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

MuZemike[edit]

Final (121/7/3); Ended Mon, 14 Sep 2009 19:32:44 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

MuZemike (talk · contribs)

Nomination by Hersfold MuZemike has been around since June of 2008, and in that time has garnered an extraordinary list of contributions. On the article-writing side, he has four GA's to his name: The Guardian Legend, Ninja Gaiden (NES), Blazing Lazers, and Super Punch-Out!!. He's also collected a large number of DYK's, many relating to his favorite subject of video gaming. On the administrative side of things, he's been a clerk at WP:SPI for the past month and a half, and has done a very good job there (speaking as a checkuser). He's also frequently about WP:UAA, WP:ANI, Newpage patrol, WP:AFD (where he often does non-admin closures).

I don't know MuZemike much myself, except for where I've seen him at SPI. However, in looking through his contributions, it's very clear to me he knows what's what about adminship. His comments on the other active RFA's are very clueful, and show a level of understanding about the role that several current admins lack. When asking around for opinions about MuZemike, I heard only good things: "he needs to be an admin", "he's a really really good person", "thought that one might be in the cards pretty soon", etc. What I've seen echoes that very well. I'm sure he'll make an excellent candidate for adminship, and I wish him the best of luck during the next week. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom from Nathan: I've worked with MuZemike at SPI for awhile, and I've found him to be a reasonable and intelligent editor who learns quickly, reacts well to criticism, makes calm and rational decisions and contributes to a steady and efficient working atmosphere at SPI. As an administrator, I'm confident that his work will continue to be deliberate, fully thought through and serious. His content work shows he understands Wikipedia's purpose, his work on the boards and at SPI proves he's familiar with our policies, and I think he will do quite well as an administrator. I'm happy to co-nominate, and best of luck to MuZemike in the next week and in the future as an administrator. Nathan T 05:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: As Grandpa said in the film "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory": "Sign away, we got nothing to lose!" I also want to make note that I am of no relation to User:Muzekal Mike who lives in a complete separate state from me (just as User:Anynobody is in no relation to User:A Nobody). MuZemike 18:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: In a nutshell, I intend to participate in wherever help is needed. A couple of areas I might devote more of my usage with the administrative tools would be at sockpuppet investigations (SPI) and in deletions. Even though being an admin is not a prerequisite to clerk at SPI, it can certainly be helpful in looking at deleted contributions as well as adding another admin in there to look at cases and help block users based on the evidence given. Hopefully, my usage of the administrative tools can help keep the number of open SPI cases low and manageable.
As far as deletions are concerned, I hope to fill another gap in which some have complained that there are too few admins determining the fates of pages that may not meet the various standards the community has set and tries to follow. I will probably help in determining consensus in all aspects of the deletion process, including closing deletion discussions and determining if a consensus for deletion have occurred as well as making the call whether or not to delete pages that have expired prods or have been tagged for meeting the speedy deletion criteria.
In addition with those two, I also hope to help out at the high-speed noticeboards such as administrator intervention against vandalism (AIV) and usernames for administrator intervention (UAA); both of which I should, with the hopeful agreement of the community, I have a sufficient working knowledge on how to handle reported accounts.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Unfortunately, I have not contributed to any featured articles, but I do have four good articles and seventeen contributions to Did you know; a list of those notable contributions can be found on my user page, and other significant contributions to articles can be found on my article list. I also have rescued one featured list from being delisted. Over the past year, I have started reviewing GAs, in which a full list of my reviews can be found at User:MuZemike/Good article reviews.
As the article lists and user page indicate, I focus on video game-related articles, and I fully intend to continue to work on such articles. I suppose my most memorable contributions in the mainspace has to be on The Guardian Legend (which I have wonderfully colloborated with three other editors to get that page from Start-Class to A-Class) and the humongous List of Nintendo Entertainment System games, where a few other editors and myself have worked in making the over-800 game list more manageable and verifiable. I also had a part in successfully transitioning the old WikiProject Nintendo into a task force, which seems to be going pretty good so far with around 40 active members (pending the results of a membership update we have going on right now).
As far as in the Wikipedia-space is concerned, I have worked quite a bit in the deletion field, in particular in the AFD and DRV fields, but I haven't as often as I should. I have tried to keep as open a mind as I could. I do admit, as AFD in particular can get very heated very quickly, to having lost my cool a couple of times, but I hope that doesn't get held against me.
Over the past couple of months, I have become very involved in SPI when I volunteered and was accepted to be an SPI clerk, in which I have tried my best to help out other admins and CheckUsers, which includes endorsing and declining CheckUser requests; tagging suspected, blocked, and confirmed socks; colloborating with other clerks and CheckUsers, and even helping out the newly-elected CheckUsers that have come onboard. In addition, I have and will likely continue to help rewrite and clarify SPI procedures; I have helped rewrite and clarify the basic SPI instructions and is currently working on rewriting and clarifying the instructions for patrolling administrators (basically the rest of the admins out there) to help make SPI become more approchable and accessible to people who may not be familiar with the procedures as well as help invite the rest of the community to help keep the case loads low.
