Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Misza13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

2007 Election status

Misza13[edit]

Hello! My name is Michael, I have been editing since July 2005, and trusted with the mop a year later.

To date, my main focus on Wikipedia has been the technical side, that is writing scripts and bots (including not-so-secret-anymore adminbots). I am a developer of the pywikipediabot project (author of the discussion archiving script, among others) and a staff member of the countervandalism network as well as an operator of several bots.

As you may have noticed, I rarely involve myself in the dispute resolution process and non-technical aspects of the Project – that's because I'm of the observing types, often keeping many opinions to myself. I am however told that people trust my judgment and when I do comment, I value logic, reason and civility over emotions, vague accusations and mud-flinging. I also value product over process – while the rules were written to help in everyday Wikipedia operations, I know when to ignore them should they stray from or be a constraint in achieving the core goal of building a free encyclopedia.

If elected, I seek to be an active member, helping both with the arbitration process and checkuser backlogs as well as use my technical skills to find ways of automating processes without compromising integrity or privacy issues.

For all issues that this terse statement does not cover, I invite you to the questions page. Yours, Миша13 23:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

  1. – Gurch (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Snowolf How can I help? 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ρх₥α 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. GracenotesT § 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Bakaman 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SQLQuery me! 01:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 02:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Alexfusco5 02:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. <DREAMAFTER> <TALK> 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Great user. Acalamari 02:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. · AndonicO Talk 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Húsönd 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 03:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Seems reasonable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 07:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Miranda 08:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Not as much relevant experience as some of the other candidates, but Misza13 can be trusted to work well on the Arbitration Committee. Angela. 10:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Good enough for Angela is good enough for me. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Rami R 13:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Addhoc 14:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. KTC 14:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. support --Rocksanddirt 18:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong support NHRHS2010 talk 20:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. I would trust him with my life. Well, perhaps not my life, but at least a finger or two. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 21:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Would bring an interesting perspective to ArbCom. WjBscribe 23:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Full support βcommand 00:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Reasonable and fair. -- Where 01:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong support. Good luck! Marlith T/C 04:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. -- Y not? 16:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Jon Harald Søby 19:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. --Docg 11:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Terence (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support pruthvi (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Rjgodoy (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Suupport as reasonable. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong Support A great, trustworthy user. Best of luck. -Billy-talk 18:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support wbfergus Talk 21:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support seems level-headed and trustworthy. JERRY talk contribs 01:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support--Hillock65 (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Sarah 23:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Anthøny 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Good guy, but all I see is vandal fighting and deletions, not of Arbcom experience This is a Secret account 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Qst 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Chaz Beckett 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. spryde | talk 00:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Not rounded; not much editing. (my fuller vote explanations) -- Jd2718 00:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Rjd0060 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --W.marsh 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Nufy8 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. east.718 at 00:33, December 3, 2007
  14. Nope.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. - auburnpilot talk 00:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Too much of a jump up. Prodego talk 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Agüeybaná 01:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. A fine user, but doesn't seem like much of the right kind of experience for this —Random832 01:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  — master sonT - C 01:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Not quite, sorry. --Coredesat 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Needs more experience beyond the technical. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 02:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Too new. Maybe in a year? Zocky | picture popups 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Too new, I'm afraid. Maybe next year. Rebecca 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. krimpet⟲ 02:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 03:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Mercury 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose -Dureo 04:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. JayHenry 04:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Spebi 05:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Crockspot 08:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. No real insight into his judgment. Shem(talk) 09:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. His bot can't arbitrate for him. Neil ☎ 10:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose Good guy, but his talents don't seem suited to this task. Xoloz 13:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose Needs more people-interaction and editing skills for Arbcom position. Mattisse 14:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Ral315 — (Voting) 16:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose Edivorce 17:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Great admin, but not experienced in dispute resolution. Wizardman 18:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Davewild 19:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong Oppose per his behaviour on Kelly Martin's RfA. It's not the fact that he supported her - some good editors, such as Moreschi and Riana, also supported. It's the fact that he accused the 100+ opposers of opposing over "nothing". Kelly Martin was viciously uncivil to a number of users and nearly drove them away from the project, abused her positions of power frequently, and generally was one of the worst disasters ever to befall this wiki. I am worried about the judgment of anyone who can't see that. This wouldn't be a sufficient reason to oppose an RfA, nor even an RfB; but an arbitrator requires an exceptionally high level of judgment and discernment, which I do not believe that Misza possesses. WaltonOne 19:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose Ripberger 20:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Weak Oppose - as per Mattisse..--Cometstyles 20:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose - Some experience in dispute resolution would be nice, even if it's just a little bit. You seem like a decent enough candidate otherwise, though. -- Schneelocke 21:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose Shot info 23:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose per Wizardman and Schneelocke. Needs at lease some dispute resolution, but otherwise is a great admin. NF24(radio me!) 23:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose Did not reply to request to provide examples for good work. Arbitrators should back up their claims with links. — Sebastian 00:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. EconomistBR 00:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. oppose how could he automate Arbcom? Also if he was really into the Kelly Martin RfA, when the rest of the wiki gave a vast consensus against it, then his views are unlikely to reflect the community's at times.Merkinsmum 02:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose Atropos 05:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose as per Walton. Xdenizen 06:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose per answer to my question. This user focuses on the technical aspect of Wikipedia, which, according to him, will not help him in ArbCom. I think that the editor wants to be a checkuser, not really an ArbCom member. User:Krator (t c) 11:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. - Zeibura (Talk) 22:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Michael Snow (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose Chardish (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose. When the user comes up with a technical replacement/augmentation for arbcom, I'll consider supporting, otherwise I'm not sure how this candidate can help the current situation. Viriditas 03:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Weakly opposing all but the 10 candidates I'd explicitly like to see on Arbcom to double the power of my vote. --MPerel 04:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. W/mint-Talk- 07:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose. Wetman (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Mailer Diablo (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose.Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose per content-free answer to NPOV/SPOV question. Skinwalker (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose, a very technically minded person in the group would be good, but a candidate would need to already be actively experienced in assisting Arbcom to be considered primarily for that reason. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose does not seem to understand the subtleties involved in making this open-source encyclopedia project work. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Weak oppose, your skills are better suited to other areas of the project. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose per Tito. -- Graham87 06:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Sorry but vandal-fighters have their place, but Arbcomm isn't it. Good guy though. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 21:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose - might be very good, but lack of relevant experience in building consensus makes it impossible to tell. Warofdreams talk 19:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Though happy to work with you. Dekimasuよ! 04:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose Luqman Skye (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Great user, but I'm not convinced he'd make a good arbitrator. Stick to what you're good at. the wub "?!" 17:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Mike R (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose --Pixelface (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Sorry, but I agree with Matisse and Xoloz here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose Saudade7 22:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose per Xoloz. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose per Titoxd. Carcharoth (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Maxim(talk) 00:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose good skills, just not in the area of ArbCom. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose. A fine editor who is lacking experience in the key area of dispute resolution. --Muchness (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose, don't feel you are right for this job at this time. — xaosflux Talk 15:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose. --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose (Sorry. :/) experience seems to0 limited. deeceevoice (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Misza13&oldid=1147979043"