Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Misza13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Misza13

Final (132/1/0) Ended 18:06, 2006-07-21 (UTC)

Misza13 (talk · contribs) – I think Misza13 is quite ready for adminship. He has been with us for almost a year, and in that time he has accumulating over 6,200 edits doing vandal fighting, creating user scripts, contributing to articles, and performing other activities for the benefit of Wikipedia. He has also created 2 bots, MiszaBot, which has done work in bypassing redirects, among other things; and WdefconBot, which allows people to easily alert other editors about vandalism problems by allowing the Wiki-defcon to be changed via IRC. Most importantly, however, Misza13 has shown that he is a kind user, and I think that he would be a great admin. -- Where 17:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Misza13 T C 18:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Support
  1. First support per my nom -- Where 18:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Second support - no need to even read the statement :) —Xyrael / 18:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. I always support good bot programmers. And this one has been around for awhile. --Cyde↔Weys 18:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Merovingian (T, C, @) 18:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support looks like a fine contributor to me.--Andeh 18:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support, looks good to me. SorryGuy 18:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support - looks like a conscientious editor with a good attitude. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Obligatory cliché THAW support. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support A great editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support, obviously. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 19:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Strong Support This Fire Burns Always 20:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. Talented editor. He is also Polish, like me. :) -- Darwinek 20:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. I like the gnomish aspects, very much the kind of disposition needed in admins. Themindset 20:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 21:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC) — just give him the tools already!
  16. Support. Promptly delivered newsletters are no accident. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 21:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. {{RfA-cliche1}} Highway Batman! 21:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. 01010100 01100001 01110111 01101011 01100101 01110010 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01110000 01101100 01100101 01100001 01110011 01100101 01100100 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01110011 01110101 01110000 01110000 01101111 01110010 01110100 00100000 01001101 01101001 01110011 01111010 01100001 00110001 00110011 -- Tawker 21:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    What on earth does that mean? --Alex9891 (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    Tawker is pleased to support Misza13 ;) (Yes, the smile is mine) fetofs Hello! 22:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    576f756c646e2774206974206265206d6f726520656666696369656e7420696620796f7520757365642068657869646563696d616c3f -- Where 01:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    111 040 141 147 162 145 145 056 040 117 162 054 040 150 145 040 143 157 165 154 144 040 150 141 166 145 040 164 162 151 145 144 040 157 143 164 141 154 041 146 145 164 157 146 163110 145 154 154 157 041 15:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    .... . -..- .- -.. . -.-. .. -- .- .-.. ... - .. .-.. .-.. .--. .- -.-. -.- ... -- --- .-. . -.. .- - .- .. -. - --- ... .- -- . ... .--. .- -.-. . .-.-.- -- .. ... --.. .- .---- ...-- - -.-.
    V guvax ur zrnag gung bpgny fgberq zber guna ovanel. Nalubj, guvf sbezng vf rira zber pbzcnpg. -- Jurer 15:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    Ppfpmpmmmffm. Mpppppppffmfmfmmfp fmmmffpmfpmfmffpppmppfmmfmm, mmpmppmpfppfpffmpp fmmppfppmmppppfpppmpp ppfpfmpfmppffmmmppfmm mpfppfpff mfffmp. Ppmmfffmmffpmmm13 Fmp Mmf
    If any of these are in Klingon can somebody please translate to Clanger and upload a whistled .ogg file. Thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support do we even need an RfA for this user!? Freddie Message? 21:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support A good addition to the ranks.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. I approve! :) RandyWang (raves/rants) 22:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support This user seems to have all the skills to be an administrator and is also very kind. PerfectStorm (Hello! Hallo! Bonjour! Holla!) 22:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support; hard working user, good question answers, excellent user scripts. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 22:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support, of course. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 22:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  25. Strong support. I'm tempted to resort to the old cliche, but I'll stay serious and say that Misza is an incredible user and a great asset to the project. Few times in my wikilife I've found somebody so professional in his editing and at the same time, so deeply kind to his fellow users. He has my most wholehearted support, if I've ever given one. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 23:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oh. My. God. Is this user not an admin yet?! Strong Support. ~Chris (squirrels!!) 00:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. ~ PseudoSudo 00:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. DarthVader 01:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support --lightdarkness (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support--Jusjih 01:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support, nominator told me enough. Roy A.A. 02:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  32. oh my yes. Great editor. "More candidates like this one, please!TM Support ++Lar: t/c 02:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support everything looks great. -- joturner 02:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support per, well, everything. --WillMak050389 03:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support 6 Portal Talk edits!!! How can I oppose?? ;) --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 03:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support per Srikeit ~.^ — Deckiller 03:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support I've seen enough of Misza13's work to know that making this user an admin will improve Wikipedia. Gwernol 04:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  38. Strong Support, my interactions with him on IRC have been great, will make a great admin. P.S. He did my userpages for me :D --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 04:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  39. Jaranda wat's sup 05:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support per nom. Also because of the good responses to the standard questions. --David Mestel(Talk) 06:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support per nom. Love 'pedians who think edit warring is as pointless as I do. -- Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 07:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support? Zort Alphachimp talk 07:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  43. Strong Support - very valuable addition to the admin team abakharev 08:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support. What else is there to do? Kalani [talk] 08:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support - Can't find a reason to oppose. --WinHunter (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  46. Rather redundant but still support Crazynas t 09:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support Damn I can't of anything witty to say for this nom..hmm...oh well, I support anyway! TruthCrusader 09:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  48. Looks good to me. Mostly Rainy 11:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  49. Useless pile-on support. <Andy123> ;) --Nearly Headless Nick 11:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  50. (edit conflicted) Strong support from the bottom of my heart. You can't be serious? He's been an admin for at least 6 months hasn't he? Kind, civil, highly useful and active. What more might one want? —Celestianpower háblame 11:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support: --Bhadani 12:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support Come on! --Terrancommander 13:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support. — FireFox 13:34, 15 July '06
  54. Pile-on support. Nothing to increment to the above. fetofs Hello! 15:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  55. Piling on support top quality mop candidate. MLA 15:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support' -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK15:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  57. Furry Orange Support - Bring forth the mop. --Alf melmac 16:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  58. 54 68 61 6e 6b 20 67 6f 6f 64 6e 65 73 73 20 47 48 65 20 73 74 72 6f 6e 67 6c 79 20 73 75 70 70 6f 72 74 65 64 20 74 68 69 73 20 52 66 41 20 62 65 66 6f 72 65 20 69 74 27 73 20 63 6c 6f 73 65 64 21 21 20 3a 29 G.He 16:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support as per above. Dionyseus 17:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support Most absolutely! -- Natalya 18:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support Naconkantari 18:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  62. Strong Support during it's days of activity, Misza13 was a principle member of Concordia. Fantastic user! Computerjoe's talk 21:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  63. support goddamit, so many people have beaten me here, however mizza is a kind a thoughtful person that stays cool under pressure and has a good knowledge of polices, and as such will make a superb admin Benon 23:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  64. support Very good editor. [Dure] 01:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support. Reggae Sanderz 02:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  66. Orane (talk • cont.) 02:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  67. Yes please - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support. Superb candidate. Rockpocket 06:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support An excellent vandal fighter! Abcdefghijklm 15:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support Looks like a good choice. ---J.S (t|c) 17:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support Excellent, does some great work, the tools will only help. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support. I thought Misza13 was already an admin.--Tachikoma 19:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  73. 73rd Support I recognized the name right away because of the bot. I've seen this user in action, and didn't know that he wasn't an admin. He'll be one now. Thistheman 19:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  74. Strong Support Nothing but pleasent dealings with this user. Already thought he was an admin, etc. --D-Day I'm all ears How can I improve? 20:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  75. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS --Pilotguy (roger that) 21:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  76. Support --Jay(Reply) 22:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support Excellent, trustworthy user, and friendly fellow. Xoloz 23:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support; great userscripts and alternate Wdefcon template. CaptainVindaloo t c e 23:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  79. Strong support. "Quite ready for adminship" is an understatement. Misza13 has made an overwhelming number of tedious edits to expand and preserve Wikipedia's content. --Gray Porpoise 01:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support I really like Misza13's work on the Article Improvement Drive. A true asset to Wikipedia. Agne27 04:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  81. Confused support. Really, not an admin yet? continues to stumble around the room in a seemingly drunken state Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support, not that it really matters anymore. Excellent user. BryanG(talk) 04:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  83. Support. --Klemen Kocjancic 07:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  84. Support per above, and soon below.