Lastly, I have recently created a bot account User:MuZebot (which is currently not approved or active but has one pending bot request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MuZebot), in which I hope I can contribute in non-tools capacity by making automated edits via AutoWikiBrowser and, hopefully in the future, other languages when I get more working knowledge with the various APIs out there.
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: Well, first off, I am of the opinion that no good editor, seasoned veteran, or even administrator has gone through Wikipedia without having some stressful moments; I am no exception. As I noted in Q2, there were a couple of AFDs which really tested my limits, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threshold (online game) (in which the discussion I believe was oversighted for I believe because of OTRS issues; the second AFD discussion is [[here for reference). I did take a short wikibreak (a few others, including my recent wikibreak, were for RL commitments) about a month ago because I thought I felt that my quality in making judgments were going down, but I eventually went back on, and everything was satisfactorily resolved.
There are two things in which I do to deal with such moments; going on a brief break was one of them. A second thing I do is just to focus on editing in the mainspace. That's actually how I got into reviewing GA nominations and reassessments. Other things I have done has been to help new video game articles get on their feet using basic cleanup tools in AWB. Finally, I've also have done some NewPage patrolling, in which I hope to get more involved in as one of our more distinguished NewPage patrollers has had some pressing RL issues.
Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett
4. An admin you did not know before deletes an article you have worked on with an invalid speedy delete rationale (eg VENENUX GNU/Linux. As an admin what would you do?
A: Ultimately, it depends on the circumstances behind the deletion. First and foremost, drop a note at the deleting admin's page, asking for the following:
  • Clarification as to why the article was deleted
  • Why the article was deleted under that rationale. If I don't think the correct rationale was used, I'd tell the deleting admin as to why I thought it was incorrect.
  • Letting the deleting admin know that I was working on the article in trying to get it to some standard in which it would be least likely to get deleted.
If the deleting admin made a mistake and/or restores the page after my note, great. If not, I would next try to see if the deleting admin can provide me a userfied copy of the deleted page, provided the page was not a copyvio (which may be possible if we edit-conflicted, or if my edit didn't go through; hopefully, I went through and removed all copyvio content before deletion, though). The last thing I want to do is to take it to DRV unless all other venues and communication with the deleting admin have been exhausted. What I certainly don't want to do is willy-nilly recreate it again as, if I was wrong in my assupmtion that the CSD rationale was improper, another admin may well delete it again, making me look like a schmuck as well as a possibly disruptive admin. Worse, the same deleting admin deletes it again, and now we got wheel-warring on our hands.
Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB
5. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)
A: I feel that the notability guideline is a good guideline, but only when applied conservatively. Sometimes we do become too reliant on online searches to find stuff, when especially for older stuff, you'll probably find more coverage in print than online. With that said, if an article does meet the notability guidelines, then the rest becomes an exercise in how to organize said content; that is, it still might fit better as part of another article, which that is up to discussion locally.
I do think there are some things that are very likely notable (as opposed to using the term "automatically" as nothing is really absolute on WP), such as high schools and accredited universities, licensed and published video games, and fully-professional sports athletes. The reasons I think why these are examples of very likely notable things are because they are the most likely things to have some sort of coverage in reliable sources, and, in some cases, they are backed by the current consensus that they are.
If anyone knows me here on WP, they know that I'm a purveyor of quality over quantity. With over 3,000,000 articles on top of being one of the highest-frequented sites in the world, we owe to readers that editors strive for accurate, qualitative content that is neutral in tone. With most of these articles, typing the title on Google pretty much ensures that one the top five search results will be the corresponding Wikipedia entry. As this is an encyclopedia, it should provide that gateway to further reading and research on its topics. That is, Wikipedia in my view should be a complement, not a substitute, for the rest of the Internet or other depositories.
6. Please pick one policy or guideline and explain in detail why you think it is a good policy/guideline to have.
A: The top on my list has to be the speedy deletion policy. It has been worked on for a long time by many dedicated editors to get it worded as precise as it can get. And it needs to be precise in wording so we're not deleting things that might be valid articles in the future. Are there things that should still be deleted even though it doesn't nicely fit under any of the criteria? Sometimes, and that's why we invoke "ignore all rules" on those oddball cases. Also remember why CSD was implemented in the first place (along with proposed deletion), to not waste any time with fruitless deletion discussions in which the result would be clear.
7. What do you view as the greatest long term threat to Wikipedia's future? What, if anything, do you think can be done about this threat?
A: I think, internally, there are those who want more bureaucracy in processes, which, just as with growing cities, is a major threat as far as as accessibility and openness is concerned. I think, just as with big cities, such creep is unavoidable, but we can try to greatly slow it down. With that said, certainly flagged revisions is certainly going to add more to that, but I also think that it's going happen whether you support or oppose it. Certainly this will be a new frontier as well as be a source for much discussion on the administrative side alone. I am of the opinion that, if flagged revisions is to work and be effective on the English Wikipedia, it needs to be applied conservatively and as a viable alternative to straight semi- and full-protection of pages.
