I personally like something? Or opine a delete only if I personally dislike something?  Yikes, such display of personal bias would show a POV that many of the opposes feared the tools might somehow magically impose.  I try to give all subjects that might or might not meet inclusion criteria the same amount of consideration... whether in agreeing with the delete or in suggesting a keep.  But when Mister Wales decides that making adult topics so easily available to minor children is not for the greater good, I will quite happily support their immediate removal.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.
 * Just a short reply here, WP:ENT asks for "multiple notable films" (emphasis mine); I had sampled a couple of her films to see if any seemed particularly notable, from what Google or Wikipedia suggested, but only the one she was nominated for stood out. It's of course OK to only refer to a guideline if it's clear which part you're referring to, and other editors won't require additional information. I assume you just missed that the productions need to be seen as notable as well, but with porn films in particular most aren't. Thanks for the reply and the consideration, Amalthea  12:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) In fact, from an admin in an AfD discussion, I usually expect to try and represent the community's point of view more so than his own, to argue within the perceived bounds set by community consensus (necessarily colored with you interpretation, which in turn measures where you fall on the inclusionist/deletionist scale in a particular area). Your arguing to keep the article was at odds with community consensus, and that's not really something I expect from an admin, not even as advocatus diaboli. You should of course voice your opinion when it comes to shape policy; if you think one AVN nomination is enough for a standalone article, try to find consensus for it. The Utopian optimum would be unbiased ad-hoc common-sense case-by-case policy-less consensus building, but that only works in theory (if at all), and Wikipedia is far too big now with too small a fraction of the editors are partaking in specific AfD discussions to try and change guidelines or policy there. So when it comes to apply policy and guidelines, like in AfD discussions, policy and guideline based arguments are the only ones that count. If you want to make clear that you don't agree with a particular policy, say so, but respect it. By the way, DGG doesn't always do that, but somehow he manages to almost always make consistent, common sense arguments about the topic, usually within policy bounds, but without disguising them as policy. That's pretty close to the utopia I mentioned above, if you can pull that off, then you're good as far as I'm concerned (and should begin teaching others), not sure what the community thinks though.
 * And that is very good advice. I will glad to offer a "I do not personally like this topic, but here are my thoughts.." statement at such AFDs more often.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.

Sorry for the huge post. Kind regards, Amalthea  15:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. Unfortunately it seems that in many eyes, things I might have said even as long as two years ago will always be brought up by some in order to influence others. All part of the OR and POV or some RFAs I supose. Definitely a learning experience, even if a bit harsh on one's ego.  I very much appreciate your comments here and can offer that you check in my edits occasionally over the folowing months to see if I've taken your quite generous and constuctive critique to heart.  And please, I would like to be able to check with you in the future if I need to seek guidence. Best regards,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'd much rather not stalk you, even if invited, but you are of course welcome to drop by at any time. You're RfA went amazingly well at first, during the first 36 hours or so, it looked like a shoe-in to me. It did start, as far as I can tell, with the AfD and RS questions, when supporters started to switch over. Why it spiraled out of control so nastily afterwards I have no explanation though. But I agree that during a second try most of that will be pulled out again, by some editors, no matter how long ago. From my limited experience, I'd say that in this case the standard six months are probably not enough time till your next try, if you're ever up for another ego bruising. :) Amalthea  20:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case, "ego-bruising" turned out to be synomous with sticking one's face in the spinning blades of a lawn mower, and only slightly more bloody (chuckle). Life and wikipedia move on.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi MQS

I think many of the comments at your RfA were disgraceful and disruptive to the process of building the community necessary for the work here to be done. Further, I think you handled yourself with dignity and calm. It reflects well on you.

On the merits, I agree in many respects with Amalthea above, although hewing to the most middle-of-the-road consensus view at AfDs I think is required of admins only when closing, and some degree of latitude on policy interpretation is completely reasonable for editors offering opinions. I agree that pushing the policy / guideline envelope beyond reasonable interpretation is not appropriate for admins unless doing so is reflecting an established consensus that has already moved beyond the current state of policies and guidelines (I don't think admins should generally be engaging in novel jury nullification).

Good luck next time (and don't let them get you down in the meantime).

Bongo  matic  20:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawal
See? I told you you should have kept all those socks, they could have put you over the top. ;) I'm really sorry things turned out this way Michael, if I'd anticipated that level of virulence I would have thought differently about suggesting you go ahead with an RFA I guess. The whole sorry affair has lessened my level of respect for a few editors and for some others pretty much confirmed my own idea of just how little respect they should be afforded. My respect for you is the same or higher, you acted with (almost) uniform dignity throughout.