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    Support Wonderful work for Wikipedia; certainly trustworthy. -- joturner 14:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    That's one too many, buddy... - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  85. Ultra Support. I still can't figure out why he isn't an admin yet...™ - Tangotango 14:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  86. Help reach WP:100 Support - BigDT 17:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  87. Why-didn't-you-tell-me-STRONG-SUPPORT. Ian¹³/t 18:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  88. Support. Can't believe I didnt see this one. Stellar editor, great guy, easy support. :) -- Banes 18:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  89. Why not. //Halibutt 21:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  90. zOMFG übersupport Holy crap, no one told me this RfA was going on! I've been waiting for it to happen for three months! Misha's extensive knowledge about the technical goings-on, his civility, and everything else is completely up to par with what an admin should be.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  91. AAAAAAA. A aaaaa aaaa aaaa aaaaa aaaaa aa aa aaaaaaaaaaaaa. A aaaa aaaaa aaaa aa aaaaa aa aaaa aa aaaaaaaa. Aaaaaa aaaa A aaaa aaaaaaaaa aaaa aaaa aaaaaaa aaaaa. Aaa aaaa aaaaa, aa aaa aaaaa aaaa aaaa aa aaa aaaaa aaaaa, aaa aaaaa'aa aaaa aa aaaa aaa aaaaaaa. A aaaa aaaaa. --Aaaa Deskana (aaaa) 01:36, 17 Aaaa 2006 (AAA)
  92. Support per nom. I like chips too. RFerreira 00:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  93. Support --A. B. 05:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  94. Support Michael 06:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  95. Strong Support Need anything more be said than what is above? Thε Halo Θ 10:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  96. Support this is really a no-brainer (the RfA, not the candidate!)  Grue  11:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  97. Support. - Mailer Diablo 12:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  98. Support... no reason at all not to! :D Ansell 12:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  99. CoUldn't Resist Piling-on Support shows commitment and dedication to the project. Kimchi.sg 14:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  100. Support! Level headed, good grasp of policy, no signs of incivility and plenty of experience... --JoanneB 16:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  101. Support. 1ne 17:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  102. Support per Deskana :) - Glen 17:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  103. Support. --CharlotteWebb 18:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  104. 5upp0127. 19:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  105. Support. Pig pile! A very good contributor, who definetly deserves administrative tools. Picaroon9288 20:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  106. Support: Looks like a person without malice. Enough experience, motivation and common sense to make good use of the tools. Stephen B Streater 20:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  107. Support. Looks like a good solid editor, who will be an excellent admin. (mfp mpp / mfp mmm mpm / ppm mpp / mmm fmp / mpppppppffmfmfmmfp [1]. :) --Elonka 22:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  108. Support. A good candidate to join the 'mop'n'bucket team'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  109. Support: nice bloke. Thumbelina 23:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  110. Ongstray upportsay, your toaster is in the mail. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  111. Support There, as of now we're tied for WP:100 :) It's always nice to see people even nicer than myself be put into a position of responsibility! ~Kylu (u|t) 01:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  112. Support Joe I 02:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  113. Support. Candidate seems to be qualified, and I don't see anything to indicate that their adminship would be harmful to Wikipedia. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  114. Wah! Quite powderful eh?--Tdxiang 10:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  115. Support - Iolakana|T 13:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  116. Support desperately needs the power to block. AdamBiswanger1 15:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  117. Support Geo. 20:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  118. Support; just about every reason why has already been said. :) The one and only Cliff 21:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  119. Support. Seems unlikely to misuse the tools.--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  120. Support per above. Bucketsofg✐ 23:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  121. Support per what I said in the neutral category. Good luck, Misza13. --AaronS 00:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  122. support Blnguyen | rant-line 03:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  123. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  124. Support Looks good to me! --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 09:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  125. just in time to support. GeorgeMoney (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  126. Support - I will give you all the support you need, because we need an editor like you. Viva La Vie Boheme 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  127. Indeed. Indeed? Indeed!! IN...DEED... indeed; inDeed?! Grandmasterka 03:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    Support. What's wrong with many support votes, Lingeron? Jealous? Not happy? Unlike you, at least Miszal signs with his real user. --Terrancommander 18:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    Thaks, but that's over-piling. ;-) Misza13 T C 18:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  128. Ridiculously late support. --Fang Aili talk 18:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  129. Excellent Support. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  130. Support I think this user will be down-to-earth and probably won't let adminship get to their head. The Ungovernable Force 22:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  131. Support - first vote on the day after this thing was supposed to be over already ;) NoSeptember 00:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  132. Support -- Samir धर्म 01:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I oppose this nomination because
    1. There are too many support votes. (I find this suspicious.)
    2. His deletion of edits to Nathanrdotcom's page User_talk:Misza13#Deleting_my_edits
    3. He identifies as Libertarian (see his userbox) User:Misza13/About but then gives no clear answer to the 'rouge admin' question.
    4. We have enough rouge admins to satisfy Joseph Stalin. If you are rouge please openly say so. Shannonduck talk 15:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. For one, they're not votes, but opinions. Second, what's so suspicious about it? There were RfAs with way more supports. What do you mean by "too many"? Sorry, but this just sounds ridiculous.
  2. I have reverted vandalism to Nathanrdotcom's page, nothing else. The vandal was not happy about it.
  3. I have given a clear enough anwser. Being a libertarian, I wouldn't fancy restricting other's freedom, but should the main goal of the Project be endangered, ...
  4. ... I wouldn't hesitate to take any actions necessary to prevent it. You may read it as "rouge when needed". Hope it's said openly enough.
I hope this answers your concerns. Please reconsider your viewpoint. Misza13 T C 15:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. No, actually they are votes (support votes) Re the number: sounds like a highschool popularity contest and it looks just plain rigged.
  2. Nathanrsotcom did't like it. I wouldn't either. We are big kids now, us people, and don't need that kind of control.
  3. I still don't understand your answer. A simple yes or no would suffice. Shannonduck talk 15:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. New objection: Your reply to question 5. You can't be serious. Most of the active admins either openly identify as rouge admins or support socialism, communism, communist-anarchy (whatever that is), claim to be libertarian while supporting socialism or modern liberalism. A few are or claim to be moderate or more right-wing. Clearly most of the active admins are real vocal about their political alliances in any case. Shannonduck talk 16:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm personally not trying to change your vote. You have an opinion, and it is as good as anyone elses. However, I think that the question asked is not actually about 'real' politics. I read it more along the lines of 'office' politics, in so far as 'do you think admins are a tight-nit clique, who only look out for the more experienced editors' kind of question. I could be wrong, but I thought it might help if another view point was enjected into the discussion. Thε Halo Θ 16:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. Sorry, but the way the RfA looks to you certainly isn't my fault, now is it? I've been around for almost a year now. It's understandable that many people know me.
  2. Nathan didn't like it. The vandalism that is. (You'll never make me believe he wanted his userpage replace with "MOOOOOO...") If I didn't revert the vandalism, someone else would. What's the problem? And the comment he left on my talk page was directed towards the IP editor, not me. Finally, what kind of control do you mean?
  3. I think I've been clear enough. The answer is: no, unless there's a threat to Wikipedia's goal.
  4. Of course they do have political opinions, like most users do. But that shouldn't interfere with their administrative duties. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear on this or don't understand your objection. Misza13 T C 16:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. Shannon: would I be interpreting your vote incorrectly if I thought that you were opposing Misza13 mostly because of his political affiliations? -- Where 17:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Almost the first thing you said in reaction to my opposition was, "Please reconsider your viewpoint." I won't until you give me a good (valid) reason to do so. You also commented on my page and said, "Hello! I have put some comments under your opinion on my RfA (I've put them there, not here, because they're of interest to other participants) and have tried to address your concerns. I hope you manage to reconsider it positively before the poll ends." found here User_talk:Lingeron#Your_opposition_to_my_RfA So it certainly does appear that you are trying to change my vote.
Your reason for suddenly joining up with, or identifying as a rouge admin, for the reasons you gave are about as clear as mud to me, at least. Does one have to join in with a clique to accomplish something? Or is the goal of the project to spread the word of socialism? In either case something stinks here. As an added thought, I am a libertarian. I wouldn't call myself socialist if my life depended on it.
I don't understand your need to have any more supports than you already have. After all, you can't lose. Cheerio! Shannonduck talk 17:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Response to Where: Yes, You would be interpeting my vote incorrectly. Read what I have already written here. I have other things to do right now and need to go off the wiki for a while. (I'll be back shortly.) Just read what I have written more carefully, please. Shannonduck talk 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