Additional optional questions from A Nobody
8. What are you thoughts on this discussion?
A: The thing to watch out for is that whether or not everyone agrees with the merge (or redirect). I can possibly see if it's snowing, but otherwise, such actions during a live AFD will tend to generate more heat than light and does no good to either side of the discussion. That's a main reason mergers should always be proposed before going the deletion route, so you get more of that freeform and localized talk page discussion. For me, it's not about the (in)ability to edit an article currently on AFD as much as how people react to such major actions like merging. It's a big thing and a thing that should be discussed outside of AFD and on the talk pages.
9. I have been compiling Wikipedia_talk:Editor_review/MuZemike#Table_of_MuZemike_and_A_Nobody.27s_participation_in_AfDs. Overall, you seem balanced in these discussions, although more deletion leaning than I; however, many of those deletes seem old. How do you characterize yourself now? If a merge or redirect location exists and the article under discussion is not a hoax, libelous, or copy vio, would you tend to at least be open-minded to a redirect rather than outright redlinking?
A. I think I'm a bit less deletion-leaning than when I started out. In all honesty, I haven't participated in AFD discussion as often as I used to (or probably should). As I said in the above question, I try to follow WP:BEFORE as much as I can, but if it's already at AFD, then there's not much of a choice but to at least minimally discuss such possibilities as far as potential deletion is concerned. (The rest can be fully discussed on the talk pages.) As I said above, I try to keep an open as mind as I can and try to avoid making broad generalizations, at least I hoped so in the past. I have also tried to see what's out in front of me as far as sourcing is concerned, but sometimes I try to carefully make logical assumptions with regards to available sources because it is easy to fall into FUTON bias especially with older stuff.
What all that said, this is a wiki, and so nothing is absolute (except possibly in the case that something is oversighted). Stuff can be undeleted, merged, or spun back out if need be. If you have verifiable content, then the rest becomes an exercise in organizing said content. It's not about winning or losing but about getting it right.
Additional optional questions from Lankiveil
10. Since you haven't been directly asked yet, what was with this edit?
A. Yeah, "the diff". Frankly, I don't know why I snapped like that; I shouldn't have, and that was definitely not in my character to do so. Perhaps I never got snowed on that hard, and I was just utterly frustrated. I mean, I probably could have struck it, but I didn't see much of a purpose at the time because I already said it and it would've been there anyways. I instead opted to withdraw the nom as a way of saying 'OK, I'll drop it; I give in. Let's move on.'
As Caspian blue said below in his !oppose, perhaps I should've gotten a short block for it, and I should've counted my blessings that I didn't. Additionally, I was fully aware when I accepted the nomination (and I already told my nominators this that if I don't pass it would mainly be because of that) that I would get some opposes for that. I wish I can apologize for making that remark, but I know it's a little too late in the game to do that as far as this nomination is concerned.
11. What is your take on the results of the civility poll? Per your answers at that poll, would you be willing to block persistently uncivil editors?
A: For the most part, I'm satisfied and concur with the results there (full disclosure: I did participate a little in the poll). It's not like WP:NPA/direct harassment, which is more clear and unambiguous than the civility policy. I do feel that we are a little on the lenient side with regards to users being uncivil, but at the same time, blocking for incivility alone is problematic in itself because that can make said blocked users more uncivil (i.e. it basically becomes a "cool down block"). That, I believe for the most part, explains the "unenforceability" part of the poll results. As I said in that poll, it takes a lot of the community's time and energy to get themselves the courage to block a user for civility alone.
Hence, blocks on users because of incivility, if made an admin, would have to be the hardest blocks for me to make. If I were to make such blocks, I hope I make them with some premises that there is also some harassment/personal attacks involved. Otherwise, it becomes a cool down block, which more often than not makes a given situation worse (which is why that is stated as such in the blocking policy).
Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB
12. While working on the speedy deletion backlog, you come across a brand new (less than 15 minutes old) article which contains only the following sentence: Kiiking is a sport that was invented in Estonia by Ado Kosk.
It is tagged as A7. How do you proceed? Would your approach change if the article was 2 days old instead of 15 minutes?
A: It's an invalid A7, as it's not a person, company, or web content; and hence I would contest the speedy. New sports are in a sense different than new people, companies, or web content in that a new sport at the worst would fall under stuff madeup in school one day while the others are not or may be deleted for other reasons such as what Wikipedia is not or a lack of established notability. I may consider adding a ((notability)) or even prodding depending on what I come up with doing a basic search (which of itself is not an admin-specific task), but as far as an immediate admin action is concerned, I wouldn't take any at that time. This goes for 15 minutes or 2 days from creation.
Now if it was madeup to the point that the article was created to jerk others' chains or is otherwise a clear hoax, I may consider G3. But in this case, with the minimal information given, I wouldn't do that, either.