Obviously you have some more work to do in your growth as a Wikipedian, there actually were some thoughtful comments there in between the noise (and the advice just above is pretty good too). Keep at it, but maybe just go walk on the beach right now. You have learned pretty much all there is to know about the ordeal that is RFA, so things can only get better with time! Regards. Franamax (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have little to add here, MQS, except for my sympathy. Take care of yourself, on and off wiki. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On the good side, I've now crystallized my thinking on how to avoid this inclusionist/deletionist labelling. Instead we'll give them official names, PITA's and PRIDE's.
 * PITA: People for the Inclusionist Treatment of Articles
 * PRIDE: People Really Inclined to Delete Everything
 * That should ameliorate further disputes, don't you think? :) Franamax (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They are better terms than "Inclusionst Taliban" and "Rabid Deletion Monkeys" - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually saw Rabid Deletion Monkeys play once back in the '90's, when they had their big hit I Hate Everything. Wow, that was a great show to top off a great punk festival! It's good to know they're still out there touring. ;) Franamax (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, I think the highest rated song they had was "No Hope for improvement". The Inclusionist Taliban's highest barely made the Afghani Top 500...and that was in the religious grunge smash counterculture category :-)  — BQZip01 —  talk 05:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Unforunately, sometimes bowing out and gracefully accepting defeat is the best thing to do! Hang in there, and if you try again, then better luck next time. :) BOZ (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My condolences, Michael. If you're a drinking man, go have a nice single-malt, charge it to my WP account... If you're not a drinking man, this may be as good a time as any to start ;) Take a break, dust yourself off, think over the good criticisms, forget the idiotic, ideologically-blinded ones, and take care. Many good editors and Admins respect your contributions and know you deserve Adminship. Best regards. Dekkappai (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Michael: I just wanted to say that I'm sorry, not so much about the result, since I think you knew that it could turn out badly, but for the really terrible things that were said about you, and the aggresively uncivil and uncollegial tone of many of the oppose votes. I think that you handled yourself excellently - much better that I could possibly aspire to in the same circumstances - and that you came away from the ordeal as a complete gentlemen.  I expected nothing less from you, which is one of the reasons that I thought you'd be a very good admin. Unfortunately, it's clear that people who want to better the encyclopedia by adding and improving material rather than ruthlessly deleting it are still considered to be second-class Wikipedians, and that many of those across the aisle have few compunctions about lieing and smearing other people to get what they want.  This is not news, of course, this is just life on Wikipedia for some of us, a seemingly endless series of frustrations and setbacks as we bang our heads against their walls. I hope that you will continue your good work here, and that any sour taste left in your mouth by this ordeal goes away quickly. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Second-class citizenship is just what this is. "Inclusionists Need Not Apply" The elite here don't work on articles, they chat about articles, tell others how to do it, and throw a Deletion fit if they don't get their way, and Jimbo pats them on the back. It would be nauseating to anyone who had even the faintest shred of respect for the way things are done around here. Dekkappai (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My respect for your dignified behaviour under fire. RFA occasionally has its batshit insane moments, and I have seen even worse than this, but I've never seen such incivil behaviour in the RFA of a candidate who edits under their own name. Personally I find it hypocritical for people to claim that their allegedly greater concern for BLP justifies making exaggerated or unsubstantiated public criticism of an identifiable real life person. BTW, In case you weren't aware of this, it is considered perfectly within order for you to courtesy blank your RFA.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been quite concerned that some of the false allegations on that page would be ultimately serachable and associated with me becuase of my use of real name as username. Such a disquieting searchable such as MichaelQSchmidt=Taliaban jumps immediately to mind. Having just read the link you grasciously provided, I see that such would noindex the page as well, which would be great, and if editors wish to relive their comments, they can do so through the histories. Thank you very, very much.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On the smearing of a real-life name out of professed BLP concerns, see Santayana's definition of fanaticism: "redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim"... Recklessly deleting information in order to contribute to "the sum of human knowledge" comes to mind also... Dekkappai (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