Yes, you're right. I don't need any more supports in terms of rough counting, but I don't view this RfA as such. The "pile-on" is just pleasant to see, because it assures me that many people have faith in me. Your oppose on the other hand makes me sad. I fail to gather anything constructive from it. I feel this is a vote based on a Wiki-Political basis, and I tend to withdraw myself from such politics. I have neved "suddenly joined up with, or identified" as a rouge admin as you imply. And I do not join any clique - I can think for myself. As for the project goals, please do read WP:ENC, which I'm quoting over and over. I have a reason in doing so. The goal of the project is not to spread socialism, but neither liberty. This is an encyclopedia. And all I'm saying is that I plan to do anything necessary to help this goal. Misza13 T C 17:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Ignore the rouge comment Miszal13, its just a joke on Wikipedia by some admin who is too free. Also, I wonder why Lingeron doesn't sign with his real username? --Terrancommander 18:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's clarify what "oppose" means — when a user opposes an RfA, the user doesn't want the person to become an admin. You don't want this user to become an admin because everyone else does? Wikipedia is an online community as a means to the end of creating an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a democracy (or any other political system for that matter). Shouldn't this sort of thing be under neutral or comment, not oppose? It currently seems to violate WP:POINT in many ways. Also, let me comment on the whole "rogue admin". Humor is necessary in many workplaces; it helps loosen people up when things get tense, which increases their output and efficiency. Rogue admin is a humor page that is designed to add a little life to the community, which makes building the encyclopedia — which needs the community — easier on a lot of users. If we are all too serious, it leads to extreme tenses, which, in turn, constipates prose and splits the community. Therefore, the entire "rogue" humor should have absolutely NO impact on this user's effiency. Heck, even if this user did play around with the whole "rogue admin" fun, it would just be a way to add some lightheartedness, which, as previously mentioned, is fine as long as it doesn't sacrifice proessionalism. — Deckiller 18:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, in response to the whole "popularity contest" thing; in the case of admins, it's actually good that an admin is well-known by the community. It means that users have faith in the admin, and they can trust the admin with the tools. On the other hand, if a user is unpopular, it's usually caused by poor editing, vandalism/edit wars, and/or lackluster community networking skills — the latter of which is key for an administrator. Moreover, seeing as admins also help new users out, I'm certain that new users will want someone who is well versed in policy, professonal (which usually comes from experience with people in a community), and an understanding of other users, their strengths/weaknesses, and attitudes. Admins are key players in the Wikipedia community; thus, they should have a decent status within that community. — Deckiller 18:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