General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/MuZemike before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Strong Support - MuZemike has done excellent work at SPI and is one of the most active and hardworking clerks there. In every other place I have seen MuZemike working, the part about him doing excellent work does not change. Best of luck with this candidacy, NW (Talk) 19:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yep, productive, helpful, knowledgeable editor. Not likely to misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support - Excellent contributor at SPI, knows what he's doing. Nice guy too. — neuro(talk) 19:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Seems to know enough about SPI to do a good job applying the tools there. Good luck!  GARDEN  19:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I have seen his work on SPI and he is competent and useful. I see no concerns in his record that would preclude adminship. MBisanz talk 19:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I thought he was an admin already. bibliomaniac15 19:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. (edit conflict)Support - I was honesty considering asking MuZemike to run myself. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)help us! 19:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Fully qualified candidate. iMatthew talk at 19:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I agree with everyone else. @harej 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support As somebody else said, I thought he was an admin already. Looie496 (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support He'll make a good admin. Definite net positive. Timmeh (review me) 19:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. This causes me something of a problem as I persistently get you confused with MZMcBride due to your similar-length, fairly similar names and unadorned signatures. That said, I've had no bad experiences with either recently, and a skim through contributions makes me quite sure that you're doing some good work! Definitely a good admin candidate. ~ mazca talk 19:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Yup tl;dr forces me to use NBD. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 19:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Looks good. He (and we) definitely will benefit from the tools. :) Good luck! Airplaneman talk 19:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, no reasons why not. AtheWeatherman 19:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Woefully late nominator support Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Support MuZemike has done excellent work at SPI, and in other places. He would make an excellent administrator. Until It Sleeps Wake me   19:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Heh, per Hersfold. Nathan T 19:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Seems to be a good candidate. I like his speedy work (additionally to the other good work cited above), with edits such as this one (where he contested an invalid A7) and no obvious mistakes I could find. His idea to use a bot account to do AWB edits is great (I was about to suggest this here) and shows that he is mindful when it comes to thinking about what to improve. Regards SoWhy 19:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong nom statements, lots of admin-related work, and the CSD tags where I made the call were fine. - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Looks great! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, absolutely. Fully qualified candidate, great work at SPI and other admin areas. I've been waiting for this. JamieS93 20:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong Support I've seen this user around a bit ... always seems friendly, helpful, and clueful. I'm good to go on this one. ;) — Ched :  ?  20:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Changed to "strong" support per User:Goodmorningworld — Ched :  ?  23:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. I agree with harej. Nick (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Very thoughtful, clueful, input at Wikipedia talk:External links, even when provoked by others. (So I agree with Nick.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Excellent interactions over at SPI. Should make a fine admin. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support – Alan16 (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support An excellent editor who will become an excellent admin. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Thoughtful & clueful. No second thoughts about him. MLauba (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I thought he was already an admin. MacMedtalkstalk 21:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong support, has a large amount of clue. MuZemike is an exemplary candidate, and I feel he should have been an administrator long ago. –blurpeace (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I know it's been said before, just a little above me actually, but I though he was an admin already too. No doubt about it, he deserves adminship. SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Friendly, cooperative, helpful, understands policies and demonstrates this, and has made excellent contributions to articles. No hesitation in supporting.  Chzz  ►  22:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Another good editor that looks ready for the tools. User has well over 25,000 edits, so I strongly support. –BuickCenturyDriver 22:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Looks really good. I've seen him around and always had a good impression of his work. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I trust MuZemike. The tools will allow him to block sockpuppets at SPI, instead of waiting for other administrators to do so. I do have some concerns about MuZemike's AfD contributions, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treadmill Desk and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LuxembourgForBusiness. He voted speedy delete as advertising for both articles, even though neither were blatant spam. Both articles were eventually saved through the addition of sources. However, since both AfDs were more than half a year ago, these are minor issues. As long as MuZemike exercises caution when he closes an article at AfD as "speedy delete as advertising", I will be comfortable with him working at AfD. Cunard (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support per nom. Javért  |  Talk 22:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I trust this user. He will make a great admin. hmwitht 22:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support He's already an admin, just flip the bit. Protonk (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Trawling of edit history give me no reason to oppose.  Francium12  23:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong support - exemplary work at sockpuppet investigations. PhilKnight (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. No-brainer. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - deleted contributions look fine, with speedy delete nominations good, and some nominations of others even corrected. Changed from neutral after seeing answer to Q4, sounds as if disruption will be minimised. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. I was waiting for this. ceranthor 01:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong support, one of Wikipedia's best editors.