E-mail will be sent in the future
My comments will express all of my feelings on the subject, but is generally a rehash of the above. Best of luck, man. Keep your chin up. — BQZip01 — talk 05:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support and encouragement. I appreciate your nomination and the faith you showed by making it. I do hope the unfortunate animus brought to the discussion by some does not make you rethink going again for the bit yourself in the future.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Painful
I know better than most how much an RFA like that hurts. Stay calm, learn what you can, and don't worry about when to try again. I always wind up with a month or so with a severely depressed edit count and swear I'll never try again. If and when you are ready to try again, you'll know.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The various comments at that RFA have given me a great deal upon which to reflect, and have furthered my resolve to always follow WP:CIV no matter the forum. Thank you for your advice and encouragement.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Best wishes
Didn't comment in your RfA because I'm still too new an editor to really understand the weight of the various considerations involved... but having read the entire discussion it feels like you were more than a bit hard done by. Don't let it get you down, and I look forward to continuing to see your great contributions to AfD and Wikipedia as a whole. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, Michael, I didn't even know you were up for RfA (because I never look at those, perhaps I should), but if I had known you would have had my strong support. And I have no doubt you would apply policy correctly even when I didn't like it.  Its my opinion that deletionist-types care far more about admin matters than the rest of wikipedia.  While they are busy over there, over 1000 new articles are being created every day on the English wikipedia.  Keep up the good work improving them.--Milowent (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry you missed out on the party, as it was interesting, to say the least. All participants gave me a great deal of input upon which to reflect. Thank you for the good wishes.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind email. Yes please, I would love to be notified of any future RfAs involving yourself.  I've been reading over past successful and unsuccessful RfAs to get a feel for the process, so that I can meaningfully contribute in future.  - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Chin up
I am sorry you had a rough time at the RFA. While it would be useful to consider the positive and negative comments you received, I hope you don't let the sometimes overcharged rhetoric get to you. Unfortunately it is par for the course here, and more a characteristic of an environment with faceless anonymous editors, than a reflection on you. I look forward to seeing you at Bollywood film related AFDs, as before. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, you will see me back there.. working to save what articles I can and agreeing to the deletion of those that have no merits. And you will see me continuing to NOT close AFDs even when I might have chosen to do so. See you in the pages,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to see the way your RfA went. Putting oneself up to scrutiny is hard at the best of times and the having ones good faith and judgment found wanting is certainly difficult and stressful.  I want to emphasize that your contributions to Wikipedia, both edits to articles and participation in Deletion discussions, are valued and that I still feel that you have a good chance to pass RfA at later time if you want to stand again.  Eluchil404 (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It was what it was. Folks had concerns and voiced them... some ina manner a bit rougher than others. I was however quite pleased with the input and advice from those many who conducted themselves with decorum and propriety. As it is, and as you have no doubt read up above, I have been given a lot upon which to reflect.  As for another RFA?  Reminds me of a story I once heard. A fellow was seen striking himself in the head with a mallet. He would swing, connect with a crunch, and his eyes would squeeze shut in pain. His breath would catch and he'd gasp for a bit.  After a few minutes his face calmed, his breathing slowed and he regained his composure, only to swing the mallet at his own head again, repeating the experience to the consternation of onlookers. After seeing the process about to repeat yet again, someone asked him why the hell was he doing it. He replied... "Because it feels so good when I stop."  It will be a long while before I even want to think about that mallet. I'll be back up to speed over the next few days. Thank you for your good wishes.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Also about your recent RfA, I didn't know that calling someone an "inclusionist" or "deletiontist" was frown upon, since I see those terms used so widely and they're even documented on the meta Wiki as seemingly customary terms. (Going by such terms, I'm apparently an "Exclusiontist", lol) So I hope you weren't offended by me calling you an "extreme inclusionist". I usually don't get involved in such things, since they can turn so nasty, but after seeing how you handled yourself with such civility; I wanted to change my decision to Support, but you withdrew. I think we need some [more] admins that are able to keep their cool under similar type circumstances. Also, I didn't know you were an actor! — Mike   Allen   02:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... the terms are bandied about so often,, that to some they do not have the "sting" they may do to others. I am reminded of times in American history when certain perjoratives were quite common and even accepted in daily life and literature. Those using them just could not understand how the subjects of those perjoratives might have disliked being so labeled. That in mind, I have repeatedly commented that I dislike labels that act to divide editors or put them in any "us vs them" mindset, specially when the best label, "Wikipedian", should serve to bring us together in community of spirit.  If such terms were used in a positive light rather than their most negative, I could not fault.
 * As for the RFA, it was time to step away, as the divisive "us vs them" mindset was becoming too disruptive, and there were a very worrisome few who did not consider before connecting my real-life name with some disturbing statements. However, there was some decent constructive criticisms, and I am sincerely grateful that nearly 90 editors looked beyond the past blunders of someone who never claimed to be infallible, and offered that they believed I would not let my opinion ever overrule a consensus created by others. That was a good thing that came from the fires.  Thank you much for sharing. It is appreciated.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Your RFA
It's horrible how your RFA went. Part of the reason that yours failed was because they said you were too inclusionist. Part of the reason that mine failed because they said I was too deletionist. I think that I might be done with Wikipedia and stick to something that doesn't have incivility like what I did before Wikipedia, posting on movie forums which I am a staff member one. Joe Chill (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd hate to see you go. And note that because of your creating content and improving articles, some might see you as inclusionist.  All I can suggest is that when someone is incivil. simply ignore it or step away.  Others might even take action against instigators as a violation of WP:CIV, rather than letting it be condoned through community silence.  Or they might not. But never let it get you down, as life is too short. Heck, even when you and I have had our "moments", we've moved through and established a decent respect for one another... showing that we've grown, even if some others might not. Again, don't ever let things being said by anyone hiding behind the shield of anonymity upset you in real life. Stay the course,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)