When I saw the 'There are too many support votes. (I find this suspicious.)' objection, I thought it is a joke or at best a candidate for WP:BJAODN, but 'We have enough rouge admins to satisfy Joseph Stalin. If you are rouge please openly say so' seems to me dangerously like a violation of WP:NPA.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is my response to DeckKiller and to everyone who so strongly opposes my oppose vote.

  1. I do not find the rouge admin joke thing amusing and I don't have to.

Please read what DeckKiller wrote on my page and the 'fallout threat he gave me. Here (and on my page, is my response)

  1. Are the voters in this rfa "everyone"?
  2. As Wikipedia is not a political system, why is the rouge admin question even asked at rfas?
  3. I know what Wikipedia is.
  4. Potential fallout? What kind of threat or warning is that?
My vote stays the same Shannonduck talk 22:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutral - I'm not very happy with the answer to Lar's question. I don't think that "open to recall" is noble; rather, it should be expected. Administrators should be confident enough in their abilities to subject themsevles to scrutiny. If I were sure that Misza13 would embrace this notion, I would have voted in support. --AaronS 14:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Your comment has given me some second thoughts on this matter. My main concern was that even a small group of users could easily undermine/question an admin's competence even without a true reason (causing some unneeded stress), or with the only reason being revenge. But since the "recall" would've been considered by the whole community, I realize admins acting in good faith and to the best of their abilities should sleep well. That said, I now fully support the idea and will certainly add myself the the mentioned category. Misza13 T C 22:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Please don't feel pressured into supporting the concept or placing yourself there, that's not the intent of the question, and not why I asked... Admins should do what they think best. That said I'm glad you decided you think it's a supportable idea. Cheers (and precongrats if I may be so bold) ++Lar: t/c 12:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is my response to DeckKiller and to everyone who so strongly opposes my oppose vote.

  1. I do not find the rouge admin joke thing amusing and I don't have to.

Please read what DeckKiller wrote on my page and the 'fallout threat he gave me. Here (and on my page, is my response)

  1. Are the voters in this rfa "everyone"?
  2. As Wikipedia is not a political system, why is the rouge admin question even asked at rfas?
  3. I know what Wikipedia is.
  4. Potential fallout? What kind of threat or warning is that?
My vote stays the same Shannonduck talk 22:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


Comments
Username Misza13
Total edits 6277
Distinct pages edited 3225
Average edits/page 1.946
First edit 18:33, 23 July 2005
 
(main) 2402
Talk 128
User 1569
User talk 1207
Image 11
Image talk 4
Template 148
Template talk 47
Help 2
Category 8
Wikipedia 598
Wikipedia talk 116
Portal 31
Portal talk 6
Added at 18:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC) by Andeh.
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: For start, I'd naturally contribute to areas that extend my work so far. That is, vandal fighting (fast rollback, blocking, monitoring WP:AIV, where I've seen lenghty backlogs at times of my activity); helping on CAT:CSD. Later I might extend to whatever areas I find needy of attention.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm rather a gnomish type of contributor rather than a classical editor. I mostly do maintenance tasks here, roaming the Wiki, fixing whatever I see broken, helping people, sometimes writing tools that aid me and others in editing. Still, I'm very pleased with my work.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: One benefit from being a WikiGnome is that my work is generally neutral, regardless of viewpoints/beliefs of others. Whenever during Recent Changes Patrol I notice something resembling an edit war, I rather tend to step back (or at most try to cool down the warring parties). Thanks to that, I've never involved myself in edit wars and neither have any users ever stressed me significantly over editing. Should this ever happen, I'd probably attempt a mediation of some sort, as I find edit warring pretty pointless, disruptive and tiresome.

Optional question from Lar:

4. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of Category:Administrators_open_to_recall? What do you think of it? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in this category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of Category:Rouge admins? What do you think of it? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here, my comment is not dependent on your answers (if you choose to), but I think it's interesting to know views...) ++Lar: t/c 15:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the questions. They raise important issues and shouldn't be left unanswered. Yes, I am aware of the categories. Starting with the "Admins open to recall", I think it's a noble movement. After all, adminship is access to some priviledged tools, granted by earning trust of the community. It seems perfectly logical then, that should an admin lose this trust, the tools should've been taken away. I realize it's a controversial issue, but I'm leaning towards adding myself there should I become an admin, but neither do I condemn those refusing to join this movement. Let's move to "Rouge admins" now. I am a process wonk. Period. I have more than shown that during the February Userbox Wars, where I have endlessly defended the userboxes' "rights to TfD". ;-) I was in the camp that felt "hurt" by the deletionists' actions. Knowing what frustration it causes, I wouldn't fancy making such decisions myself (and hurting others). Still, WP:ENC has since become the single most important rule to me and I probably wouldn't hesitate long to invoke common sense and WP:IAR should the main goal of the Project be endangered. Misza13 T C 17:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Optional Question by Viva La Vie Boheme.

5. Do you feel that administrators hold a political position or hold a mop?
A: Obviously, admins are only the more "tooled" editors, maintainers and janitors of Wikipedia. They hold no political position whatsoever. Misza13 T C 15:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
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.