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - no concerns here--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 01:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Prodego talk 01:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Everything I have seen of MuZemike has been up to the highest standards. I believe Wikipedia will benefit greatly from his adminship. Jujutacular talkcontribs 01:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support It's about time, I already thought MuZemike was an admin. Everything that I've seen has been great. Royalbroil 02:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. The name is a familiar one, and I can't recall anything negative, so I default to support. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I've enjoyed working with the candidate at SPI. Always cluefull. Good luck (not that you need it). — Jake Wartenberg 04:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A cluefull usre? :) — neuro(talk) 06:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support 54 -- you've started a trend! — neuro(talk) 11:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong Support He's assisted with a couple of SPI's that I've been involved with, and I have nothing but good things to say. He'll make a great Admin! Frmatt (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I've seen the editor around and they have made some good contributions.--The LegendarySky Attacker 05:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC) moving to oppose[reply]
  54. Speedy promote per WP:SNOW. Good article work, experience in the admin areas they want to work in, good (albeit long!) answers to questions. MuZemike is an cluefull user who can definitely handle a few extra buttons. Jafeluv (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'speedy promote' bit was a joke, right? — neuro(talk) 11:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. Consider it my way of saying "strong support". I'm sorry if it wasn't as obvious as I thought. Jafeluv (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support, strong editor. don't speedy promote. Snow is one thing, throwing away proper practice is another. Ironholds (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Very strong support, a user who is long overdue the tools. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support odds are good at being a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. -- Luk talk 13:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)0[reply]
  59. Support per SPI work. Irbisgreif (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Not one already? :) RayTalk 14:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support This edit is worrying, but it's been a while since then and I can't find any similar diff since then. Good knowledge of policy, and lot's of admin related work, so I support. ƒ(Δ)² 15:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support per "You aren't already?!" The V-Man (Said · Done) 16:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Tan | 39 16:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Never heard of you, but if the worst anyone can find to say about you is "said fuck a year ago" you'll probably do. – iridescent 16:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - Solid candidate. AdjustShift (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Weak support - I'd strong support according to meeting my standards, but he has a potty mouth (or is that a potty keyboard?). Keep it clean and you'll be fine. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - hahnchen 19:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support per Iridescent. One two three... 19:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Strong support excellent user Triplestop x3 19:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Strong support MuZemike is just awesome, he's helped me in the past and I've always found his judgment to be sound. -- Atama頭 20:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Cautious support per comments below in neutral section and on candidate's talk page. Candidate has made many wortwhile contributions and most of our negative interactions were months ago. Candidate is mostly balanced in AfDs, i.e. argues to keep, redirect, delete, etc. and does not merely tow any one inclusion philosophies line. So in the interest of not holding a grudge, assuming good faith, and giving someone the benefit of the doubt, I will support. I do have some dissastifaction with that not too distant Paper Mario AfD. As an article rescuer, I for one do argue to delete on occasion and do recognize the importance in improving articles. In many AFDs I comment in, I am the lone participant actually making edits to the article as well as comments to the discussion. Thus, the members of the ARS are not monolithic and even if some accounts do routinely argue to keep without also improving the articles, I do not see that as much worse than the accounts who always say to delete without improving content either. ALL of us should remember that we are building an encyclopedia. With that, keep up the positives noted by our colleagues above, keep your cool, and best wishes (no daiquiris today, but getting ready for some cheeseburgers!). Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support: My dealings with MuZemike have been pleasant and fruitful. The editor seems to genuinely want to help Wikipedia, and has been a big help organizing the Nintendo taskforce. Though he is certainly an asset to the Video games Project, MuZemike's track record has shown him to be the same elsewhere. I see an extra set of tools for him only helping Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  73. Support. Regarding that one diff, I can understand a certain amount of frustration, it happens to the best of us, but I wouldn't call this user a "hot-head" by any sense of the term. I've seen nothing but great work from this editor otherwise. And mature clueful responses such as this do help to raise my confidence that this editor is meant to be an administrator. -- Ϫ 21:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support — No problems. Aaroncrick (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support: I've seen nothing but great work from him. Joe Chill (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support: That diff was problematic, of course, but an isolated occurrence nonetheless - it happens to all of us. As to that DRV closure, I see nothing objectionable. The result is very clear from the discussion, and the discussion is turning into a soapbox. Perhaps it is more prudent to raise the matter at AN/I instead, but I don't think it's a problematic invocation of IAR. Full disclosure: I !voted to speedy close that DRV. Tim Song (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support BejinhanTalk 10:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Good SPI work. MuZemike should be a fine admin. Kanonkas :  Talk  12:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support: MuZemike has proven himself to be a thoughtful and knowledgeable editor. Definitely has a clue and I believe he would make a great admin. ponyo (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - I find it embarrassing that some people are upset about a comment made a year ago. Anyhow, I've seen MuZemike around and there's no reason for me to oppose. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This diff[2] is just one and a half month ago. It is indeed embarrassing to know that some people think incivility is okay to ignore and attacking the people who perceive the diff differently is permissible. You're as much entitled to your opinion as are others, but no need for such attacking.