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.
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
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.
WaltonOne19:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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. --
Schneelocke21:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Merkinsmum02:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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 (
tc)
11:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Viriditas03:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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
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.
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
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.
WaltonOne19:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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. --
Schneelocke21:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Merkinsmum02:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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 (
tc)
11:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Viriditas03:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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