--Caspian blue 18:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you really find that diff offensive, perhaps Wikipedia isn't right for you. Anyhow, as I'm sure you're aware, that's not the comment I was referring to. I was referring to this one, and I'm already familiar with your opinion on it; being that "It does not matter the diff is about 10 months ago". There's nothing I can do about that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally disagree with your assessment at all. This is partially explains why Wikipedia allows to have many uncivil admins, very small number of which are eventually desysopped by ArbCom. In the meantime, as many dramas were generated by them, many time were wasted and qualified good editors left with dismay. You already know a good example.--Caspian blue 20:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - I see no reason not to support this person and think he'll do a fine job.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Syn 19:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Looks good. Theleftorium 20:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support: Absolutely..South Bay (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Most definitely. Will expand if needed but this doesn't look like a contentious RfA. ThemFromSpace 23:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, MuZemike. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support, per answers to my questions and lengthy record of solid contributions. I would note that User:Caspian blue makes some good points below in the oppose section, and I'd encourage you to be doubly careful in what you say and do as an administrator, lest your words be misinterpreted. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  88. Support Yes. Good luck. America69 (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support I'm not familiar with this editor's work but he seems knowledgeable and trustworthy. While I have trouble getting too worked up over the use of an f-word in a comment or two, I guess you'll need to be more cautious in the future, when you bear the Heavy Weight of Office. Good luck, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support basically per Lankiveil. I know it's been 10 months, and that's why I'm supporting, but be careful. :) LittleMountain5 Never Forget 02:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support - I've looked at all the diffs in the oppose section. With the exception of this one from nearly a year ago, they all look like examples of someone with plenty of common sense/clue. Mr.Z-man 04:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Excellent candidate. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Clearly trustworthy. Steven Walling 07:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support: Only real concern is an year old diff, and the fact that there's nothing like that since then clearly shows MuZemike has improved on that. We can't expect perfection, and I don't think many will get closer than this. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Strong Support - Sure he once cursed at a user, but that was a while ago and no one is perfect. MuZemike has shown a strong dedication to Wikipedia by editing consistantly for more than a year, good communication skills, and an ultra-high CLUE level. The answers to the questions were superb. Note to future RfA hopefuls - answers like the ones MuZemike has supplied are the best way to win my support. (That is, the depth of thought involved, not the exact ideas expressed in them.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Candidate's demeanour, knowledge of and devotion to the encyclopaedia, and history of contributions instill confidence.  Skomorokh  19:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. No substantial concerns. — Σxplicit 22:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  98. WP:100 here you come support. Brandon (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support - His work is more than enough for him to be an administrator. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support - although not without a nod to those opposing for language. Administrators should try to maintain a high standard of decorum. But that is an easy thing to fix, and from what I have seen, your work, especially in SPI, has been exemplary, and I believe you will be a fine admin. Good luck! J.delanoygabsadds 02:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a disclaimer, I am not trying to say that I am perfect in regard to this. J.delanoygabsadds 02:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  101. Support. Not insane. But I won't hold that against him. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. Generally good contributions. That incivility was a long time ago and has not (I believe) been repeated. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  103. sure, i guess. DS (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support – Someone who receives an “Ultra Strong Industrial-Strength Oppose” from a person like Goodmorningworld (talk · contribs) has clearly done something sensible. --Aitias (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support per his good work at SPI and the strong testimonials from Hersfold, Nathan and mazca. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support – I worked with MuZemike a bit on The Guardian Legend. As he has stated, the article has changed a lot from a gameguide-ish, "trivia"-muddled, near-stubby state; much of the change is thanks to him. It may never be featurable for lack of available info, but he has done almost all he could to improve the article, and I now consider it by far the best resource on the history and reception of one of my favorite games. His SPI work (etc.) shows a clear desire to deal with both behavioral and encyclopedic problems here. The diffs of his past behavior concern me a bit, but I think he has learned from them and will continue to improve as more non-admins seek his help—he will have no choice but to keep cool, and I trust he will. --an odd name 18:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support Seems to be fine, no real issues with the occasional obscenity. GlassCobra 21:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support, looks good. Wizardman 00:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support Some negative edits but a good guy! Ret.Prof (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support He's a helpful editor and knows his way around. Majoreditor (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support Dont see a big problem with the cussing as it wasnt aimed at attacking an individual. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support I am still concerned at how this editor does not use all of the tools and options available to him before putting an article up for deletion (redirect/merge/userfy) so I have stayed out of this discussion until now. But I just had an extremely pleasant conversation with MuZemike on his talk page, he was helpful, courteous, and compromising. Those are the halmarks of a good admin. I would just suggest to MuZemike that he utilize all the tools in his tool belt and be creative in his solutions to removing non-notable material. Ikip (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support, comments like this raised elsewhere seem worrying but I'll presume it was a bad day or just badly phrased. The postitives seems to outweigh the negatives overall. --candle•wicke 20:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Suppport He is an amazingly positive contributor who always tries to see both sides in user conflict. I trust him. --Izno (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support thought he was already.  7  23:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support See no concerns as per track and as per Juliancotton.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support, per noms by Hersfold (talk · contribs) and Nathan (talk · contribs), who have some impressive words about the candidate. Also, quite an interesting bunch of WP:GAs and WP:DYKs. Cirt (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support. absolutely. -- Banjeboi 06:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support, per noms, he has done amazing work across the wiki and it's time we give him more responsibility so that we can't walk away from us when we need him to do more. Jamesofur (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 17:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support, absolutely! --Aqwis (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose based on comments such as [3]. Good contributions is one thing, civility is another.--The LegendarySky Attacker 06:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're really going to oppose on a single diff that was made a month short of a year ago? Wouldn't the fact that you can only find one diff showing this from such a long time ago suggest that it was out of character, and has not since been repeated? — neuro(talk) 06:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just using an example. But like I said, the editor is an otherwise good candidate.--The LegendarySky Attacker 06:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You have more diffs than this example? — neuro(talk) 06:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the sort of question you are never supposed to ask in cross examination unless you already know the answer. :) Protonk (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I already think the answer is evident. This is not an 'example', this is the sole diff that has been found. — neuro(talk) 08:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears it was only an exmaple as more than one diff has been provided of such behavior, automatically degrading your agrument against my oppose. Maybe next time guys. ;)--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 22:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that the statements in the neutral section indicate otherwise, though I don't really have a problem with editors that periodically lose their temper. 08:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    It's the same diff in the ER. :) — neuro(talk) 08:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ... <.< Carry on then. :) I'll just be over here, feeling sheepish.Protonk (talk) 08:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, Protonk. You can stay there feeling sheepish. After all, it has been proven that you are badgering the opposition with a flawed argument. ;)--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 22:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, am I a sheep or a badger? I'm so confused! Protonk (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I was going to support you per your works in general, but the one strong diff presented above regretfully makes me land here. It does not matter the diff is about 10 months ago. It is still an very much inappropriate language that I do not totally want from admins. I'm also wondering whether the candidate have said things with the similar degree of such comment. Moreover, I'm curious as to why the candidate was not blocked for the comment. To people willing to defend him regardless such the incivility, unless the candidate had fully been warned for the comment by admins at that time, so he did retract it or apologize for it, please don't even think about saying to me like "it was just one diff and happened ages ago"--Caspian blue 14:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As you requested, not taking about the diff... but -- "inappropriate language that I do not totally want from admins" -- you expect admins to never say 'fuck'? Jesus. — neuro(talk) 17:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think that it is okay to freely say such profanity or to be uncivil on Wikipedia, you have no chance to get my support vote for your next possible RfA in any future.--Caspian blue 18:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankfully, I don't intend to run -- it's very liberating to be able to say what I'm thinking once again. I find your arbitrary threshold confusing -- I see no problem with profanity by itself. Profanity is not inherently evil, and I think it is time more people learnt that. — neuro(talk) 22:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is time for you to learn about what is acceptable to general people or not.--Caspian blue 18:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a "general person" and I don't find the occasional profane word offensive. If it's directed at someone, or clearly intended to offend, that's a different matter; that goes into incivility and should be addressed. I think that's the point neuro is trying to make - if you believe differently, that's your opinion and I'll respect it; please respect our views in turn. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Regretful oppose. Judging from the recent DRV and XfD contributions, this user clearly has a clue and has made good contributions as well. That said, I'm bothered by two facts. Neither of these would lead me to oppose on their own, but together they just make me a bit too wary. First off, the comment. Yes, it was a year ago, and lots of people have had some wiki-freak-out moments. It is more the fact that after he said what he said, and after he was warned, he withdrew his AfD nomination with an "I echo what I said above." He didn't cross out the uncivil remark, didn't apologize, but instead reiterated it. I'm also a bit leery of admin candidates who think closing discussions is a good way get the admin bit.Closing a DRV makes me even more nervous. Yes, the ultimate result was pretty clear, but the issue was behaviorally difficult. It was not a "simple" close. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ultra Strong Industrial-Strength Oppose. In one of WP's many time-wasting exercises, a user page was nominated for deletion. MuZeMike voted Delete based on this rationale which has to be seen to be believed. No he wasn't kidding. Making this person an admin in my opinion would run the risk of making WP appear even more like the stomping ground of hysterical limp-wristed passive-aggressive ninnies than it looks already. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While you are entitled to your opinion, such incivility is uncalled for. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    For the record, that rationale is valid (it could have been presented in a better way of course). And no offense, but your own rationale below it is given in pretty much the same tone. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 14:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Chamal, go back and read my comment on that AfD page again. If that doesn't help then check out satire. Cheers, --Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Was this an attempt at humor? Your oppose is as uncivil as MuZemike's AfD comment (which by the way was just a colorful way of saying the page violated WP:NPA). If this was attempted humor I applaud your sense of irony at least. -- Atama頭 16:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed part of your oppose vote. I don't care that I'm not a bureaucrat. Your personal attacks are completely uncalled for, and making them on a forum such as this where you know the candidate will not respond is despicable and cowardly. J.delanoygabsadds 16:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for proving my point. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Oh, and see above. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling someone a "hysterical, limp-wristed, passive-aggressive ninny" is very different than implying that someone is a coward for saying that about someone in a place where they know the attacked person will not respond. J.delanoygabsadds 00:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    More silliness. Of course the candidate can respond, your fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding. Since you saw fit to put back the words I removed, I saw fit to do likewise with mine. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Goodmorningworld, I would ask you to rephrase your remarks. They are needlessly aggressive; in particular, the last sentence registers as a personal attack and damages the civil atmosphere we attempt to maintain at RfX. Thanks. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignoring the comment would do just as well... No need to give Good more attention. —Dark 10:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While Goodmorningworld may have violated WP:POINT it was a valid point. I'm torn, because MuZemike has done SO much good stuff, I'd love to enthusiatically support, but that comment, and a few others like it give me pause. --SPhilbrickT 13:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, based on attitude concerns. MuZemike seems to generally be a good contributor, but occasionally shows signs of a bad attitude, as shown in the diffs that have been provided; I could overlook the diff of October 30 2008 as a one-off 'snap', but the subsequent (though much less incivil) comments like [4] and [5] give me cause for concern. And the MFD comment linked above, [6], is just frankly insulting (if unintentionally so). I sympathise with the sentiments MuZemike expresses there, but he expressed them very poorly; and I worry that if he finds attacks on 'nerds' as offensive as racism, he may be too thin-skinned to be an admin. All of these comments were some time ago, and he does seem to have improved in the time since - but at the moment, I just don't feel sufficiently confident in him to support. Robofish (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You may disagree with diff 5, but I don't see it as in anyway uncivil. He's just expressing an opinion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On reading it again, you have a point. I'll strike that part of the oppose. There's nothing uncivil about that quote; I believe I included it because I read it as 'children shouldn't be allowed on the Internet', but reading it again, that's not what it says at all. Robofish (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose some of the diffs provided are concerning enough for me to oppose.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Good contributor, needs more seasoning and maturity. Andre (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]

#Neutral - deleted contributions look fine, with speedy delete nominations good, and some nominations of others even corrected. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then may I ask why you are neutral? That sounds more like a support to me. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)help us! 21:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Graeme's edit summary said they were waiting for a response to Q4. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for clearing that up. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)help us! 22:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of unsure per my comments at Wikipedia:Editor review/MuZemike. There have been some swear-word laden and incivil comments in the past from the candidate directed at myself and others (see my initial post at User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite/archive19#Advice) that give me some pause, but as I note in the editor review as well as my reply to him on Ryan's talk page, I also see some positives and the hostility that boiled over between us has not happened in a while now. So, I do not know if that stuff in the past really is the past and all the positives I list in the editor review are what we have now. So, again, some stuff in the past gives me pause, but what should I do here? Has that animosity between us from back then totally subsided now? Has the hostility/aggresiveness from back then continued with regards to anyone else? If it has not, then I want to encourage the candidate for improving and not holding any grudges, but I do not know if it is just that daiquiri I drank or what, but I cannot decide for once. So what do you advise? Thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support him as you seem to acknowledge that he has improved and is a lot more mature. Of course, that's only what I would do, and this is totally up to you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope that, since the editor review, that I greatly improved my composure since then. I mean, yes, I was very eager and full of "piss and vinegar" (if I'm allowed to use said swear-word term) back then as perhaps most starting out were. We certainly don't see eye-to-eye on some things, but that shouldn't preclude being able to work constructively with others, which I think we both agree on. Perhaps I suggest you ask yourself, 'Has his editing and work with others improved since the editor review as suggested, and did the editor review accomplish its goal in pointing out said shortcomings?' MuZemike 17:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose some of what bothered me in the past as well was that at one point you thought some IP from a state I neither live in nor have friends in was me and for which rightfully so did not show up as me in a checkuser. I am not so arrogant as to say I have never made mistakes here and I did indeed have two other accounts that were confirmed me and that have been abandoned, but the ones you thought me did some stuff I never do (like outright vandalize) and were actually connected to some totally unrelated account(s). I think you were correct in the sense that it was sockpuppetry by someone, but wrong in who you thought it was. But again, that was nearly a year ago. Anyway, I started compiling a table at Wikipedia_talk:Editor_review/MuZemike to see if there is anything more recent that I find troubling. The one that does have me a bit is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Paper Mario series characters for the reason I note in the footnote there, but that aside, I am seriously leaning toward striking the neutral and going with some kind of cautious support, because by and large while we have had our differences in the past, you have proven an ability to move beyond them and not hold a grudge like some others who continue to disparage me and that shows growth of character, which should be recognized and is appreciated. Some accounts I doubt will ever give me a fair shake and I am pleased that unlike them you do not treat me with perpetual disdain to this day, but beyond that, others trusted you enough to give you Rollback and Autroreview as well as Good and DYK credits and some barnstars, and have never been blocked, i.e. technically meet most of my criteria at User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral per Sky and also [7] [8] Gigs (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral User has some very good edits, but as Gigs and this this points out, I don't feel comfortable supporting. BrianY (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, leaning towards support. However some concerns raised by oppose and neutral comments make me unable to support. --Taelus (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category